Any atheists here who were once believers?

[wegs]

It's hard to say if Mary had twins, because there were gospels (other stories) purposely omitted from the Bible, when it was initially composed.
I see now where you're going with this...

But, at the end of the day...I once made a lot of excuses for the Bible's um...'errors.' Likewise, you too will have to make excuses for it, as you are already, in order to believe it.

I keep saying this, but please know...my desire isn't to talk you out of your beliefs. It's just to get you (and others) to see that the Bible has a lot of problems within it...problems that 'faith' can't resolve.

Charles Darwin systematically approached his doubts about Christianity, by first reviewing the OT, and then the NT...denoucning them, respectively. Once we strip away the Bible, and the trappings of religious dogma...we are left with the question of if God exists at all. I'm not willing to say that I don't believe he exists, but now, I just don't have to know. If he exists, he is unfathomable. Man in his desperate attempt to control everything around him, feels that he knows who God is ...so much so...a book was written about him. Do we suppose that Jesus was a blond hair man with blue eyes, as so often is depicted of him? lol He was born in the middle east, doubtful he had blond hair and blue eyes. But, people will excuse that and say...'well, that's an artist's interpretation.' Really?

No, it's man's way of having to control his surroundings, and his need to make sense of everything. I no longer need to make sense of God. Therefore, whether Mary was a virgin or not...is a moot point (to me).

 

[Robittybob1]

It's hard to say if Mary had twins, because there were gospels (other stories) purposely omitted from the Bible, when it was initially composed.
I see now where you're going with this...

But, at the end of the day...I once made a lot of excuses for the Bible's um...'errors.' Likewise, you too will have to make excuses for it, as you are already, in order to believe it.
I keep saying this, but please know...my desire isn't to talk you out of your beliefs. It's just to get you (and others) to see that the Bible has a lot of problems within it...problems that 'faith' can't resolve.

Thanks wegs - for once you say "It's hard to say if Mary had twins", you will get it too. I'm sure you will.

 

[wegs]

Thanks wegs - for once you say "It's hard to say if Mary had twins", you will get it too. I'm sure you will.

lol And maybe you will 'get' that it doesn't matter one way or the other. Your desire to prove the Bible in error in a few spots now, shows me that you don't fully believe what you believe.

 

[wegs]

Assuming God exists, you are connected to Him. There is no way that you aren't.
The Bible basically tells the story of a praticular linage

I read your entire set of replies, and I'll come back to them later...but wanted to touch on this point you make, Jan. I don't disagree, IF one takes the Bible without believing it to be literal. The unfortunate truth of Christianity, is that the OT and NT are taught as dogma. Ive been a Christian all my life, and the Bible isn't taught as a history book. It's taught as religious dogma. Genesis is taught to be read with literal interpretation, as the rest of it. And that's fine. But, where it becomes a problem is...it now butts heads with science. Back when it was written, there wasn't a remote thought to evolution. The Catholic Church sidesteps this, by saying that well...God gives people souls, and he permitted humans to evolve. Okay...then who was Adam and Eve? Christianity teaches that they were the first humans on earth. Imagine if you attended a course at a local college, and the professor didn't answer any questions, or worse... didn't accept any. Whether you 'got' what he was trying to teach or not, too bad...he's not taking questions. That's why religion is a problem. It doesn't encourage its members to question the validity of things. It just drones on, and if you don't accept it...guess you're not a 'believer.'

Religion is gross disrespect of one's personhood. That's why it's a problem.

 

[Robittybob1]

lol And maybe you will 'get' that it doesn't matter one way or the other. Your desire to prove the Bible in error in a few spots now, shows me that you don't fully believe what you believe.

I know I'm out there on my own, so there is some degree of uncertainty, but on one issue I'm certain and that is Jesus was the firstborn of a set of twins.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Exactly I think your getting it.
Exactly. Therefore they would not be part of any group, would they. The very definition of individual, is. "a single human being as distinct from a group: a distinctive or original person. " So a person who is part of a group and one that follows the doctrines and tenets of said group is in no way being an individual, nor using "Critical Thinking" as they are following a group mentality.
Hence why it is that if they were to follow any one of these "republican/democrat/liberal/conservative/theist" they would be failing as an individual and failing at using Critically Thinking skills. Thus they would be "Sheople" This is why I ask "are you sure"?.

geeser, sorry that you read so much better than I can compose! My bad!
I will not bother you with any more simple stuff that I explain wrong. I should learn to read like you. then maybe I could figure out what I type is the opposite of what you claim to read.

geeser, if it would not be asking to much of you, would you please not tell me what I say or said, just maybe quote my actual words!!

geeser, if you actually read them word for word...never mind...I guess I really do get it.
Just pretty sure that you have no idea what the "it" is, that I am getting!

