# turned off  to religion Because???



## piratebob64 (Oct 17, 2013)

What better place to post this!

How many people have been turned or pushed away from mainstream christianity because of  overbearing, condesending christians who throw their veiws and religous  agendas up in your face as the only one true religion and condem all other religions as not christian  instead of being understanding. 

(this ought to be interesting)


----------



## TripleXBullies (Oct 17, 2013)

It is something that I dislike about the group and the RELIGION (YES, Religion) but it was not a major factor in my decision that the main concepts in the bible are most likely not true.


----------



## JFS (Oct 17, 2013)

If you believe it I think you are compelled to live it. 

I just can't see how sane rational people believe such nonsense.

For example http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/house-stenographer-holy-spirit-moved-me-98486.html

If she believes it she has to act.  But I don't believe it.


----------



## pnome (Oct 17, 2013)

piratebob64 said:


> What better place to post this!
> 
> How many people have been turned or pushed away from mainstream christianity because of  overbearing, condesending christians who throw their veiws and religous  agendas up in your face as the only one true religion and condem all other religions as not christian  instead of being understanding.
> 
> (this ought to be interesting)




I drifted away from my Catholic upbringing.  I really was only doing it because my parents made me.  I guess I still believed those things though.  But through college I just really stopped even thinking about religious matters.  Called myself agnostic. 

The real thing that took me from that to "anti-religious hardcore atheist" was 9/11.   I adopted a "pox on all your houses" attitude towards religion for a long time.

Now though, I'm sort of back to where I was.


----------



## centerpin fan (Oct 17, 2013)

piratebob64 said:


> How many people have been turned or pushed away from mainstream christianity because of  overbearing, condesending christians who throw their veiws and religous  agendas up in your face as the only one true religion and condem all other religions as not christian  instead of being understanding.



Who said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me"?

Hint:  it was not an overbearing, condescending Christian.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Oct 17, 2013)

Why can't I hear what she's saying??


----------



## David Parker (Oct 17, 2013)

I like the solemn rituals and such in the religion culture.  I like the music and singing and socializing.  I like it all, but can't let go of reason and don't want to let go of reason.  The only certainty in this world is me.  I am the only soul that will always be available and intent on my well-being.  I don't want to count on something like religion to get me through the day.  I don't need to be assured that there is a better home awaitin.  If something sucks now, the "other side" has no bearing on that in the here and now.  I'll address what needs to be addressed in the present and leave the future open for more options.


----------



## centerpin fan (Oct 17, 2013)

David Parker said:


> I like it all, but can't let go of reason and don't want to let go of reason.



Ditto.


----------



## piratebob64 (Oct 17, 2013)

*So*



centerpin fan said:


> Who said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me"?
> 
> Hint:  it was not an overbearing, condescending Christian.



So here we are again all other religions that do fit the confines of text as written in the bible are wrong!


----------



## hummdaddy (Oct 17, 2013)

i am more christian acting with my form of deism,than most christian's  are trying to be christian....does that make sense?


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 17, 2013)

David Parker said:


> I like the solemn rituals and such in the religion culture.  I like the music and singing and socializing.  I like it all, but can't let go of reason and don't want to let go of reason.  The only certainty in this world is me.  I am the only soul that will always be available and intent on my well-being.  I don't want to count on something like religion to get me through the day.  I don't need to be assured that there is a better home awaitin.  If something sucks now, the "other side" has no bearing on that in the here and now.  I'll address what needs to be addressed in the present and leave the future open for more options.



Good place, good people, other than that just don't see the point.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 17, 2013)

> How many people have been turned or pushed away from mainstream christianity because of overbearing, condesending christians who throw their veiws and religous agendas up in your face as the only one true religion and condem all other religions as not christian  instead of being understanding.


For me this was a small part of the equation but not the deciding factor. I do believe though that these same Christians have no clue that they do far more damage to Christianity than anything any Atheists says could ever do.


