Do you believe that God thinks? Do you believe that God had a goal(s) in creating the universe? Do you believe that God expects anything of his creations? If you answered "Yes", then explain why God wouldn't have emotions.

He is even making a list!
Christains,
Atheist,
and used to be Christains

Reminds me of the Nazis, when they made their lists!

I actually requested a copy of his list when he completes it. It helps in a "religous" debate to know what side of the fence they lean on. I have learned through reading these posts for the last couple of weeks what angles to avoid in these debates. Like I said in his thread, I am not going to use Bible verses to try to convice Abra or JB that my arguement is valid. They don't believe in the Bible so it would be like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

I will let Tribo answer my question about weather or not he hates me but I am pretty sure his answer will be "no". I don't think he REALLY hates Christians. I think he detests the theology and the extremists that try to shove it down his throat and scare him into heaven with the hell, fire and brimestone sermons. And personally....I don't blame anyone who hates that. I am a Christian and I hate that. It serves noone, let alone Christ.

Have I got that right Tribo?

Jesus preached several "hellfire and brimestone" sermons. Matthew 5:22-30 and Mark 9:43-47 are good examples. Jesus believed in and warned of hell, why shouldn't todays preachers do the same?

Preachers should...depending upon who they are talking to.

It's all about knowing your audience. "Hellfire and Brimestone" isn't going to work on Tribo. Evangelizing in general isn't going to work on him. I suggest dust your feet and move on.

Jesus knew his audience. He was the ultimate preacher. He was the only one on EARTH qualified to judge other people and yet he DIDN'T. If HE didn't, who are we to?

Interesting choice Matthew 5:22 is talking about if you are angry with your brother you will be sent to hell. That means you must FORGIVE before you can come on to him. BETTER YET...don't judge at all!

While we are at it....reread Mark 43 but back up to 40....
40 The person who is not against us is for us.

Tribo hasn't corrected me yet in saying he doesn't hate christians but only their actions. So therefore he is not against us. I don't see the need for a "Hellfire and Brimestone" sermon.

Please note that Mark 9:40 says "The person who is not against us is for us." NOT "The person who is NOT WITH US is against us. VERY IMPORTANT DISTINCTION!!

You sure you arent Tribo?
Its almost like you're talking for him.

AND PLEASE DO NOT COME BACK HERE QUOTING MORE BIBLE VERSES! I will just thump you back on the head with your own bible. That is not the intention of this thread!

I want to hear from them about the hows and why's people decided not to believe.

Can we try not to give them MORE reasons in the process?

No I'm pretty sure I am Cherub.
Your right...I shouldn't speak for Tribo...Sorry Tribo
However, I do stand behind what I said....all of it.

I understand the "be fishers of men" theology but I'm not sure that I agree with it. Even if it is valid, I STRONGLY disagree with how MOST people go about it. It has been my experience that MOST tactics end up pushing people further away from Christ rather than closer.

That preacher cannot decide who goes to hell or not. I cannot believe that is your only reason for leaving christianity. Not all preachers say that.

The beginning of the end was the christian congregation itself. I was a Lutheran and heavily involved in my church when I was young and helped found groups within the church. For anyone unfamiliar Lutherans stress the love and acceptance of God. There was in incident where during service some children who were non christian or not required to attend church were playing in the church playground. It is my belief that a house of God belongs to the children of God which includes everyone. If we built a playground it should be open to the community. The adults and even my sister disagreed stating the children could come inside and join service or leave. They reasoned that it was too much of a temptation or torture for the children attending service. I personally thought the congregation had a responsibility to explain to it's own children in the congregation about the choice of attending service and ensure that they enjoyed it rather than forbid others to use the playground. The entire incident implied duplicity to me. If the children had to be protected from outside thought or influence and held against their will they were not willing attendies.

Another incident that happened around the same time involved "Sunday school". One of the teachers went into theological discussion and was teaching finer points of belief. He posed a question. I asked that the question be repeated and clarified. I then answered with my personal belief about the answer and he told me I was wrong. I at that point realized that there was something wrong with the overall makeup of christian congregations because they form based on personal belief, but then teach the children or insist that others agree with their personal understanding.

Later I tried to return, but found that my understanding of a higher power had changed and evolved enough so that if I entered the chapel during service I would start to hyper ventilate because my body knew I was opposing my personal belief. At that time I was about sixteen years old.

So far as what originally made me start examining the church it was a teacher. I was attending a private Baptist school and regularly had debates with the bible class teacher because our views of God as a Lutheran and a Baptist were completely opposed. She taught fear and seperatism and I had been brought up taught the love and acceptance of God. It made me start to examine closely the behaviors of congregations. It was another teacher at the same school that once posed a question to use that I heard a rumor she was later fired for. The question was do you believe what you believe because it is in your heart, or because you were taught to believe it? The discussion lasted for some time and when it started I thought I was on firm ground having a different view from the Baptists I was surrounded by. By the end of the discussion she had made her point to me personally.