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Most people are not sheople. Most people think for themselves. The whole concept is just a way of insulting "everyone else", so that a few people can feel better.

Meh!!!

 

[Robittybob1]

Meh!!!

Yes YOU too!

 

[wynn]

I read your entire set of replies, and I'll come back to them later...but wanted to touch on this point you make, Jan. I don't disagree, IF one takes the Bible without believing it to be literal. The unfortunate truth of Christianity, is that the OT and NT are taught as dogma. Ive been a Christian all my life, and the Bible isn't taught as a history book. It's taught as religious dogma. Genesis is taught to be read with literal interpretation, as the rest of it. And that's fine. But, where it becomes a problem is...it now butts heads with science. Back when it was written, there wasn't a remote thought to evolution. The Catholic Church sidesteps this, by saying that well...God gives people souls, and he permitted humans to evolve. Okay...then who was Adam and Eve? Christianity teaches that they were the first humans on earth. Imagine if you attended a course at a local college, and the professor didn't answer any questions, or worse... didn't accept any. Whether you 'got' what he was trying to teach or not, too bad...he's not taking questions. That's why religion is a problem. It doesn't encourage its members to question the validity of things. It just drones on, and if you don't accept it...guess you're not a 'believer.'

Religion is gross disrespect of one's personhood. That's why it's a problem.

You're still the kind of Christian you used to be, apparently. Because like that kind of Christians, you still think and speak as if that kind of Christianity would be the alpha and omega of religion.

You're doing a disservice to yourself, to others, and to religion.

 

[wynn]

The argument for why theists cannot believe in evolution has yet to be made effectively. So far we only have people pretending that it's so obvious there's no need to explain.

Evolution explains the bodily form as the defining feature of a living being. Some forms of theism strictly oppose that.

Although some doctrines in Christianity are actually close to the theory of evolution, given that according to those doctrines, living beings including humans are not necessary beings (but contingent, and could also not exist, while God is thought of as a necessary being), and animals and plants don't have souls.

In some schools of Hinduism, such Christian thinking is not possible, as there, it is believed that the body is just the external, temporary shell of an eternal soul that exists as a necessary being (and that souls can live in various kinds of bodies, notably human, animal or plant).

Which is how on principle, someone claiming to be a Christian can believe in TOE and not be in discord with Christian doctrine.

 

[wynn]

I have explored other spiritual 'ideas' over the past few years, and I've come to the conclusion that they all lead to the same place...people trying to tell others what to believe, as it relates to God.
/.../
But, to lock one's self into one school of thought, to me...creates problems.

And from what position have you approached those other religious/spiritual traditions?

Have you felt like an equal to other members of those traditions, or like an outsider, or like an outcast, or like a potential cult member, or a doormat, or as someone who knows better than they do ...?

It's interesting you say this...I've turned to my faith all my life, in times of suffering. The good news is, I felt a sense of peace during those times. The bad news is, it was only temporary. During my times of deep grief and sorrow over losing a loved one let's say, I never felt comforted by the 'idea' of heaven. ''So and so is in a better place, now,'' were often the words of well meaning friends and family who practiced Christianity. How do they know this? I don't appreciate anymore empty words of comfort, designed to make us feel better, and that's about it. In the end, those empty words don't produce anything worthwhile, at least in my own experience. So, theology is not 'required' in order to press on despite hardship, it's just something believers convince themselves of, to make sense out of sorrow and pain. (my opinion only)

As long as you limit yourself to that one kind of Christianity - that one kind of Christianity is all you will get. And yes, that can be insufficient for some individuals, in this case, you, but it may be enough for others.


Some possible explanations are that you were desperately trying to fit in, fearing socio-economic exclusion and even eternal punishment (and therefore thought that "If this faith is enough for others, then it has to be enough for me"); and also, that you were trying to be humble ("I shouldn't be asking for more; this faith, this understanding should be enough").

So, theology is not 'required' in order to press on despite hardship, it's just something believers convince themselves of, to make sense out of sorrow and pain. (my opinion only)

Yes, it's your opinion. How many believers have you talked to about this?