----------



## piratebob64 (Oct 17, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> For me this was a small part of the equation but not the deciding factor. I do believe though that these same Christians have no clue that they do far more damage to Christianity than anything any Atheists says could ever do.



You have nailed it!


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 17, 2013)

Could it be that those christians you are talking about aren't really Christians?


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 18, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Could it be that those christians you are talking about aren't really Christians?


That is just a weak excuse. It accomplishes nothing, changes nothing and in fact is just as hypocritical as the Christians the OP was talking about.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 18, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Could it be that those christians you are talking about aren't really Christians?



Just who are real(ly) Christians?
Obviously you(but we would like you explain to us what makes you qualified on a daily basis), and just about everyone else in here that isn't Atheist or Agnostic will claim to be real(ly) Christians. What separates all of you from the 1,999,999,990 other supposed Christians? And is there a minimum benchmark that maintains your status as a Christian that these , by your terms, people who are not really Christians fail to meet? And if so... are there levels that go above your current "Christianity" that others have achieved?
Is there a ranking?
Non-Christian-Christian wanna be- Christian like- Well at least I'm more Christian than you-NOT real Christian-REAL Christian-Super Real Christian-Almost Jesus-Jesus??

How does it work? We hear about these "not real Christians" all the time in here by supposed Christians so what is the criteria and how do you judge? Does judging make you less Christian? Or is it all just one more man made excuse to make oneself feel better by trying to distance them-self from the reality of the absurdities of the religion?


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 18, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Does judging make you less Christian?



Depends on who you ask  (I know that reinforces your statement).

Judging is an interesting topic, because if a Christian were to judge somebody, there is an entire set of circumstances which have to be met in order for the action to be Biblical.  WE had a decent thread on it a few floors up a couple years ago.  In general, most fail to follow the "rules."  Additionally, non-Christians are outside the scope anyway.

So, in general, judging somebody usually makes somebody feel more Christian, but actually makes them "less."




bullethead said:


> Or is it all just one more man made excuse to make oneself feel better by trying to distance them-self from the reality of the absurdities of the religion?



No.  REligious people in general do not agree with the premise.  There are alternate motives.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 18, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Depends on who you ask  (I know that reinforces your statement).
> 
> Judging is an interesting topic, because if a Christian were to judge somebody, there is an entire set of circumstances which have to be met in order for the action to be Biblical.  WE had a decent thread on it a few floors up a couple years ago.  In general, most fail to follow the "rules."  Additionally, non-Christians are outside the scope anyway.
> 
> So, in general, judging somebody usually makes somebody feel more Christian, but actually makes them "less."


Therefore the "judging Christians" are in the same "not real Christian" group?
Otherwise there are "lesser Christians" which I totally missed in my ranking system or are they in the "wanna be" category?






JB0704 said:


> No.  REligious people in general do not agree with the premise.  There are alternate motives.


Examples will help. Mainly who are these "REaLigious" who do not agree and what are their motives?


----------



## David Parker (Oct 18, 2013)

I also find fault with folks making profound decisions based on their flavor of religion.  Those decisions can and do affect (effect?) people who don't necessarily benefit from religion-motivated choices.  It is a slight and a very dangerous one and I wouldn't be able to live with myself should my personal beliefs be forced upon another against their will.  But yet it happens every day all over the world.  Saying church and State are seperate and winking is not cool.


----------



## David Parker (Oct 18, 2013)

all that said....could be worse.  Does that make it ok?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Oct 18, 2013)

piratebob64 said:


> How many people have been turned or pushed away from mainstream christianity because of  overbearing, condesending (sic) christians who throw their veiws and religous (sic) agendas up in your face as the only one true religion and condem (sic) all other religions as not christian  instead of being understanding.



lol    I hate religion, too.    

All religions could be false, but not more than one true if it has opposing views of another religion.  lol    Simple logic.


Like Centerfirepin stated...   Jesus said "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no man comes to the Father BUT BY ME"   That is either true or a lie.   If it is true, then there is no other way.    When you believe John 14:6, then you're not going to agree that another god is equal.   It's common sense.

