I no longer consider myself a christian

[ctark]

Let me make sure I'm hearing you right. You don't know the truth, but you also believe it is knowable. If that is the case, your not agnostic. Agnostic means you believe that the knowledge of something like "god" is literally unknowable.

And, when you say your not a atheist, you are saying you have a belief in some theistic idea. Is that correct?

Nice try

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

read it all

bye

 

[Kadarin]

Did you know that Christ's teachings are entirely contrary to the 'control of the population' argument, as Christ was against formal religious laws.

Someone should remind the Catholic Church of this...

 

[nageov3t]

Someone should remind the Catholic Church of this...

the Catholic Church preaches the opposite of population control 😉

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Someone should remind the Catholic Church of this...

After the printing press made the true teachings of Christ readily available we did 🙂

 

[sandorski]

After the printing press made the true teachings of Christ readily available we did 🙂

"We"? lol, I predict great embarrassment in your future.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

"We"? lol, I predict great embarrassment in your future.

We being free thinking humanity;

And The only thing that embarrasses me is how much less intelligent the average university graduate is than we.

 

[videogames101]

Nice try

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

read it all

bye

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable


bye, first line bro.



you jelly?

 

[dhaddox]

While often perverted for the task you posit, the actual life and teachings of Christ, as we know then from the bible and non-christian historical records, are purely good.

What are these non-christian historical records of the teachings of Christ you speak of?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

When told that what he was teaching was impossible for a human his response was "for man it is impossible, but for God all things are possible".

I'm sorry, you appear to have me confused with someone that is dazzled or even at all concerned about irrelevant quotes from other parts of the Bible.

You can play semantics on that if you like...

What semantics? In the passage I cited Jesus clearly lays out the criteria he will use to separate his sheep from the goats, and they have nothing to do with grace or faith, but rather are very clearly based upon works: feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the imprisoned, etc. What you had said is patently false, and now you are simply obfuscating.

...but the point is that what Jesus taught was the right way to live: something that God does through us. A reasonable reading of the teachings of Jesus clearly brings this to light.

That isn't what you said, and nothing you did say could be construed to make this point.

 

[LittleNemoNES]

how old are you, ctark?

I ask because often times people give it up when they are young.
It's a lot harder to give it up when you are older and most of your social life revolves around religion -- as mine did. Most of my friends I made @ church.

My decision was an intellectual one. It's funny that most people I know assume I am bitter about something I mal-attribute to god.

My advice is to keep this info to yourself because people WILL discriminate against you for no longer believing in fairy tales.

Not to mention that a lot of people you know will always have the ulterior motive of re-converting you. I've lost quite a few friendships because of this -- they cared so much about me that they annoyed the hell out of me with their begging for me to go back to church, etc.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

What are these non-christian historical records of the teachings of Christ you speak of?

He's almost certainly thinking of the sparse comments recorded by the likes of Flavius Josephus, Pliny the Younger, and Tacitus. Josephus is widely regarded as a forgery, and the others really only talk about an emerging cult of Christians, but do not specifically record any of Christ's alleged activities.

In other words, he's largely blowing smoke, something Christians are often wont to do.

 

[videogames101]

He's almost certainly thinking of the sparse comments recorded by the likes of Flavius Josephus, Pliny the Younger, and Tacitus. Josephus is widely regarded as a forgery, and the others really only talk about an emerging cult of Christians, but do not specifically record any of Christ's alleged activities.

In other words, he's largely blowing smoke, something Christians are often wont to do.

Thats all pointless, because it doesn't make any sense to believe things for which there is no evidence for, and no one in 2000 years has been able to produce any for a Christian or any other god.

(Don't waste time on lesser arguments)

(to others)
If you don't want to base your beliefs in reason thats fine, but don't pretend you are.

 

[TheVrolok]

.. snip ..