Strong agnosticism is effectively the same as strong atheism.

how do you mean?

To borrow a succint analogy that another poster once posted: Whether you believe there is no bus to come to the bus station, or whether you belive you cannot possibly know whether there will be a bus coming to the station, either way, you won't go to the bus station and won't wait for the bus, and thus won't get on the bus, even if the bus would come.

 

[wegs]

@ wynn;

(In reply to post #229)

Nah, not at all. While I was a Christian for a number of years, I feel all religions wind up with the same problem. If God exists, he doesn't need religion to "find" him.

A page or so back, you suggest other concepts to explore, and to me, religion/spirituality isn't something you "test drive" to see how you like it. Or something to be "shopped" until you find that right fit. Although, I've been greatly intrigued by Buddhism for the past year or so.

If you believe that religion serves a valid purpose or is required to seeking God, that's your choice. I don't feel that way, and not because I've ever construed Christianity as being the Alpha and the Omega. But because I don't believe in the need for religion or a need to know if God exists, at all. I'm open to the possibilities of a god, but I'm not interested in proving him to myself or anyone.

My reasons for leaving the need to have religion in my life, make sense to me. You get to a point where you have to stop living on a fence, which I had been, afraid to leave the familiar for the unknown.

I'm merely sharing where I'm at with my view of faith, religion and life...and appreciate the feedback people have to offer.

 

[wegs]

Wynn;

I want you to know, your feedback has been appreciated. I do have to think and search to understand and this hasn't been an easy thing for me so to "talk it out" with people who don't know me personally, I find that type of feedback the most honest. Anyway, thanks.

 

[wynn]

Nah, not at all. While I was a Christian for a number of years, I feel all religions wind up with the same problem.

You feel it, yes.

If God exists, he doesn't need religion to "find" him.

How would you know that?? You don't even know whether God exists, but you're sure religion is not needed to find God!

A page or so back, you suggest other concepts to explore, and to me, religion/spirituality isn't something you "test drive" to see how you like it. Or something to be "shopped" until you find that right fit.

Why not?

If you believe that religion serves a valid purpose or is required to seeking God, that's your choice. I don't feel that way, and not because I've ever construed Christianity as being the Alpha and the Omega. But because I don't believe in the need for religion or a need to know if God exists, at all.

Yet your reasoning here in these threads is characteristically shaped by that particular kind of Christianity you used to be involved with.
Had you left behind a different religion, I am sure you wouldn't talk this way.

I'm open to the possibilities of a god,

but I'm not interested in proving him to myself or anyone.

Sheesh, you've said this so many times that I'm starting to suspect you're trying to convince yourself of this to begin with.

 

[wegs]

How would you know that?? You don't even know whether God exists, but you're sure religion is not needed to find God!




Why not?




Yet your reasoning here in these threads is characteristically shaped by that particular kind of Christianity you used to be involved with.
Had you left behind a different religion, I am sure you wouldn't talk this way.




Sheesh, you've said this so many times that I'm starting to suspect you're trying to convince yourself of this to begin with.

If you have been involved with a particular faith, or religion all of your life, and for a few years, you start changing direction...it can feel strange. If you have your life all figured out, I envy you. I sure don't.

 

[wynn]

One more thing -

I find, from personal experience, that thinking about religion and religious people as something insidous, the enemy, something very powerful but sinister - thinking this way justifies one to rebel against religion and the religious, to criticize them or to at least distance oneself from them. But it also perpetuates the rebellion, along with a state of constant anxiety and revenge. Which is not a fun place to be in.
So one would do best to find such a context, and such an explanation according to which everyone is eventually happy. Finding such might prove difficult, though.

 

[Magical Realist]

I find, from personal experience, that thinking about religion and religious people as something insidous, the enemy, something very powerful but sinister - thinking this way justifies one to rebel against religion and the religious, to criticize them or to at least distance oneself from them. But it also perpetuates the rebellion, along with a state of constant anxiety and revenge. Which is not a fun place to be in.