Bandy


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 18, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Therefore the "judging Christians" are in the same "not real Christian" group?
> Otherwise there are "lesser Christians" which I totally missed in my ranking system or are they in the "wanna be" category?



Huh, not sure how to answer that.  Let's say you had a scale, 1 being somebody who believes in Jesus but follows nothing, and 100 being somebody who can actually walk on water......both 1 an 100 would probably qualify as Christians, but they vary in the application.

Regarless of where they fall, it's not really any of my buisness.  That's between them and God (back to judging), unless they ask for my opinion or ask for accountability. 



bullethead said:


> Examples will help. Mainly who are these "REaLigious" who do not agree and what are their motives?



They will not agree with you that religion is absurd.  So, avoiding the absurdity of religion will not be their motive.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Oct 18, 2013)

Oh, I wanted to add that Christians are told to judge other christians....but not people outside of the church.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 18, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Oh, I wanted to add that Christians are told to judge other christians....but not people outside of the church.



Yep, non-Christians are outside the scope.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 18, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol    I hate religion, too.
> 
> All religions could be false, but not more than one true if it has opposing views of another religion.  lol    Simple logic.
> 
> ...



What if this is one of those "Well, maybe I don't understand it because it's out of my pay grade." kind of things.

"No man comes to the Father but by _me_."  What did he _REALLY _mean by "me"?   He uses the word 'man' but surely he meant women and children too.  Exactly who is 'he'?  'He' is god in the form of man.  That means 'he' is 'US', and Buddah and Allah and the bum at the Citgo...  I think I've been given a revelation.  Tell me I haven't.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 18, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol    I hate religion, too.
> 
> All religions could be false, but not more than one true if it has opposing views of another religion.  lol    Simple logic.
> 
> ...





> All religions could be false, but not more than one true if it has opposing views of another religion.  lol    Simple logic.


That's only logical if you know for a fact there is only one God. It would also be logical to say if its possible one exists its also possible more than one can also exist. You are viewing logic through the filter of your beliefs.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 18, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> It would also be logical to say if its possible one exists it also possible more than one can also exist.



Take it a step further.....if there were multiple, they would all have to be equal, if not, only one of them would be God.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 18, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> That is just a weak excuse. It accomplishes nothing, changes nothing and in fact is just as hypocritical as the Christians the OP was talking about.



Overbearing & condesending aren't the traits of Christians. As for as the OP everyone has a tendency to push their views on each other.

To what extent do we lump all individuals to one group? I don't like those type of Christians either. Are we mostly talking about hippocrites or judging?
I would prefer Christians show by example than using overbearing and condensending talk. I agree and it makes Christianity look bad. 
Maybe we should remove the Tares from the Wheat.
Not that we are discussing Atheist or Democrats but I don't like overbearing & condensending those either.
But I would say that Atheist don't interject their views as much as Christians. This could be a social or cultural  issue more than anything else. Even at work Christians will interject with what God can do or will want to say a blessing at a family function. My boss is always saying God won't lay on me more than I can take. I don't feel that is proper for him to say. 
Christians must realize they aren't the only religion within a group anymore in the United States.
We are required to witness though and give praise to God.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 18, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Take it a step further.....if there were multiple, they would all have to be equal, if not, only one of them would be God.


Says who? You are assigning the word God top dog status only because of what you believe it should mean.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 18, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Just who are real(ly) Christians?
> Obviously you(but we would like you explain to us what makes you qualified on a daily basis), and just about everyone else in here that isn't Atheist or Agnostic will claim to be real(ly) Christians. What separates all of you from the 1,999,999,990 other supposed Christians? And is there a minimum benchmark that maintains your status as a Christian that these , by your terms, people who are not really Christians fail to meet? And if so... are there levels that go above your current "Christianity" that others have achieved?
> Is there a ranking?
> Non-Christian-Christian wanna be- Christian like- Well at least I'm more Christian than you-NOT real Christian-REAL Christian-Super Real Christian-Almost Jesus-Jesus??
> ...



