I no longer believe

Post Reply New Topic

Going by his age as listed, he was a teenager when he started playing it. It's especially fun at that age.

Oh, perseverance is VERY Biblical. So Biblical that Calvinism has it as one of the five main TULIP doctrines.

Perseverance for salvation, however, is NOT Biblical (at least NT-wise).



That one is more an emotional argument, yes. But I did list other reasons, too.

Then what IS faith in your own definition?

Read those two above within their context.

I'm not sure I understand your question.

Don't worry, I will still take you seriously as long as you don't put me in a position in which the only way to prove my point is to use humor.

But just because I take your arguments seriously (at least at some times) doesn't mean I take your beliefs seriously.

I mean, just look at the account of Adam and Eve in Genesis. You expect me (a person finally free from the clutches of Christian delusion) to still take this seriously?

A woman that's created out of man's rib, a talking snake, some forbidden tree, and so on.

You expect me to take that seriously?

It's unbelievable enough that man actually listened to woman for once ... and look what happened when he did, lol.

How do you know I was still a teenager when I began?

What if the age you see listed is actually the inverse of my actual age (72)?

Or what if 10 years ago, I was 37 ... not 17? Maybe I go down in age as time progresses!

Simon says:

Again, I simply disagree. From what I have seen, everyone goes through a point in their lives where the question the status quo of the society and culture they grew up in. Now, that may well be different outside the US, but from what I've heard it isn't except in countries where people get killed for such actions. And even then there are people who rebel. Cults don't target young people because they are impressionable: they do it because young people are in the rebel stage.

But that aside, rejecting a religion just because it's not the one you grew up with is evidence of a deeper concern. I've studied religions from all over the world because I want to worship the right God. Christianity has given, IMHO, the best "theory", if you will, of God. Is someone who would reject a foreign religion simply because it is not the one they grew up with really interested at all in knowing God, or are they just practicing their religion as a social club?

Orwell:

Missionaries do not condemn anyone per se. Ultimately the people make a decision. I'll say the same thing to you that I said to Simon: Is someone who would reject a religion simply because they didn't grow up with it really interested in knowing God? If failure to convert is the missionary's fault, well if they preached the religion wrong then I'd guess that that probably wouldn't be held against those who rejected the religion. But if the missionary did everything right...

I've got an eyebrow raised at your comment about Christian missionaries being ineffective. It went from being a religion viewed by most as a sinister cult endemic to Judea and Greece to being the biggest religion in the world in less than 2,000 years. That strikes me as pretty successful.

If they live in a society where the local belief is very heavily ingrained into the culture, and where they risk social ostracism or even death for even considering other faiths, then you can hardly blame them for not being interested. Perhaps they grew up learning one side of the story, and had always been taught that Christianity meant one thing, and weren't interested in it based on that.


That was largely becauase of the power and influence of the Roman state after the Emperor converted. But historical issues aside, in modern times missionaries do not do so well at gaining converts.

Let me ask you this: when Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons come banging on youjr door, do you stop what you're doing and sit down to talk to them, seriously considering their theology?

which makes them impressionable.



just practicing their religion as a social club. magic isn't real. what else do you think you're doing?



yes, people don't reject your religion because they have their own. they reject your religion because they're hellfire-deserving a**holes. definitely an intelligent and healthy perspective.



which christian sect is the biggest religion in the world, specifically? is it the catholics? the lutherans? southern (u.s.) baptists? methodists? church of england? is it the calvanists? i used to hear a lot about how the mormon church was the fastest growing, is that still true? is that as important, less important, or more important than being the biggest, when it comes to determining "the truth?"

the only reason you're not a practicing scientologist is that your thetans are holding you back.

that statement is no more ridiculous than everything else you're spouting.

Many people have converted at risk of death before. Being fed lies is another issue altogether. I'm not sure I know what the protocol for that would be. Though one could say that letting that stifle your curiosity is a mistake. I've studied Islam a little. Not much granted, but a little.



Conversions of european barbarians continued well after the fall of rome, and no, it wasn't all sword-point. granted a lot of it was converting a king the talky way and then the king converting his subjects at sword point, but still.

And I heard that Constantine wasn't really a Christian, but pretended to convert because so much of the legion had converted that it was the only way he could win their favor. That said it was a history channel documentary, and nothing the history channel says can be taken at face value, and I would want to judge a man like Constantine based on something they said. But consider the possibilities:

1. Constantine Converted to win the favor of the legions, who missionaries had converted. Thus making Christian missionaries effective
2. Constantine was Converted by Christian missionaries, thus making Christian missionaries effective
3. Constantine was converted by a vision from God, thus making wether or not Christian missionaries are effective somewhat irrelevant because the Christian God is the right one.

I've talked with them a little, but they usually come at a bad time. I've studied their religions a little and found them to be full of misinterpretations though. I've got some pamplets handed out by them I might read someday.

But just because I take your arguments seriously (at least at some times) doesn't mean I take your beliefs seriously.

MCalavera -

Until I spell them out, which I have barely begun to do, we got us no idea do you take my beliefs seriously.

Credo - primary the so-styled Nicene. Start from there.

Distinguish between strongly evidenced and internalized primes; extrapolations and high probabilities; material not clearly evidenced but not strongly counterevidenced, and a few other layers.

Anyway, my experience shows women influence male behavior a LOT more of the time than you would think.

Yes, I am pretty sure that bit was a joke, not totally obtuse here.

Did you know, cultures that have a BIG difference between men's language and women's language the boys talk woman talk till they hit significant age?

Waltur:

Wether or not it makes them impressionable depends on the person and why they're rebelling.

If you're just going to keep saying religion isn't real there's no point n having this discussion. It only makes since to even have this conversation if, if only for the sake of the discussion, we assume one religion is real.

Is that what I said? no it is not.

I never said size mattered. I said that Christian missionaries where successful. Sect is irrelevant in this particular discussion.

The Creed is based on what the Scriptures state.

But is every single event the Scriptures state true?

Did Jesus really rise from the dead?

Maybe he did, but where is the conclusive evidence that he did.

Our current evidence shows that people (once completely dead) do not supernaturally rise from the dead. So we need evidence that our current evidence is flawed.

Second-hand details of third-hand witness accounts are NOT conclusive evidence.

Okay - where is the first hand documentation of the Big Bang? Move it up a bit - first hand documentation of dinosaurs? [frozen pachyderms I can buy, but big chunks somebody carved out of rock and SAID they was fossil bone? Or move it up more - first hand documentation of your grandfather's birth? Obama's birth? [Yes, I do believe he was born].

Say you don't buy into it as much as you like. But do yourself a favor and don't diss the evidence for what I believe [and you clearly do not get WHY I buy into the creed] until you can stand up and assert that everything you believe is resting on solid rock proof.

I will tell you now - unless you are God or have been getting a lot of private revelation - it ain't.

Well, that's your perspective.

My perspective is that most people are lazy and just believe their local superstitions because it's convenient and easy. They'll often claim that they did their research and found that local old time religion just happened to be right for them because of x,y or z. But I rarely believe them.

You don't see nations rapidly changing their religious demographics year over year because people arent really reasoning their way to specific faiths. Ive listened to self-righteous lectures on many different continents. They all sound the same to me. And in almost every case they are defending the religion of their parents, their tribe or their nation.