Sunday, July 5, 2009

Recent comments posted to http://ExChristian.Net

Recent comments posted to http://ExChristian.Net

Link to Recent comments posted to ExChristian.Net

Re: PAUL'S AND JESUS' MORAL FALLACIES - ExChristian.Net - Articles

Posted: 04 Jul 2009 07:25 PM PDT

Ehh I'm just throwing this out there, the only person who claimed to be perfect was Jesus, so I wouldn't be surprised if one of them said something stupid or did something wrong, they were human after all. As for Jesus I think it was meant to mean that if a man was only thinking of her in a purely sexual way (Holy shit what would I give to tap that fine ass. Look at the melons on that broad etc.) it was sinful due to the whole morality of it (I'm probably just butchering this thought process). But ya that's my 2 cents.

Re: Time to grow up? - ExChristian.Net - Articles

Posted: 04 Jul 2009 07:16 PM PDT

Wow that was brilliantly written and to me most points do make sense, I just don't think that Religion should halt our scientific process as a species, or should destroy lives and family.

Re: Harassment By Evangelicals Lit My Path To Atheism<script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.blogger.com/static/v1/common/js/327583163-csitaillib.js"></script> <script>if (typeof(window.attachCs...

Posted: 04 Jul 2009 06:56 PM PDT

I suppose I would simply mean suggest, poor choice of words I'm sorry ( as I said I was hungry for lunch and that was a damn good sandwich XD hence the rambling as you put do; don't; do; dont;);

Yes, there is a tangible threat so therefore it needs a tangible solution. Religion is untangible, (When I say tangible and untangible, I mean it as there is proof that it exists.) It's opposite, athiesm, is the belief that no God exists (at least from what Iv'e heard). I find it hard it exists because the very thing that pushes people away from theism is required for atheism, hence why I find Agnosticism a more appropiate stance for non theists.

No, I never claimed that the issue of not being able to disprove a God was a good reason to believe in a God

Is it not credible to believe that something could not be accomplished by a creator? Sorry, meant 294 planets, it was a hypothetical question from the Rare Earth Hypothesis.

Honestly you seem like quite an arrogant individual because I am rather dissapointed you havn't answered any of my questions. If I was comfortable with not knowing something why would I have the ambition to find the answer for it? If you are suggesting that scientists are comfortable with not knowing something then we would still be comfortable with believing the world is Flat and the Titans made it that way. And who is this Science person you are referring to he seems like an intersting fellow, that would'nt happen to be his direct quote would it?

I really wish you wouldn't misquote me, I never claimed that it was a fact that "God is only capable of such a thing"., notice how I said ""IDEA"" hence I acknowledge that it is my intuition that tells me that. (I actually don't think I used the word "knowledge" once, nor did I claim to know anything)

I'm really not going to get into exact defintions of the correct terms with you, stop being rediculous, if it makes you feel better/ The easiest thing to do would to lack the belief in a God, Which sounds retarded in retrospect but whatever, you still havn't addressed the issue of, well there's really no issue I guess, you're just being an ass.

Re: Evolution vs. Creation - ExChristian.Net - Articles

Posted: 04 Jul 2009 06:32 PM PDT

Ah. Well then, we're rather much on the same page.

Re: Religion is Mental Illness - ExChristian.Net - Articles

Posted: 04 Jul 2009 06:21 PM PDT

oddbird',

There are some ideas I've spawned in my life, that I wish had been marketable for profit.

ATF (These footnotes, are one of those ideas...LOL)

Re: PAUL'S AND JESUS' MORAL FALLACIES - ExChristian.Net - Articles

Posted: 04 Jul 2009 06:09 PM PDT

jgreen44: I believe we do need to be saved from our own sins but we need to save ourselves by understanding ourselves

I find it a bit strange that you don't buy into the bible being a book from god, yet you still seem to buy into this idea of "SIN".

Please explain this.

Also, without a messenger from this god (jesus allah etc.), then how is one to gain knowledge of this god, other than through this network of hearsay you previously spoke about?