Actually I might not be a real Christian as I don't believe in OSAS or have blessed assurance. 
Kinda an oxymoron that man should not put any trust in man but only God.
I just said we are to spread the Gospel but am constantly reminded of false teachers and gospel spreaders in the Bible.
Hopefully you haven't heard much overbearing & condensending words from me. If you have call me on it and I'll eat my words.
If I had a benchmark, which I don't, it would probably be how people act more than how they talk to include Hindus & Atheist.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Oct 18, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> That's only logical if you know for a fact there is only one God. It would also be logical to say if its possible one exists its also possible more than one can also exist. You are viewing logic through the filter of your beliefs.



Obviously Jesus is saying that He is the only way....    What else could He possibly be saying?


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 18, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Overbearing & condesending aren't the traits of Christians. As for as the OP everyone has a tendency to push their views on each other.
> 
> To what extent do we lump all individuals to one group? I don't like those type of Christians either. Are we mostly talking about hippocrites or judging?
> I would prefer Christians show by example than using overbearing and condensending talk. I agree and it makes Christianity look bad.
> ...


I agree with much of what you said. But to say they aren't 
"really" Christians is just false I think. Im not sure of the exact wording but if "you accept God as your Lord and Savior etc etc" - you are a Christian. Whether you are a condescending jerk or not doesn't change that according to what makes someone a Christian.
As for judging or not judging, I think its ridiculous and impossible to require someone not to judge. Every person makes judgments every day about other people. Its part of survival. Our brain does it automatically. Not to mention judging people is a part of the Bible from cover to cover.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 18, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Obviously Jesus is saying that He is the only way....    What else could He possibly be saying?


Yes that's obvious. Its also obvious my comments were about your use of logic.


> Quote:
> All religions could be false, but not more than one true if it has opposing views of another religion. lol Simple logic.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 18, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Obviously Jesus is saying that He is the only way....    What else could He possibly be saying?



Gospel of Thomas

_(77) Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there." _

Sounds pretty Buddhist.  No wonder they left it out.

I say it belongs.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Oct 18, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Gospel of Thomas
> 
> _(77) Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there." _
> 
> ...




lol   nice try.    2nd century document...


----------



## TripleXBullies (Oct 18, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol    I hate religion, too.
> 
> All religions could be false, but not more than one true if it has opposing views of another religion.  lol    Simple logic.
> 
> ...



IF it is true, yes.... You are a fan of your religion, you just try to act like it's not like the other "religions" We had this conversation in another thread. It IS a religion. The stripper I called a bad word the other night said she was an entertainer, not a stripper (that's an example... maybe ).. Call it what you want. It is what is is.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 18, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Says who? You are assigning the word God top dog status only because of what you believe it should mean.



What other than top dog could be god?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Oct 18, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> What other than top dog could be god?




lol           'top dog' (or 'Top Dawg' in GA) is a pretty darn good definition, IMO.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 18, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> What other than top dog could be god?


Ill just cut and paste to save time 


> You are assigning the word God top dog status only because of what you believe it should mean.


----------



## Bobby Jackson (Oct 18, 2013)

if I needed help..really just needed help without the judgement that goes with it..
I would go find some homeless people living under a bridge somewhere,they would offer what they had and try to help without judgement or having to show and tell the world all about the good deeds!!...


----------



## piratebob64 (Oct 18, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Says who? You are assigning the word God top dog status only because of what you believe it should mean.



Uhh I believe the Greeks have that covered!


----------



## piratebob64 (Oct 18, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Actually I might not be a real Christian as I don't believe in OSAS or have blessed assurance.
> Kinda an oxymoron that man should not put any trust in man but only God.
> I just said we are to spread the Gospel but am constantly reminded of false teachers and gospel spreaders in the Bible.
> Hopefully you haven't heard much overbearing & condensending words from me. If you have call me on it and I'll eat my words.
> If I had a benchmark, which I don't, it would probably be how people act more than how they talk to include Hindus & Atheist.