Fascism. Racism. Antisemitism. Homophobia. Sexism. Also insidious and sinister ideologies/value systems. But that doesn't mean one is rebelling against them or out for revenge against them. Honesty sometimes requires you recognize that delusion and bigotry are just THAT--delusion and bigotry. Religion is a soul-poisoning addiction that feeds off of fear and human weakness. It drains us of life energy with neurotic fantasies of moral perfection and approval before an exacting and judgemental father figure. It enslaves the mind with superstition and paralyzes the heart with a shame and insecurity more suited for a child of three that for a maturing adult. Calling it "enemy" is a major step in moving beyond it into real authentic living. After a while you won't even think about it anymore. It's called moving on and getting over it.

http://www.theperspectivesofnietzsche.com/nietzsche/nchrist.html

 

[Jan Ardena]

wegs,

Assuming God exists, you are connected to Him. There is no way that you aren't.
The Bible basically tells the story of a praticular linage

I read your entire set of replies, and I'll come back to them later...but wanted to touch on this point you make, Jan. I don't disagree, IF one takes the Bible without believing it to be literal.

If one doesn't take the Bible literally, how can one understand what is written?
How do you conclude that Mary couldn't have been pregnant without having sexual intercourse, or somehow came into contact with sperm, if you didn't take it literally.

The unfortunate truth of Christianity, is that the OT and are taught as dogma.

Then let's not include Christianity. I'm cool with that if you are.

Ive been a Christian all my life, and the Bible isn't taught as a history book. It's taught as religious dogma. Genesis is taught to be read with literal interpretation, as the rest of it. And that's fine. But, where it becomes a problem is...it now butts heads with science.

Same as above.

Back when it was written, there wasn't a remote thought to evolution.

The process of evolution (similar to darwinian) is nothing new. In vedic literature it is understood that the soul transmigrates from one body to another, going from simple to complex, and the human form is the gateway through which the spirit-soul can be liberated from this process and go back to it's essential, original state.

The Catholic Church sidesteps this, by saying that well...God gives people souls, and he permitted humans to evolve.

So why accept a speculative explanation when we can understand how people came about through the Bible?

Okay...then who was Adam and Eve? Christianity teaches that they were the first humans on earth.

They were the first something, but people? That's illogical.
It assumes that Caine married a woman who was him sister (as Abel was killed).
It assumes that Caine got married, built a city, and waited till he had enough children to populate it.
It assumes that Caine was frightened of his yet unborn off-spring that would eventually rise up and kill him because he was a marked man.
I'm sure if I could be bothered, I could come up with loads more oddments but I'm sure you get my drift.

Imagine if you attended a course at a local college, and the professor didn't answer any questions, or worse... didn't accept any. Whether you 'got' what he was trying to teach or not, too bad...he's not taking questions. That's why religion is a problem. It doesn't encourage its members to question the validity of things. It just drones on, and if you don't accept it...guess you're not a 'believer.'

You're talking about a small section, not the whole thing.
You're free to broaden your perspective now. Why not take advantage?

Religion is gross disrespect of one's personhood. That's why it's a problem.

Obviously not everyone thinks so. Are you saying you are right and anyone who doesn't think like you are mistaken?
If not, then what is the purpose of these massive, gigantic claims?

jan.

 

[Billy T]

If one doesn't take the Bible literally, how can one understand what is written?
How do you conclude that Mary couldn't have been pregnant without having sexual intercourse, or somehow came into contact with sperm, if you didn't take it literally....

I have not read much here, not even your full post, but the above caught my eye.

The word "virgin" now means without sexual penetration, but the Hebrew word (and Greek as parts of bible were first in Greek, I think) it comes from did not mean that when bible was written. Most scholars agree it meant: "young woman." There are dozens of texts from the period where this is clear from context. Just to make one up as I'm not a language scholar. Texts that translate into English like: "The virgin and her husband worked together from sun up until sun down in their field while her mother cared for their two young children."

To use a more modern example of how meaning of words evolves, even within one language, consider "Lady." Only a couple of hundred years ago "Lady" clearly referred to (and only to) a Lord's wife. Now the cop is fully correct when he calls this report in: "Send the wagon to Fourth and Vine. There is a drunk lady lying in the gutter there."

 

[Balerion]

If one doesn't take the Bible literally, how can one understand what is written?
How do you conclude that Mary couldn't have been pregnant without having sexual intercourse, or somehow came into contact with sperm, if you didn't take it literally.

You betray your ignorance here. The bible is a collection of stories by many different authors over a long period of time, rather than a single volume. No one with any understanding of the origins of scripture would believe for a second that they're all meant literally.

The process of evolution (similar to darwinian) is nothing new. In vedic literature it is understood that the soul transmigrates from one body to another, going from simple to complex, and the human form is the gateway through which the spirit-soul can be liberated from this process and go back to it's essential, original state.

That's not evolution.