Over the years this question served me well driving me to seek the truth of understanding my own existence and my own personal beliefs. My understanding has evolved and the more it lead me towards acceptance of individual belief, the more it lead me away from accepting those that attempt to force their beliefs on othes regardless of what relgiion they consider themselves to follow.

I'm all for relgion, spirituality, and each person seeking spiritual progression. I'm against conformity of the soul, spiritual or cultural slavery, and the use of pressure or threats to attempt to change another's views. I am also set dead against those that justify hatred and seperatism as religeous duty.

no sweet cherub in fact only you and feralcatlady heve rsponses in the last post i made that were what i deem logical responses to what i was really trying ro accoplish - have no wrries - you are well thought of - FCL also and even morningstarthough we may fet testy in our answers - especially me -

i have no qualm's with you Fanta, i understand your hate for me, but just know i will not be put off of what information cherub seeks or others more willing to try understanding others who they dont deem a threat to their belief's - i am not here to "change" anybody's mind on there christianity, nor do i believe i have any "powers to do so. If you do feel that way though - i would seriously contemplate your own faith and how sure you are right? For i nor abra or jellybean or other's seem to have any doubt in what they believe? or fear of someone influencing them to the point of walking away from their belief's, it would seem to me that if your positive that this god you believe in is who and what he/other's claim he is - then you would have no fear of me or anyone else's belief's being able to "snatch" someone away from him - " he who is in me is "greater than he who is in the world" - correct fanta? you can keep osting what you will but i will not respond anymore to you - i would like as much as possible to keep cherub's post on track since mine was not - so if you love your sister in christ - let it be so - ok?

Ok Tribo and I are decidedly different people and may have very different views. In spite of this I understand a lot of what he has posted. Being opposed to mindless religious dogma and convert or kill mentaility (culturally or physically) and not believing in religion are two completely different things.

I think at times his posts have indicated frustration and disgust with certain attitudes or could be read to indicate this reglardless of his intent. The truth is I myself have been guilty of the same and the reason is simple. For a Christian the most important concept should be their personal relationship with God. This is true of almost any belief system in essense. (debate of finer points is irrevelant this is the basis of religion) Seeing someone step in between someone and "God" as if they are superior, have direct conversations with God where they are told to interfere with the spirituality of others, or implying that they themselves are superior, closer to god, or even God itself can be very disturbing and fill one with disgust.

It's nothing personal or hateful but we as humans are occasionally subject to emotion or reaction. Some of us may shudder or be filled with disgust, or anger in facing religious seperatism or cultural discrimination because we place a high value on true spirituality, the true following of belief or "God", as well as having a reverence for the Divinity of all people. I equate religious bullying to have the same significance as physical rape, because I believe that that human spirit is divine. When someone tries to take away the spiritual freedom of others, critisize it, or pressure them to change their views I believe they are attempting spiritual rape. This is by far a worse crime than physical rape itself when commited by a Christian because it is in direct opposition to everything Christ taught. It completely boggles the mind to see Christians thumping a bible talking about the joy of acceptance and Christianity while thumbing their nose at Christ who they supposedly follow.

Tribo if I presumed anything here I apologize I can only speak for myself, and voice what I see as a similarity while realizing we may well have very different views and beliefs.

no to all - as i say i believe in a creative force that does nomore no less than bring about creation or the material to eventually allow the inevitable to happen - he/it doesnot interfere with anything past that.

Tribo wrote: no sweet cherub in fact only you and feralcatlady heve rsponses in the last post i made that were what i deem logical responses to what i was really trying ro accoplish - have no wrries - you are well thought of

Glad to hear it Tribo!

I think well of you too!

yes andno cherub - as to hating you or other christian "people" the answer is "no" as to fire and brimstone threats of hell - no - as to man's stupidity in trying to understand everything but himself and what he really is at his core - yes

Albert Einstien

" There are only two things i can think of that are infinite - the universe and man's stupidity - and i'm not sure about the universe."

hmmm did jesus write these hellfire sermon's himself? did "jesus" "write" anything contained in the bible?

Because I came the realization that it can't possible be true.



I was born and raised into the religion from birth. I was a 'believer' up to and including the time I was 'saved' in my teens. By 'saved' I merely mean that I went to the altar and accepted Jesus Christ as my lord and savior.

I confess that I didn't fully understand precisely what they meant in terms of the actual doctrine (the actual bible). Although I had gone to bible school and was taught the biblical stories I didn't fully understand the big picture. Other than the idea that God has rules, man is disobedient, all men are sinners, and they all need to seek salvation by accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and that he with then come into their lives and make a profound difference in their life.

That's basically all I was taught. I wasn't taught a perfectly logical understanding of how this all works and why it makes sense. That was deemed unnecessary. I was taught that the only thing that is required is that we accept Jesus as our Savior and HE will take care of all the details.

Fine, so I did that without asking for logical justification.