If the bible isn't really god's direct word, then how can we know if sin exist and if their is some penalty for committing such "sins"?

One last question for you.
Do you believe we have a soul and hence, possible eternal life?
If so, under what conditions might one gain this eternal life then?

ATF

Re: PAUL'S AND JESUS' MORAL FALLACIES - ExChristian.Net - Articles

Posted: 04 Jul 2009 06:05 PM PDT

Jinx!

Re: PAUL'S AND JESUS' MORAL FALLACIES - ExChristian.Net - Articles

Posted: 04 Jul 2009 05:58 PM PDT

Hey John,

GMTA, I see...LOL

ATF

Re: PAUL'S AND JESUS' MORAL FALLACIES - ExChristian.Net - Articles

Posted: 04 Jul 2009 05:57 PM PDT

jgreen44,

My previous post on burnt toast, wasn't really meant to be a direct answer, but more tongue-in-cheek, for humor reasons.

To be clear, I have no issues with Deist, or any 'god' believer who doesn't go around telling the world what their god has to say to us, or how we should live our lives to please their god etc..

i.e. Everyone is entitled to their odd beliefs, just as long as those beliefs don't become an influence to my life.

You say that the word of god (from unknown sources) was suppose to be spread via word of mouth, and was never intended to be turned into a book.

Okay, if I assume there is some creator god out there, somewhere, then isn't it a bit dicey for this god to rely upon a quite fallible means of communication, to spread knowledge about itself?
I'm sure I don't have to tell you how inaccurate rumor mills can be, or playing that old game of telephone, as a means to communicate critical information.

So to me, if some vague god existed, but one who still cared about life on this planet, enough so it wanted us to communicate to each other about this god, then why would this god take such a back-seat-approach to making itself known to us?

I think the idea of god writing a handbook is a good one, but alas, every god handbook so far has been written by ancient men alone.

As I've said here before, I held the Deist position for several years before I took on the atheist stance.
Of course, as a Deist, I had no knowledge to share about this god I believed in, but I certainly knew that any knowledge contained in some known Holy Book, was nothing more than human guesswork.

Take care,
ATF

Re: Harassment By Evangelicals Lit My Path To Atheism<script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.blogger.com/static/v1/common/js/327583163-csitaillib.js"></script> <script>if (typeof(window.attachCs...

Posted: 04 Jul 2009 05:40 PM PDT

Oh no no no, I agree with you 100 percent, of course people can have doubts even if God can't be completely disproved, it is really expected when it comes to excepting something so incredible as an other worldly being who created all that we see today. I understand why people might have doubts, but I don't understand why those people who have doubts would close themselves and be hell bent on denying the existence of a God when there's not enough proof to prove he doesn't exist, which is the problem which forces that person away from religion which I find rather ironic, but it's like you said that's why most atheists I hear about consider themselves agnostic like my good friend.

And don't worry, that was by no means insulting, that was a great way to put it.

And just because I'm genuinely (I know I just butchered that word <.<) interested what information pointed you away from a creator?

Re: PAUL'S AND JESUS' MORAL FALLACIES - ExChristian.Net - Articles

Posted: 04 Jul 2009 05:38 PM PDT

"I take the latter text (along with several other pieces of evidence) to mean that Christianity was never meant to be transmitted via text. It was meant to be transmitted via face to face contact, from person to person. There was never supposed to be a written New Testament. Henceforth, Christianity was not originally meant to be the legalistic, literalist abomination we see today."

Ever play that parlour game, oh, what was it called.... Oh! I have it!
"Telephone", ever play that one? you start off with a simple statement, and it's whispered from ear-to-ear until it's madee its way all around the room. What the last person to get the message hears bears little resemblance to what was started about the room.

And..... If indeed this christianity was intended to passed "face to face", then why did Paul write letters and epistles to the Romans, Ephesians, etc.?

