tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post114644378366021297..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Because the Bible Tells Me SoUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1147425787822899052006-05-12T05:23:00.000-04:002006-05-12T05:23:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1147362058257505862006-05-11T11:40:00.000-04:002006-05-11T11:40:00.000-04:00OK, I'll try my best to follow you here.I'm not su...OK, I'll try my best to follow you here.<BR/>I'm not sure what you are asking in #1 but here goes. When I pray to God I find him in the feelings inside me. I do believe he answers personal prayers.<BR/>#2<BR/>Profession is Electrical Mechanic, Thats what I do to earn money to support my family. For the rest I think its a little of everything, I try to balance life between profession, father, church role.<BR/>As far as religion I am LDS(Mormon) and 36yrs old.<BR/>Like I said I'm not 100%sure if I answered you with what you wanted so set me straight if I didn't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1147139599483371282006-05-08T21:53:00.000-04:002006-05-08T21:53:00.000-04:00I'm with you on not being able to keep track of wh...I'm with you on not being able to keep track of where you're commenting. I'm glad I came back to this one today. :-)<BR/><BR/>1. When you pray to God, and he meets you, where do you find him?<BR/><BR/>2. Who are you? I mean... what is your substance? Are you your body? Are you your thoughts? Are you your emotions? Are you your profession? Are you your familial role? Who are you, friend?<BR/><BR/>These may seem to be odd questions, but very important to discover before we go any further.Aaron M Rossettihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13249622123211632451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1147081343321340102006-05-08T05:42:00.000-04:002006-05-08T05:42:00.000-04:00I didn't move on to bigger or better posts I just ...I didn't move on to bigger or better posts I just can't remeber where I am commenting.<BR/>#1 question<BR/>I think this still goes on today as people take what is written by any apostal and contort it their owns ways of thinking. Preaching false doctrines would be distorting the truth.<BR/>#2 question I don't know if they believed they were at the end of time or at the end of their lives as we would meet our maker when we die. This is why the jews discount Christ. They were expecting the second coming before the first and his life here to them wasn't living up to the prophesies, destroying enemies and such. And maybe more importantly if these writtings were not actually those of Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, maybe they really didn't believe they were at the end and that was added by the authors.<BR/>#3<BR/>They were already scriptures before he declared them so. Paul wrote about the church and gospel of Christ and this is considered scripture or Gods words through the mouths of men.<BR/>#4<BR/> Authority does not equal infallable. Man is an infallable creature which is why we should always question what an authority figue says is of God and take it up with God personally in our prayers. Lets see, Heads I pray tails you pray. <BR/>#5 The apostasy<BR/>This is when the authority to act in Gods name was taken from the earth. It then needed to be restored to us.<BR/>#6<BR/>The truth is out there if you want to find it. I of coarse believe I have as does every other religion so how to find it, well you have to study, seems to me like you have, and Pray to God, believing he will answer for the truth to find you.<BR/>#7<BR/>I know that there is a living prophet today guiding christs church here on this earth. He has seen and talked with him and has the authority to act in his name or priesthood. We once lived with our heavenly Father and we can return to live with him together with our families. Christ is the one who made this possible by overcoming both spiritual and physical death. He does live today and Guides us through the mouth of prophet and apostals as in the times of old. His true gospel has been restored to this earth along with the authority. The bible standing alone as the only scripture is not enough, there are more scriptures out there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146771410422853302006-05-04T15:36:00.000-04:002006-05-04T15:36:00.000-04:00Hey maybe everyone's moved on to bigger and better...Hey maybe everyone's moved on to bigger and better posts, but I'd like my 6 questions answered by a Christian please.<BR/><BR/>Seeker, did I understand you correctly and are my questions that I asked for clarification clear. I'd really like to know who and what we should be using or following to know how God wants our lives to be structured.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and 'simple' answers that make 'common sense' would be best. I wasn't smart enough to sustain my Christian belief system. I really think I read TOO Much of the bible. And (if I may be so picky) can we not end up hitting the giam button. (god is a mystery). <BR/><BR/>Please, someone tell me HOW I can know the truth please!