My questions concerning Christianity up to that point were purely innocent questions. I just wanted to better understand what God wants from us.



There were a tone of straws. Do I really need to point at just one of them. They all came together to produce an impossible load that broke any hope of continuing to believe in the biblical picture.

Some of them were,...

Nothing happened after I asked Jesus to come into my life. Nothing was any different. I didn't notice any profound change in my life. And I most certainly wasn't contacted by any extraterrestrial or spiritual being.

The other 'staws' came from the fact that I began to study the bible more intently after having been 'saved'. Not only did I want to better understand it for myself, but I also wanted to offer other people better explanations of God's word.

After all, even people in my very church (including preachers) would often state that there are things they just don't understand in the Bible and find hard to believe, but they just continue to have faith anyway. So I wanted to look into those things to see if I could understand them better. Perhaps I can help other people understand them better too. But what happened was that I simply saw why other people were having trouble believing certain things. They truly were incredulous and there were no explanation offered in the bible.



If I had to pick one thing, it would have to be the crucifixion of Jesus as a sacrificial lamb of God to pay for our sins via the flowing of his blood.

The question came up? Why was this necessary. Well the stupid answer is "Because men are sinful!"

But that's not meaningful answer. The real question is, "Who did this act pay for the sins of man?" Who was PAID by this act. You received PAYMENT from this human sacrifice. Who was being APPEASED?

Well, if you go back thought the bible it's the God of Abraham who demand blood sacrifices before he can forgive sins. That was already a 'straw' in its own right. Why should an all-wise and all-loving God demand blood sacrifices before he's willing to forgive sins? That has never been explained in the bible other than to suggest that his is just something that God arbitrarily chose to want to do. But why would an all-wise, all-loving God choose such an ugly act to pay for sins? Wouldn't it have been wiser to demand that men do something constructive and positive to pay for their sins. Why choose to have them slaughter animals every time they sin. What sense does that make? Why should God require that animals be slaughtered before he can forgive someone????

It makes utterly no sense to me and the bible doesn't offer a reasonable explanation for it. In fact, it makes much more sense that men would make up something like this based on superstition than it does to believe that a supreme all-loving, all-wise creator of this universe would want such an appeasement. So this got me realizing that men wrote the damn book based on their own superstitions.

Then we come back to Christ hanging on the cross and ask what he's doing there and how did he get there? Well, God sent him there specifically to be a sacrificial lamb to appease God so her can forgive men of their sins.

Yes, if I had to point to the straw that broke the camel's back this would have to be it. It's a totally hopeless situation of a God who can't forgive until he sees some animal or person being butchered.

WHAT????

God can't forgive unless someone is butchered?????

Where's the burn barrel? I need to toss this demented sadistic book away before it falls into the hands of innocent children!

It's a completely dead horse to me now. In fact, at the risk of sounding sadistic it actually appears more like a horse that has been nailed to a pole, butchered, skinned, and sold for dog food.

There's no reviving it now. The biblical picture is forever dead for me. It's utterly absurd and irreparably incredulous.

The Noah's ark story is similarly incredulous, and also relates to the story of the crucifixion indirectly. The story of Jesus claim that "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son to save it". Yet in Noah's day God so hated the world that he flooded the entire place out including the entire animal kingdom. He must have really been angry.

That just another contradiction. A supposedly unchanging God who at one point in history hate the world so much he floods it out, and in another point in history he loves the world so much he has himself nailed to a pole to appease himself?

The overall story is inconsistent. And therefore the God is inconsistent and thus undependable.



Not until I had already realized that the bible can't be true. But once I knew that the bible is a false picture of our creator I did search for a better philosophy of what god might be like. I never stopped believing that I have a creator. I never stopped believing that there is a spiritual essence to my being. I simply realized that the biblical stories can't be true.

I found a picture of 'god' in pantheism. Pantheism is the view that nature herself is god. That we are all manifestations of god. There is no specific doctrine that comes with this view. There are many books written on pantheistic views though. I personally found books by Allan Watts to be inspiring. However, there are many pantheistic views. The pantheistic view is basically that we are children of the universe, and the universe is a manifestation of god. We are all children of god. We all came from god, and we all return to god. I prefer to use lowercase for the word 'god' when speaking of god in this way because the pantheistic god is not an egotistical god. God wants nothing from you, she only wants to be your servant, not the other way around. Her love is truly unconditional and she is completely forgiving with no need for any blood sacrifices.

I only use the personal pronoun 'her' because I don't want to call god an 'it'. And I also think it's fitting since we have always traditionally referred to nature as female, (i.e. Mother Nature, Mother Earth).

I am completely happy with this view of god, and in fact, I feel a true relationship with god in this way. I can feel her beneath my feet, I feel her in the wind, I feel the warm of her light when I walk in the sun. She is in everything, including you and me. She is truly omniscient and has nothing but unconditional love for everyone.

I love her.

I LOVE THAT!!!!!!