Re: PAUL'S AND JESUS' MORAL FALLACIES - ExChristian.Net - Articles

Posted: 04 Jul 2009 05:07 PM PDT

Hi Janus Grayden,

Re: your comment on immorality…

"…and, conversely, not doing something wicked that you know you can get away with."

Oh, joy!
To see that in writing!

Surely, the urge or inclination to take advantage of, or to do others 'down' is one of the major self-motivators of our species.
And isn't empathetic remorse for doing wrong so often absent in the culprit who's caught out and replaced instead with narcissistic contempt and fury for not 'getting away with it'.

S.

Re: The Little Christian Who Cried Wolf<script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.blogger.com/static/v1/common/js/327583163-csitaillib.js"></script> <script>if (typeof(window.attachCsiOnload) != 'u...

Posted: 04 Jul 2009 05:04 PM PDT

Habitual behaviours, good or bad, are essentially neurological and psychological patterns that have been reinforced by repeated action. If you've tended to do something for many years of your life, you have to make a determined, consistent effort to replace that behaviour with another one. Reinforcing the new behaviour can take a long time... Months, even years.

Prayer, affirmation, meditation or just plain wishful thinking will not make lasting changes, although they may inspire the initial effort to make a change. If a new path is not reinforced with actions, it probably won't "take".

Re: Some Random Thoughts on Love, Sex and Governor Sanford- ExChristian.Net - Articles

Posted: 04 Jul 2009 04:57 PM PDT

All I know is that "love is a many splendored thing". However one describes it it is a great thing to have in one's life.

Re: PAUL'S AND JESUS' MORAL FALLACIES - ExChristian.Net - Articles

Posted: 04 Jul 2009 04:46 PM PDT

Jon,

I can walk alongside you a bit with your statements about the ineffability of god -- where to me god is a metaphor for 1) an ineffable reality we can only struggle to begin to know 2) a mental construct which reflects the deepest existential human desires and greater aspirations of humanity Or 3) the Ground of Being in the sense of Paul Tillich. I don't use the word god as anything other than a metaphor. I don't believe in god as a being or a person that communicates with humanity.

I also see a crucial role for nature in considering ethical and moral constructs. I believe that nature provides us analogs for possible human ethical behaviors that we can use as springboards for discourse about how to live the good life or how to do the right thing. I don't think that nature provides hard and fast moral laws - only insights we can gain through science or a critical analysis of an issue from which to form ethical principles.

I commend any effort to lead people away from the bible as the sole source for spiritual authority ("spiritual" being a metaphor for the journey toward being a more competent, compassionate,authentic and insightful human) and seeing the bible and all sacred writings in their true light - contributing raw data in an attempt to understand humanity's epoch journey to understand the world around them.

While I don't necessarily disagree with you about the fact that the "ethical content" is within the person, I don't think from the text of the Romans 1:18-30 that Paul is teaching that. He doesn't provide us with much of a natural theology. While he does pull snippets of ideas from deists, stoics and other greek thinkers, I think he only does so to the extent it serves his christo-centric theistic agenda.

Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful comments. I've enjoyed this exchange.

OB '63

Re: PAUL'S AND JESUS' MORAL FALLACIES - ExChristian.Net - Articles

Posted: 04 Jul 2009 04:00 PM PDT

The answer to "What exactly are people supposed to know about god by observing nature?" should not be "clear cut". God is ineffable in the sense that you know what you know (about God) but it is really impossible to put what you know into words.

Nature does not teach us about Yahweh or Jesus because Yahweh and Jesus are not God, they are images, masks, ideas of God.

The "ethical content" is in you. You are part of nature. We also learn about ethics (how to live) from both the positive and negative examples of other people around us. Other people are also a part of nature. I believe we do need to be saved from our own sins but we need to save ourselves by understanding ourselves. In this sense and in perhaps every sense, God is nothing more than the things about ourselves we do not understand or acknowledge. The Gospel, therefore, is symbolically true but the traditional Christian spin on the gospel is false. There is, for example, no literal Hell we go to when we die. Hell is a place we create for ourselves here on earth.

