Why I’m no longer a Christian

lightbeamrider wrote:

<quoted text> You and water nymph suffer from delusional comprehension so i don't ever bother. But go ahead respond all you like.

Of course you think we're delusional.

You are so afraid that your fairy tale will go away if you hear the truth and that you won't die for good that you will try to see anything that causes you to THINK as delusional.

Everyone has to find their own path. I have no problem with that as long as it does no harm to the person or anyone around them, makes them more secure, etc. But when you come here to a group of people who have studied and learned, not to mention believed wholeheartedly for a major portion of their lives, and try to tell us that you have the only 'truth', you will receive a lukewarm reception at best.

You come here to preach because other Christians damn you on their threads. They damn everyone. But it is especially painful for a Christian to be damned by another Christian. So you come here in hopes of building yourself back up. When you find that you can't, you always start with the threats of what we'd 'better' do before we meet your God.

C'mon, buddy. Man up. Talk to your fellow Christians about what you believe. You're not getting any converts among those who have left your religion. The only reason you are still preaching here is to shore up your own beliefs because you know deep down that there are big gaping holes in it and that it is built on the shifting sands of time and information.

water_nymph wrote:

<quoted text>
Christianity as is taught today is not good. It is condemning, selfish and unkind..

Yet you stayed in it for 60 years and didn't leave until coincidentally everybody you decided you enjoyed hanging out with on Topix was against it. You should have learned during that 60 years that your belief in God has nothing to do with how others practice their faith. If every other Christian in the world acted terrible it wouldn't stop me from being a Christian any more than if every human in the world acted terrible it wouldn't stop me from being human. It is who I am and has nothing to do with anybody else

You keep demonstrating why it is it was so easy for you to go with the crowd. If indeed you did. Although I suspect you never really cared much one way or the other. I saw some of the same fervor if you will when defending Christianity when you first got here to those who were attacking it. I even saw you insulting X. So you were not on the fence at all imo. Just the more time you spent on Topix the more you decided you liked the other side. You are welcome to it. Me, I can be friends with people like Micah, Hip, Chess, X, etc and I don't have to sell out my faith. I can't talk to you about faith because I don't find anything you say to be credible. It is a regurgitation of what you have heard others say or thing they will like to hear. You were defending Christianity in the same manner when you showed up

water_nymph wrote:

<quoted text>Are you aware that the early Christian teachings were totally different than what the church finally put their stamp on?
Reincarnation was a part of early Christian teachings. Then, the church decided more than 300 years later that reincarnation didn't gel with the teaching that you only had one life in which to get everything right. It also didn't gel with 'accept the Christ or die'. Therefore, it was banned.
Had you ever truly studied your religion instead of studying apologetics, you'd know that what you believe today is nowhere near what was taught.
Paul had no contact with Jesus. Paul was an opportunist who saw a good thing and $$ signs. He did really well. Christians today follow his teachings instead of Jesus' teachings. If you read your NT during the time he supposedly taught, you'll find that those teachings start changing with John and Paul. Both John and Paul teach in direct opposition to what Jesus taught.
Yet you will still believe that the teachings of Jesus which the church threw out for political and financial reasons are anathema.
Constantine called a meeting and the result of that meeting (and the ones that followed) is the Bible you have today. There was nothing holy about it. He was trying to bring his country together. The problem with that (among others) is that the church became the power. You still abide by what Constantine and the church decided in order to make his country more uniform and thereby easier to control. You still abide by the rules of a few men who decided what people should be able to hear and what they shouldn't based on their own power struggle.
You toss Jesus in the trash bin and follow Paul and the Catholic church, though you deny it. But if you weren't doing that, you'd be going by the other Christian texts that the church banned. You've been bamboozled and are to afraid to change that.

Ha, you act like you were actually there! Were you? Didn't you just read this somewhere? Aren't you just repeating someone else? These are yes and no questions. Looking forward to an honest response.

water_nymph wrote:

<quoted text> They would get Nazereth wrong because they didn't know it didn't exist at the time of Jesus' birth.
There are some things in the Bible that are historically correct. Most of the correct historical information is in the Torah/Tanakh (which you know as the Old Testament). The NT is full of incorrect information. That's because it started out with a mistranslated prophecy and had to build a God around that.