What would you say your "go-to" evidence for the existence of macroevolution is when debating a creationist? I ask because I know a woman who's come to me with questions, and I'm trying to think about a plan to discuss evolution that she would understand. Normally, I like to just read/quote/explain from Dr. Theobald's paper on TalkOrigins because I think it's well organized/put together/easily searchable/accessible, but this person isn't very well versed (or versed at all) in the sciences (obviously). I'd rather not have to teach a few weeks of general biology just to begin to explain the topic, are you aware of any "easier" sources? I don't really have the time to create something myself, or put a whole lot of free thought into it. 😛

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I'm sorry, you appear to have me confused with someone that is dazzled or even at all concerned about irrelevant quotes from other parts of the Bible.


What semantics? In the passage I cited Jesus clearly lays out the criteria he will use to separate his sheep from the goats, and they have nothing to do with grace or faith, but rather are very clearly based upon works: feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the imprisoned, etc. What you had said is patently false, and now you are simply obfuscating.


That isn't what you said, and nothing you did say could be construed to make this point.

Without context anything can be misunderstood in order to advance your own agenda.

they have nothing to do with grace or faith, but rather are very clearly based upon works

That these works don't come from us but God through us is the point of the verses before and after the one's you are referring to; You have taken a part of a teaching and made it the center of a false argument.

If you would just follow my point you would raise much better challenges against Christendom. I am arguing that there is no free-will involved in doing good, all Good comes from God. If everything is a good/evil dichotomy this means that there must also be no free-will when it comes to doing evil.

So the excuse "that baby was thrown in a dumpster because of free will" falls apart and we have to question the goodness of God for allowing such horrible practices.

He's almost certainly thinking of the sparse comments recorded by the likes of Flavius Josephus, Pliny the Younger, and Tacitus. Josephus is widely regarded as a forgery, and the others really only talk about an emerging cult of Christians, but do not specifically record any of Christ's alleged activities.

In other words, he's largely blowing smoke, something Christians are often wont to do.

The best scholarship on the issue disagrees entirely with this assessment, but you should ask someone without a horse in the race to look at the issue... and it turns out the secular scholars agree with the christian scholars; only people selling books or publishing anti-Christian blogs/magazines subscribe to this point. A historical scholar would not try to publish such garbage in a reputable journal.

But when someone hates they get blinded... So what can I do but point out where the anti-Christians have gone off of the logical/scientific rails.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Alleged_fabrication_by_Eusebius

Thats all pointless, because it doesn't make any sense to believe things for which there is no evidence for, and no one in 2000 years has been able to produce any for a Christian or any other god.

The only proof is in the beneficial function faith has for the individual.

 

[Modelworks]

Thats all pointless, because it doesn't make any sense to believe things for which there is no evidence for, and no one in 2000 years has been able to produce any for a Christian or any other god.

(Don't waste time on lesser arguments)

(to others)
If you don't want to base your beliefs in reason thats fine, but don't pretend you are.

I can't prove to you that God exist, but God has proven to me that he exist, it didn't require another person to tell me he exist, and that is all that matters.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

What would you say your "go-to" evidence for the existence of macroevolution is when debating a creationist? I ask because I know a woman who's come to me with questions, and I'm trying to think about a plan to discuss evolution that she would understand. Normally, I like to just read/quote/explain from Dr. Theobald's paper on TalkOrigins because I think it's well organized/put together/easily searchable/accessible, but this person isn't very well versed (or versed at all) in the sciences (obviously). I'd rather not have to teach a few weeks of general biology just to begin to explain the topic, are you aware of any "easier" sources? I don't really have the time to create something myself, or put a whole lot of free thought into it. 😛

The nested hierarchy of genetic interrelatedness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp9aPaJAQBc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Izl5BB2AkZE


Related (no pun intended) to that are endogenous retroviral insertions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh7OclPDN_s

 

[DanDaManJC]

What would you say your "go-to" evidence for the existence of macroevolution is when debating a creationist? I ask because I know a woman who's come to me with questions, and I'm trying to think about a plan to discuss evolution that she would understand. Normally, I like to just read/quote/explain from Dr. Theobald's paper on TalkOrigins because I think it's well organized/put together/easily searchable/accessible, but this person isn't very well versed (or versed at all) in the sciences (obviously). I'd rather not have to teach a few weeks of general biology just to begin to explain the topic, are you aware of any "easier" sources? I don't really have the time to create something myself, or put a whole lot of free thought into it. 😛

Thatd be a neat source to have.