<BR/><BR/>Thanks.Aaron M Rossettihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13249622123211632451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146680571129495052006-05-03T14:22:00.000-04:002006-05-03T14:22:00.000-04:00It looks as though we are beginning to find some c...It looks as though we are beginning to find some common ground here and i am reallly trying to gain an understanding of those who are writting in here. With all the confusion surrounding the bible its no wonder there are so many religious ideas in the world. When left to ourselves without guidance, we reason out things and go with what sounds good to us. Problem is that not everyone comes to the same conclusion. While there are many similarities in all religions there are also many vast differences. If God has a foe how would be the best way to foil Gods puroses with regaurds to us-humanity? I would suggest that it is exactly what we see today, thousands of different religions al claiming to be holding the true word of God and that only they are saved. What more that foe could easily pursuade men to mix their own phylosophies with scripture to further the confusion as to what is from God and what is from John Doe. Could then he be able to convince us that God is Evil and he is Good? I would say absolutly. Even though this is a bad example I would have to pit them against each other like politicians. who can win the vote of the people? Then consider that one of them plays by the rules and the other doesn't and will take any misconception and exploit it to the fullest to win more votes. I say this becasue I believe this must happen to some degree. I am no scholar and I am just trying to figure this whole deal out myself so I realize that I may be very wrong or partly wrong or even right. <BR/>with that said I would think that God would want us to know him and would know all that would come of the bible. So wouldn't want us to find a way to figure this out? Yes. If he inspired men of old then he inspires men now. He doesn't change or he ceases to become God. He would have other dealings, found in scripure, with outher people of this earth, not just the ancient jews. I don't know the exact bible location right now but I can find it if you want, it reads something like this( Not quoted) God reveals his secrets through prophets. I think it means he always meant to have a prophet on earth to be his mouthpiece. He would then communicate through this one individual things for us as a whole. We are then able to recieve personl inspiration for ourselves about our own daily lives. <BR/>Now the quetions becomes if this is true, who is that Prophet today if he indeed does exist?<BR/>aaron that #6 above got my head spinning man I can the confusion!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146592891808427492006-05-02T14:01:00.000-04:002006-05-02T14:01:00.000-04:00I see, so the authority transferred from Christ to...I see, so the authority transferred from Christ to the Apostles and their authority then gave the authority to their writings. <BR/><BR/>Couple of questions, then…<BR/><BR/>1. What does ‘distorting the writings of Paul’ mean?<BR/><BR/>2. How can we trust the words of men that missed the ‘end’ by 2000 (that’s TWO THOUSAND YEARS… that’s almost ¾ of a MILLION days)? These, the very foundation of ALL Christianity said that they were at the end of time when they were only 15% away from the middle (according to the Jewish calendar that begins and the beginning of time).<BR/><BR/>3. So, because Peter was given the keys to the kingdom and was the first ‘Pope’ (according to the original catholic church out of which all modern Christianity today is spawned.), and because of his authority, him declaring that the writings of Paul were scriptures from the lips of god… that made it so?<BR/><BR/>4. How does the 'authority' of the apostles translate into the 'infallibility' of the scriptures? Does ‘authority’ equal infallibility? Peter gave the first salvation message in Acts 2, what wasn’t written that we do know however is that after this message, he could’ve very well took any straggling Gentile aside and cut off their foreskin in grand welcome into the faith. This Peter, an author chosen to pen the Word of The Creator Almighty, along with the other apostles, in all their divine wisdom and inherited authority, used a method of divination (casting lots… rolling dice) to make the final choice on who would be the other foundation stone to the church for all eternity. Can you see the church board doing this today? ‘Ok, everyone pray while we flip it…. Heads it’s Joe, Tales… it’s Dave.)<BR/><BR/>5. In regards to the 'handed down' principal, can you please let me know where this stopped, who decided it, and why? Catholics never ended the succession and when they hear from the pope, they’ve heard from God. (See the above ‘infallibility’ link in the origin post to see how they believe the church itself to be infallible. This seems reasonable if we’re asserting (not reasoning or proving) that first… god exists, second… Jesus was the starting point of god’s repented mind, and third… that the system was all laid out by the almighty.) <BR/><BR/>6. Who should I believer and WHY? The preacher says it’s because the bible says and the bible doesn’t say because the bible says. Maybe it says cause Peter and Paul says so. Peter and Paul say so ‘cause Jesus says so and how do we know that Jesus says so? Because the bible says so. How do we know that this is the bible because I read was really written by Peter and Paul? Because the church says so. Why should I believe the church? Because the bible says so. And why should I believe the bible? Because the church says so. HELP!!!!! <BR/><BR/>7. And the final and most important question of the day…. The answer to this could mean heaven or hell for all eternity…. (Drum role please) Is there a Christian in the crowd that can give a REASON for the hope that is within them so that I can understand for MYSELF why I should believe in Jesus please?Aaron M Rossettihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13249622123211632451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146588267147372362006-05-02T12:44:00.000-04:002006-05-02T12:44:00.000-04:00A problem with your assertation is that the early ...A problem with your assertation is that the early church considered the voice of the apostles as scripture itself. Refer to 2Pet 3:16, where the author refers to people distorting the writings of Paul, "as they do the other Scriptures".