Excellent.
And even at that, one would have to go back to the beginnings of the Hebrew origins to understand the "whole" history and how it developed(evolved). Who Abram was and where he came from, and why(who was he [really?]. Somewhere in that juncture one finds that Christna(Vishnu) is nearly identical to the entity of Jesus...only thousands of years earlier.
That is even just the tip of the iceberg.
Truth really doesn't destroy the central ideology-just the organized machine of surrounding lies for profit and control.

Tide with Beach wrote:

<quoted text>
Where does the motivation come from to commit to a belief based on faith? What is the justification for adopting a belief on faith? If it comes from the details of the belief you are adopting, where's the credibility? Is popularity the compelling argument? Does a person choose beliefs based on which one appeals to them, or do they evaluate beliefs to determine which makes the best claim to reality? Does it need to even appear plausible to be accepted? Are you lowering your standards of acceptance because of the need to have faith in "something"?

This is the main thing you don't understand about faith. Nobody sets out and says, "I am looking for something to accept on faith. I would prefer to believe instead of having facts that prove it." Why do you think so many people normally empirically-minded in all other areas have faith when it comes to God? And no I don't mean indoctrination although I won't pretend that doesn't play a part for some. But I essentially left the faith (not a requirement but certainly makes it hard to argue indoctrination) and wanted nothing more than to believe God didn't exist. I was in bad shape and had some difficult choices to make in order to literally survive and the last thing I needed was the burden of God to add into the mix. But no matter how much I tried to convince myself otherwise I have seen too much and trust me, when your faith is really weak is why it is the hardest to walk away. I would explain how things happen that make it impossible to deny but you wouldn't believe me so let's just say for me despite wanting to not believe there is just too much spiritual proof in the world for a believer to deny it.

Tide with Beach wrote:

<quoted text>
Rational skepticism is demonstrably statistically superior to faith, where seeking objective truth is the goal.

If you don't believe man has a soul or spirit and that there is nothing more than what can be proven then yes, of course it is.

Tide with Beach wrote:

<quoted text>
It's not about what I can't believe, it's about what I am moved to agree with. I'm a rational skeptic. I evaluate. I calculate. I am not swayed by erroneous arguments, like appeals to popularity.
<quoted text>

It is the same thing. You can't believe in anything that isn't proven to you as fact. That is fine. In fact, for most things that is the smart way to go. I do wish though you could see how that would limit you in certain areas

Tide with Beach wrote:

<quoted text>
I do understand it. For humans without the ability to investigate the ue now accept that there are many things that ints to, isn't linked only to religion. Anyone can have a spiritual feeling or experience. It doesn't matter how a person interprets this feeling or experience. That's the subjective part. This isn't a supporting argument for a god or anything supernatural.
<quoted text>
True. Perhaps sometime we can have a discussion about the Circles of Knowledge, although I would like to bring HFY in on that, if she hasn't left Topix already.
<quoted text>
I think commitment to unsupported beliefs are silly, especially if the justification in any way resembles a truth claim.

As for saying how do I know God wouldn't show up and take a crap on me, c'mon. Either admit it is a level or discourse unworthy of the discussions we are trying to have or ignore it all together but don't justify it. As for spirituality not meaning believing in supernatural that is only because you guys redefined spiritual and that is fine. But what I refer to is those that claim when they still believed in God they had spiritual experiences when asked why stay in a faith all those years if they never felt the touch of God. And science and faith doesn't have to be all one or all the other for someone willing to look at the world through every lense.

macumazahn wrote:

<quoted text>"Limit".
Yes.
You crossed mine.
No mean feat, if you're proud of that sort of thing.

Had no choice mac

While i saw W-N try to say I felt brow-beaten by a woman, which is weird since that would be sexist if a guy said that, nothing could be further from the truth. It is very easy to deal with her. But when someone repeatedly misquotes you, looks to start a fight, and is disrespectful then yeah at a point i take the kid-gloves off. Most people I do so almost immediately. Because of you I waited. But no way I let anybody lie about me and insult me for free. Of course i knew that decision would lead to what it did as no way in hell you were ever going to step in and say "hey thought you guys decided to make peace, why 11 straight posts to him looking to fight and I don't that is what he was saying in most of them".