OTOH -- if you show her you can't even take the time to think it out, and summarize it for her, what does that tell her about your knowledge of the subject? Anyone who knows their salt in a subject should be able to explain it down to someone.. something to keep in mind

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Without context anything can be misunderstood in order to advance your own agenda.

On the contrary -- you are attempting to shoehorn secondary religious tenets into a very clear-cut and complete qualification.

That these works don't come from us but God through us is the point of the verses before and after the one's you are referring to;

Balderdash. The passages quoted clearly state that those who perform actions of a certain class were taken into the Kingdom of Heaven specifically for having done those actions. Like I predicted you're simply trying to spin, spin, spin to shoehorn in an extraneous segment of your religious dogma.

You have taken a part of a teaching and made it the center of a false argument.

No, I'm taking the passages at their face value. You're the one trying to add things that aren't there.

If you would just follow my point you would raise much better challenges against Christendom.]

I don't care about your point, you made a statement directly contradictory to the very words of Christ, and I pointed out your falsehood.

I am arguing that there is no free-will involved in doing good, all Good comes from God. If everything is a good/evil dichotomy this means that there must also be no free-will when it comes to doing evil.

I don't care about the other nonsensical things you believe.

So the excuse "that baby was thrown in a dumpster because of free will" falls apart and we have to question the goodness of God for allowing such horrible practices.

Now I have no idea what in the world you are blabbering about, and what's worse is I'm pretty sure you don't either.

{snip}

 

[theprodigalrebel]

I remember changing my Facebook Religious Views section from 'Muslim - Sunni' to 'Atheist'. I think one person noticed and wrote me a PM on 'coming out' - and she already knew that.

 

[totalnoob]

I don't really have the time to create something myself, or put a whole lot of free thought into it. 😛

Evolution explained in 2 minutes - http://www.youtube.com/DonExodus2#p/search/8/FnzmxeZJeho

 

[dhaddox]

The best scholarship on the issue disagrees entirely with this assessment, but you should ask someone without a horse in the race to look at the issue... and it turns out the secular scholars agree with the christian scholars; only people selling books or publishing anti-Christian blogs/magazines subscribe to this point. A historical scholar would not try to publish such garbage in a reputable journal.

But when someone hates they get blinded... So what can I do but point out where the anti-Christians have gone off of the logical/scientific rails.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Alleged_fabrication_by_Eusebius

Supposing the passage in Josephus is not a forgery, it still says nothing of the teaching of Christ.

 

[shadow9d9]

Neither do most Christians, so the argument is invalid. Or at least that's what I suppose Classy's argument is.

no, only the ones that claim god speaks through them and lead your church...

 

[shadow9d9]

OP, you do not know this, but Sky Wizard will save you. No matter what you believe, The Fairy Tales Book say this. Few people know this and interpret many words in the Fairy Tales Book incorrectly.

Your soul was born in Happy Place, and every single soul that was born in Happy Place will return to Happy Place.

Psalm 87:5 speaks of your birthright.

I will not oblige in a Fairy Tale discussion openly with anyone here, but for those willing to see, the Fairy tales Book says all of this clearly.

The Evil Sky Wizard will be the one to suffer for the minds of man he has turned astray, but it's your soul that be saved.

Fixed.

 

[shadow9d9]

I can't prove to you that God exist, but God has proven to me that he exist, it didn't require another person to tell me he exist, and that is all that matters.

How funny it is that an imaginary being has "proven" itself to you. Humans are amazing in their ability to rationalize pretty much anything.

 

[TheVrolok]

Thatd be a neat source to have.

OTOH -- if you show her you can't even take the time to think it out, and summarize it for her, what does that tell her about your knowledge of the subject? Anyone who knows their salt in a subject should be able to explain it down to someone.. something to keep in mind

Normally I would, but I'm going to be in the middle of finals for the next two weeks. She seems interested now, and I don't want to wait multiple weeks to get back to her so I just wanted some source material I could work from more quickly at this point - if it doesn't cut it, I'll work out my own material come December.