<BR/><BR/>You have to consider that the message was an oral revelation, and the disciples believed the end of all things would occur within their lifetimes or quite shortly afterward. The letters circulated were merely correspondence that later became held in higher esteem as they realized the second coming might not be just around the corner. <BR/><BR/>But the esteem given to the books was because of their apostolic origin, not because the books themselves were to be held up as conceived documents of faith. They gained the trust they have because they were believed to be transcriptions of the apostolic word. They inherited the authority of their sources. And those sources were regarded as scripture because they were believed to be the living revelation of God.Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10434476077700276940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146586473739629362006-05-02T12:14:00.000-04:002006-05-02T12:14:00.000-04:00God is the only one allowed to be a relativist. We...<I>God is the only one allowed to be a relativist. We have no say in what he decides is right for us.</I><BR/><BR/>"It's good to be the king"Brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11338993634025153018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146584378106161292006-05-02T11:39:00.000-04:002006-05-02T11:39:00.000-04:00God can do whatever he wants. Whatever is right f...God can do whatever he wants. Whatever is right for him, is right for him. If it appears evil, who are we to judge. It's all relative in the economy of god. We should just be good servents and not judge the creator according to our own moral judgement. We're too wicked, blind, and stupid to think that God isn't right is doing all the acts that he does that he admits are evil in his book. We should recognize that we are peons to god, shut up, and do what we're told. "Now kids... Do as I say, and not as I do. Get it! Got it! Good. And don't start thinking that you should try to have my charactor, because I don't want you just running around creating calamity. That's my job and you can only go slaughter other nations if I tell you to because you can be my puppets of wrath, but only when I say. Ok?" <BR/><BR/>Look, eventhough we don't understand, we should just swallow our evil pride that expects God to only do 'our version' of good and muster up some belief anyway.<BR/><BR/>God is the only one allowed to be a relativist. We have no say in what he decides is right for us.Aaron M Rossettihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13249622123211632451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146574649481840412006-05-02T08:57:00.000-04:002006-05-02T08:57:00.000-04:00Rich,While the bible has its purpose it was writte...Rich,<BR/><B>While the bible has its purpose it was written and compiled a long time ago and by a group of people who used what they though best. Tell me how that can be considered the "Word of God"?</B><BR/><BR/>Eloquently stated. Read <A HREF="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/larry_taylor/canon.html" REL="nofollow">Larry Taylor's article on the canon</A> for more on that idea. <BR/><BR/><B>I Don't buy that God only cared about the Jews and no one else. He would have to care about humanity as a whole to truly be a caring and just God.</B><BR/>Another excellent point. Every single religion, it seems, has an "elect" factor to it -- enlightenment, heaven, nirvana, whatever, are how we separate "true believers/followers" from those "outside". This exclusionary tendency of <B>all religions</B> reinforces the idea that there is no universal God or universal Truth to unite us.<BR/><BR/><B>I don't belilieve the common christian heaven/hell belief either as only God would be able to judge a person good or bad so how can they tell me I am going to hell for MY beliefs? Another contradiction to me.</B><BR/><BR/>Well, I can step in here and tell you what a Xian would say -- they would say that Jesus talked about hell, and they're just telling you what Jesus said, not judging you, and that God requires perfection [why? don't ask], so "there is none good, no, not one" and "our righteousness is filthy rags", yada yada yada. APparently, their god is only capable of rendering judgment for sin, but not reward for goodness.<BR/><BR/>Infinite holiness, they say, but they ignore infinite mercy and infinite grace. God asks us to forgive our enemies, but refuses to forgive God's own enemies. Some giant hypocrite, eh?nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146574269761740632006-05-02T08:51:00.000-04:002006-05-02T08:51:00.000-04:00It appears that no one has yet referenced Larry T...It appears that no one has yet <A HREF="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/larry_taylor/canon.html" REL="nofollow">referenced Larry Taylor's excellent essay on the canon in response to McDowell</A>.<BR/><BR/>Jonathan [Jon?],<BR/>As I stated, I think that it is quite difficult to "debunk" some of the more liberal and unorthodox versions of Xianity -- e.g., if Sandalstraps said that a real person named Jesus existed, and taught a way of "salvation" that more mimicked the "social gospel" idea and wasn't about a heaven/hell, and that Jesus was just a man, but we should follow this man's teachings [not that Sandalstraps does say this], I wouldn't argue with him.