And again, I don't blame you for that, I understand the situation. But don't act like I crossed some line that it hard to cross. Nobody would sit back and let people lie about them or daily post to them 8-9-10-11 times looking to fight and do nothing. And the respect i show is the respect i am given. It would be waaay different if she was being respectful and i wasn't, as it is, it simply is what it is and led to what it led to. But I gave you all you were owed and more out of respect when it came to trying to respond civilly.

waaasssuuup wrote:

<quoted text>
YOU ARE a bully & a bigot against Christianity so all your posts to me have been bullying

Your persecution points are all used up. You've been given several chances to back off but choose not to.
If you can't take the heat...tough...

A Former Liberal wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
That is about as uninformed an opinion as I've heard yet. And you attempt to push such uninformed opinions as "fact."
<quoted text>
There is no such thing as a "scientist religion." So there you go lying to me again.
Why do you feel you must lie to me?
<quoted text>
You need to look up the definition of the word "religion." Or do you merely rely on your own definitions?
<quoted text>
You cannot prove that there -is- a god.

This has been his act since he began posting. I figure he's trying out the one-liners here to see if they work in the real world like they do to convicts and children.
Or he's really just too ignorant to realize they won't work on rational people.
I've seen and met both kinds in real life.

AnnieJ wrote:

<quoted text>
You forgot the line...
YOU ARE NOT THE BOSS OF ME!!!

exactly! i knew we'd eventually get on the same page, Annie:)

AnnieJ wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know that I would call them idiots or liars but I agree with that no one has "proof" one way or the other.
All one has to go with is an internal "proof"...that which they feel.
IMO...it sounds no more foolish for someone to claim to have proof for existence than it does for one to claim proof of non-existence.
Then there is this ranting..."PROVE GOD EXISTS!" AND "PROVE GOD DOESN'T EXIST".
Personally...I think that we should be more concerned about how one uses their belief or lack of belief in regard to others.
Sorry for such a disjointed post...my morning is out of sync.

To me it is the arrogance from some on both sides that annoys me. If both sides agree it can't be proven as far as God and nobody can prove how life started or how the universe started and every form of life that we know has a creator making the idea at least plausible even to those who don't believe, then there should be no reason for mocking. And for those who don't believe, there should be no reason to mock them as it is not reasonable to expect people to believe in something there is absolutely no proof for and some people are very empirically-minded.

But the condescending comments and the arrogance from both sides to each other at times gets on my nerves. The stereotyping also.

If all people want to do is rip on each other and that is what they come to Topix for then that s fine I guess, I am not going ot pretend there is some standard on an Internet chat-room that doesn't exist. But if people actually have any interest in getting along with their fellow human beings better and understanding each other better then they should make more of an effort to talk to one another. Not every conversation needs to have an end-goal of getting the "win". It may simply help someone to understand where someone else is coming from

JMO anyway

(T) Peace

A Former Liberal wrote:

<quoted text>
Having "waaasssuuup" lie to me and then call me "friend" pisses me off.

i asked you to specify where i may have offended or lied, friend:)

A Former Liberal wrote:

<quoted text>
I have serious doubts about waaasssuuup's sanity. He makes up the stupidest things, and tries to pass them off as commonly known facts.

I don't know how far back you've been involved with his posts but he's made some pretty wild claims about raising people from the dead and removing demons that are good for a laugh.
His credibility is zero.

A Former Liberal wrote:

<quoted text>
You have zero evidence from history that your jesus ever existed. The bible is a self-contradictory mish-mash of stolen mythology and outright lies, and anyone who believes in a historicized jesus whose roots are in the mythical one is...well, you get the picture.

"You have zero evidence from history..."

now THIS is a blatant lie so it's no wonder why you would accuse someone who owns a Bible of being a liar!