As for God: we all have equal access. Religions are helpful when they are properly apprehended as an imperfect road map. When a religion is held to be the perfect or only representation of God on earth, the religion becomes incredibly destructive to spiritual development and the associated religious practice becomes nothing more than idol worship. So, yes, "a pagan in deepest darkest Africa" can be "saved". He has his own path, as do you and I. And, IMHO, all religion is a speculative ad hoc solution.

Finally, by quoting Paul, I did not intend to endorse some version of Christianity. I am accustomed to debating the Bible with the practitioners of Sola Scriptura and so I find Biblical passages which lead the reader out of the Bible very helpful (anti-Christian, even). I only wish there were more such passages.

Re: PAUL'S AND JESUS' MORAL FALLACIES - ExChristian.Net - Articles

Posted: 04 Jul 2009 03:16 PM PDT

Well, yeah, the burnt toast thing is just silly. But such "phenomenon" is not what I meant to refer to. I was trying to say that in Romans 1:20 Paul was endorsing the idea of Deism. And, as we are also "created things", Paul was also, whether inadvertently or not, endorsing the Greek maxim "know thyself."

Paul also frees us from religion in two other passages: 1) "work out your own salvation in fear and trembling" and 2) "The New Testament is not of the letter but of the Spirit."

I take the latter text (along with several other pieces of evidence) to mean that Christianity was never meant to be transmitted via text. It was meant to be transmitted via face to face contact, from person to person. There was never supposed to be a written New Testament. Henceforth, Christianity was not originally meant to be the legalistic, literalist abomination we see today.

As for god: I agree, "this god", the incarnate creator of the universe who comes to earth to commit death by centurion and then rise from the dead did not and does not exist. That's not the God I am talking about.

Re: Religion is Mental Illness - ExChristian.Net - Articles

Posted: 04 Jul 2009 02:44 PM PDT

Aw, shucks! Thanks ATF!

I try to contribute to the discussions when I can.

I must say I enjoy your prolific posts.

I have even adopted your parenthetical post scripts in my emails and posts in other venues!

OB '63

Re: Evolution vs. Creation - ExChristian.Net - Articles

Posted: 04 Jul 2009 02:16 PM PDT

2000feet,

Without re-reading everything, it had seemed to me that Parse is just far more sure about the Big Bang Theory being correct, than Rasputin wishes to 'sign up for'.

Putting their difference of opinion aside, I have no valid reason at this point to doubt that the Big Bang is the correct explanation for where our visible universe came from.

However, one thing I'm sure about, is that if this present scientific theory is found to be incorrect at some future date, I'm darn sure it won't be replaced with one that points to a universe creating god or race of super aliens, as the who-done-did-it culprit.

ATF (Who is willing to put much trust in such well thought out theories, until someone reputable can demonstrate otherwise to me)

Posted by Anonymous at 12:00 AM
Posts Relacionados

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

  ©Template by Dicas Blogger.

  

Vida de bombeiro Recipes Informatica Humor Jokes Mensagens Curiosity Saude Video Games Car Blog Animals Diario das Mensagens Eletronica Rei Jesus News Noticias da TV Artesanato Esportes Noticias Atuais Games Pets Career Religion Recreation Business Education Autos Academics Style Television Programming Motosport Humor News The Games Home Downs World News Internet Car Design Entertaimment Celebrities 1001 Games Doctor Pets Net Downs World Enter Jesus Variedade Mensagensr Android Rub Letras Dialogue cosmetics Genexus Car net Só Humor Curiosity Gifs Medical Female American Health Madeira Designer PPS Divertidas Estate Travel Estate Writing Computer Matilde Ocultos Matilde futebolcomnoticias girassol lettheworldturn topdigitalnet Bem amado enjohnny produceideas foodasticos cronicasdoimaginario downloadsdegraca compactandoletras newcuriosidades blogdoarmario