<BR/><BR/>I am not interested in moral arguments about whether Buddha is superior to Jesus or <I>vice versa</I>. I am more interested in the conventional, orthodox view of Jesus as a God/man, born of a virgin, who is going to return one day, based upon the Bible. I am more interested in presenting arguments and evidence to debunk that philosophical and theological stance.<BR/><BR/>I don't personally care if you think this makes me "lack substance". If you want to present a version of liberal/unorthodox/postmodern/whatever Xianity that <I>you subscribe to</I>, and how it solves the problems of Evangelical XIanity, feel free! I would love to engage with you. <BR/><BR/>In point of fact, you would be giving yet another perspective from which Evangelical Xianity is <B>debunked</B>, showing the <I>solution</I> to the problems of Evangelical Xianity are <I>to abandon it and embrace X</I>, where X = your "version" of Xianity. Feel free to do so. The more diversity here, the better.<BR/><BR/>Best regards,<BR/>Danielnsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146572429831165742006-05-02T08:20:00.000-04:002006-05-02T08:20:00.000-04:00exbeliever "it's fascinating, to me, how many chr...exbeliever "it's fascinating, to me, how many christians comment that we are not addressing the right christianity."<BR/>yeah, ex, i've noticed that also. i guess that will always be the case since there are so many versions. i don't think it's just the denomenation factor, but individual christians don't hold still in their beliefs... i attempted to talk about that in my own blog thingy on the conundrum of faith. it is hard to hit a moving target, but christianity is evolving, and evolution is what helps ensure survival.<BR/>paulpaulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04437206493901034134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146561578334606592006-05-02T05:19:00.000-04:002006-05-02T05:19:00.000-04:00Now here is a post I have to agree with. I believe...Now here is a post I have to agree with. I believe we are to take good things from everywhere, books science, other people, and so forth and just try to continually eter ourselves, become a good neighbor, a community helper, learn enough about politics to vote with intelligence, the list goes on. Its interesting that alot of christianity considers anyone who rejects the bible as the sole word of God will readily read their own pastors books and consider them as equal word of God. While the bible has its purpose it was written and compiled a long time ago and by a group of people who used what they though best. Tell me how that can be considered the "Word of God"? I think it important to know our history and many of the accounts in the bible may never have actually happened, just like a person years later was much better at sports then they were in high school. Maybe thats a bad example but lets face it, they don't call them fish stories for nothing. I Don't buy that God only cared about the Jews and no one else. He would have to care about humanity as a whole to truly be a caring and just God. I don't belilieve the common christian heaven/hell belief either as only God would be able to judge a person good or bad so how can they tell me I am going to hell for MY beliefs? Another contradiction to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146515060669267092006-05-01T16:24:00.000-04:002006-05-01T16:24:00.000-04:00'they' must be trusting in something else... intel...<I>'they' must be trusting in something else... intellectual arguement, science, tradition, reasoning, gut feel, personal experience, mint ice cream, phd.s, Nike shoes, or their local pastor...</I><BR/><BR/>Precisely! The religious among us develop their morals in exactly the same way we do, from a wide variety of sources and influences. Let's assume that the Bible truly is the word of God. Then if two people interpret the same words in different ways, there must be something else in play causing them to interpret it differently. And obviously, this isn't a "good thing" for people who take the Bible as gospel, because it casts doubt onto whose interpretation is correct or if it is even possible to know what God is really saying in the first place.<BR/><BR/>I have no problem with people using the Bible as one of their spiritual and moral guidebooks through life. I consider several books and people as very influential in my life just as Christians do the Bible and Jesus. But I don't consider any of those books or people to be authoritative on everything. They are a good start, but if I don't go looking for other viewpoints as well, I'm nothing more than an ignorant pompous ass.<BR/><BR/>I think Jefferson was on to something when he wrote his own version of the Bible. He got rid of all the superstition and dogma and concentrated on the primary moral teachings of Jesus. And as society changes and we continue to learn even more about our universe, there is no reason his Bible can't be updated as well. But as long as people today are going to continue to cling to some book written a few thousand years ago by highly superstitious people who knew relatively little about the workings of our universe and claim that it is the word of God and ultimate arbiter of our moral dilemas, then I reserve the right to call them ignorant pompous asses.Brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11338993634025153018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146512435324653702006-05-01T15:40:00.000-04:002006-05-01T15:40:00.000-04:00It's fascinating, to me, that so many Christians c...It's fascinating, to me, that so many Christians comment that we are not addressing the right Christianity. Sandalstraps thinks Evangelicalism is bunk, now Jonathan says that some kind of postmodern (emerging?) church is the one we should be focusing on.