A Former Liberal wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I do hope you are referring to Carl Sagan.
<quoted text>
No it doesn't. I read the thing. Please don't lie to me.
<quoted text>
Don't accuse him of your crimes, waaasssuuup. I've read your insane rants.

i guess that until you can say "blessed is he (me-waaasssuuup) who comes in the Name of the Lord" we really don't have much to discuss:)

A Former Liberal wrote:

<quoted text>
You falsely claimed that I said I don't answer to any laws. I never said any such thing. I said I don't answer to your religion's laws, any more than I answer to sharia law.

okay, i'm sorry. NOW can we be BFF?:)

Tide with Beach wrote:

<quoted text>
A hypothetical history without faith and religion would look nothing like our history. Whatever difference that removed the need for faith in humans may have also removed other erroneous tendencies. There's no use speculating about a hypothetical history. I'd rather speculate about the future..

Its the same point regardless. Man will never run out of reasons to kill one another be in power, greed, hate, fear, anger, etc. You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. And the guys that flew the planes into a building was not because of religion per se. It is because terrorist groups like Al Qaeda recruit in the most poverty-stricten, war-torn, violence-ravaged places they can. They find kids who have seen parents raped and killed and sisters and brothers burned and have nothing but hate for the world and they give them a target for their hate while promising them a better life when they die. Al Qaeda acts more like a political terrorist group than a religious one but uses religion as it recruitment mechanism. But you really think if they didn't have religion those same terrorists wouldn't still be committing the same terrorist acts? Or people that hate each other over religion wouldn't hate each other over nationalism? There is no utopia coming my friend, with or without religion.

Tide with Beach wrote:

<quoted text>
I think you are completely wrong. Humans are shaped by their upbringing. Whatever our base nature, we can learn to get along with one another. I feel that religion is a hindrance to that effort, on a global scale.

Of course socialization and environment play a role but what about violence the world over since the dawn of man that had nothing to do with religion? Just bad parenting? Man has a selfish nature

Tide with Beach wrote:

<quoted text>
There are no "good acts" that can't also be done by those that don't have faith.
Whatever good they do, they could do without faith or religion.
<quoted text>
Some would. Some do. I suppose we could manipulate the public into a forced communistic ideology, if it meant doing more good for more people. Would you be alright with manipulating people into doing more good than they naturally would?
To be continued...

I never said good acts couldn't be done without faith. And first of all it is a loaded question to ask if I would be ok with manipulating people to do more good than they normally would as you would have to give some type of example. But again this is what you don't understand about faith. You take something that drives a lot of people to want to become better human beings and somehow have a problem with that? Whatever your complaints are with religion, that certainly can't be one of them. Unless you just want to deny all the good religion motivates people to do and pretend like faith is all bad because you don't like it. Otherwise you need to look at it objectively. And if the violence doesn't go away and people do more good because of it, what do you accomplish? There are battles worth fighting, some can even be won, some those of faith would even help you with. You make enemies of a group of millions upon millions for no reason stereotyping based on the extremists. For most people faith is a good thing in their life.

A Former Liberal wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
That is about as uninformed an opinion as I've heard yet. And you attempt to push such uninformed opinions as "fact."
<quoted text>
There is no such thing as a "scientist religion." So there you go lying to me again.
Why do you feel you must lie to me?
<quoted text>
You need to look up the definition of the word "religion." Or do you merely rely on your own definitions?
<quoted text>
You cannot prove that there -is- a god.

bottom line - i cannot prove to you that there is a God yet i believe that there is. you call this 'religion'.

you cannot prove to me that there isn't a god, yet you believe there is not. i call that 'religion'.

how fair is that???

waaasssuuup wrote:

<quoted text>
"You have zero evidence from history..."
now THIS is a blatant lie so it's no wonder why you would accuse someone who owns a Bible of being a liar!

Next time someone says that give them this

http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Divin/D-0201....

A Former Liberal wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Irony, thy name is Waaasssuuup.
Don't you understand that when you declare that there -is- a god, and that there -are- castles in the sky (as you did to me), and that there -is- eternal life, do you not see that you are making claims that -you- cannot possibly know for sure?
<quoted text>
You may not be the biggest hypocrite here, but you are definitely in the Top Two.

JESUS IS GOD, HE CAME AS A MAN AND WE HAVE PROOF - just read some of the good news this morning!

A Former Liberal wrote:

<quoted text>
I have serious doubts about waaasssuuup's sanity. He makes up the stupidest things, and tries to pass them off as commonly known facts.

and yet for some strange reason you don't feel sorry for me but rather i make you mad and you feel the need to insult & disprove me - WHY???