<BR/><BR/>It's almost as if there is No True Scotsman when it comes to types of Christianity. What's an atheist to do?exbelieverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04821290397922309515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146509851722661132006-05-01T14:57:00.000-04:002006-05-01T14:57:00.000-04:00Jonathan,Modern, Liberalism, Conservativism, Evang...Jonathan,<BR/><BR/>Modern, Liberalism, Conservativism, Evangelical, Fundamentalism, Contemporary, Orthodox, 'majority'.... Honestly, I'm probably not up to date on what all of the 'contemporary scholars' are doing today and frankly, it makes no difference to me nor my point of the post. Obviously, the things that I write are according to what I witnessed in the 30 years of being around Christian churches of various denominations from Lutheran to UPC Apostolic. I ran the ‘normal’ gamut. <BR/><BR/>The only point (if I didn't say it in enough different ways in the post) was that if things outside of the bible cannot be taken as to be 'from God,' then Christians (of whatever variety or taste) are contradicting their own position to believe that the New Testament caNon is the 'word of God' for all mankind and 'they' must be trusting in something else... intellectual arguement, science, tradition, reasoning, gut feel, personal experience, mint ice cream, phd.s, Nike shoes, or their local pastor... <BR/><BR/>(I can't help but notice how 'Christianity' continues to change from age to age and will continue to change and adapt as it responds, conforms, or reacts to the rest of 'the world.' Interesting...)<BR/><BR/>You asked about what is accomplished...<BR/>I'm not ignorant enough to believe that any arguments will accomplish anything if made with someone not looking for something that they don't have. And if you can be argued into your faith, then you can be argued out of it, but from my observations, most of the most committed and faithful Christians don't live their faith from their head. They do it from their heart and if real change is going to manifest in anyone's life, it will have to go beyond words and arguments. There are people out there whose hearts are ready to hear something and in this blog arena, we're stuck with only words and these words are the best this simple and unscholarly man has. <BR/><BR/>Ultimately, if my posts don't change anyone, I don't really care. I gave up being attached to what anyone does because of what I have to say. You, and all of us, will hear what we hear when we hear it. <BR/><BR/>And to be even more transparent with you, I like to come hear and banter with ideas because I like to argue and to be challenged in my communication skills. I'm here for myself.Aaron M Rossettihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13249622123211632451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146502786343100092006-05-01T12:59:00.000-04:002006-05-01T12:59:00.000-04:00I don't think I'm referencing Liberalism or Progre...I don't think I'm referencing Liberalism or Progressivism. Liberalism is an outdated Modernist theological construction that is battled against Conservatism. I don't know what you are referring to as Progressive.<BR/><BR/>One of the first email's I dropped to John when I saw this site was regarding the term "Evangelical" as his target. My interest was how he and others on this blog felt about more contemporary lines of thinking above and beyond some of the rigid fundamentalism of yesterday.<BR/><BR/>I would answer positively to your first question. But if that is your goal then this site is less of a thinking blog and more of an anti-pop-Christianity blog, i.e. lacking substance. Is that really the goal here?Jonathan Erdmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04234688186113838474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146501005002126422006-05-01T12:30:00.000-04:002006-05-01T12:30:00.000-04:00Jonathan,Do you agree or disagree that the positio...Jonathan,<BR/><BR/>Do you agree or disagree that the positions most often "debunked" (or attempted) are those held by the majority of American Christians?<BR/><BR/>I have very little problem with liberal or unorthodox Christians, and if you read the site description carefully, John emphasizes <B>Evangelical</B> Xianity as a target.<BR/><BR/>I actually enjoy bantering back-and-forth with liberal and progressive Christians. I learn a lot, eg from Sandalstraps.nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1146500703555821282006-05-01T12:25:00.000-04:002006-05-01T12:25:00.000-04:00I appreciate that you describe many of the above C...I appreciate that you describe many of the above Christian positions as "Modern." Seeing as the above positions are Modern they belong to the yesterday of Christian theology.<BR/><BR/>But I'm curious as to what you have accomplished if you "debunk" Christian theological contructions that are either outdated or misrepresented. This is a general criticism of mine for many of the posts here. It seems that as a general rule there is a lack of understanding on what contemporary Chrstian scholarship is doing.Jonathan Erdmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04234688186113838474noreply@blogger.com