Christains are to spread the word of GOD thruout the world.
I find this funny,  Every Civilization has a written or oral record that corrilate with the bible! The great Flood ECT.  
So if all  civilations have the same stories and basic beliefs then Jesus word had already been spread thruout the world!


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Oct 18, 2013)

piratebob64 said:


> I find this funny,  Every Civilization has a written or oral record that corrilate with the bible! The great Flood ECT.



since most all cultures have 'great flood' records, what does that imply?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 18, 2013)

piratebob64 said:


> Christains are to spread the word of GOD thruout the world.
> I find this funny,  Every Civilization has a written or oral record that corrilate with the bible! The great Flood ECT.
> So if all  civilations have the same stories and basic beliefs then Jesus word had already been spread thruout the world!



Have you ever read the similarities between religions of virgin births & triune gods besides the floods that you mentioned?


----------



## TREY1984 (Oct 18, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> For me this was a small part of the equation but not the deciding factor. I do believe though that these same Christians have no clue that they do far more damage to Christianity than anything any Atheists says could ever do.




That's the main reason why I have no religion... Honesty I respect every religion. I don't call myself anything I don't have label. People would call me a Atheists but I'm not. I just do the right thing for my family, keep peace and in the end when my life is over I know I made my family happy. My grandmother was a Buddhist until she pass away and my other grandparents told me she's in - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH - because she were not a Christian. That was the point when I started thinking my grandmother didn't hurt anyone she respected everyone and treated everyone as equal. So why would I want to become a Christian or have a religion. Mainly its saying if your not with me your going to - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 18, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> since most all cultures have 'great flood' records, what does that imply?


What does this imply -


> Before we dive into the question of whether Noah and his ark existed, let's first ask if there's any evidence of ancient worldwide flooding. Scientifically speaking, such a flood would be impossible. It would take more than five times the amount of water in the oceans and atmosphere to submerge the earth up to its mountaintops [source: Discovery Channel and BBC]. And if that amount of water entered the atmosphere, the resulting pressure would crush people's lungs [source: Discovery Channel and BBC].


Answer - it implies this -


> But that doesn't mean the story is bogus -- just maybe not subject to literal interpretation


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Oct 18, 2013)

So, you're saying that if only one or two cultures had 'flood' stories, it would be better evidence than most of them having flood stories?      or is this a 'red herring' argument?


----------



## centerpin fan (Oct 18, 2013)

piratebob64 said:


> Christains are to spread the word of GOD thruout the world.
> I find this funny



Jesus didn't.


----------



## centerpin fan (Oct 18, 2013)

Bobby Jackson said:


> if I needed help..really just needed help without the judgement that goes with it..
> I would go find some homeless people living under a bridge somewhere ...



But who helps the homeless?  The Salvation Army, Atlanta Union Mission, Feed the Children, Catholic charities -- all religious-based (Christian) organizations.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 18, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Take it a step further.....if there were multiple, they would all have to be equal, if not, only one of them would be God.



Genesis 1:26


----------



## bullethead (Oct 18, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Huh, not sure how to answer that.  Let's say you had a scale, 1 being somebody who believes in Jesus but follows nothing, and 100 being somebody who can actually walk on water......both 1 an 100 would probably qualify as Christians, but they vary in the application.
> 
> Regarless of where they fall, it's not really any of my buisness.  That's between them and God (back to judging), unless they ask for my opinion or ask for accountability.
> 
> ...



Are we pretending there is a scale or IS there a scale? Are there levels of being Christian, what are they, and who decides? Where are these rules?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 18, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol   nice try.    2nd century document...



Are you saying God cannot and did not inspire anyone to write down his word after the 1st century?
All the gospels written 40-100 years are the real deal word of God...only a fool would believe anything written in year 101 and after could be the work work of a God. Tell us more about logic.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Oct 18, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Are you saying God cannot and did not inspire anyone to write down his word after the 1st century?
> All the gospels written 40-100 years are the real deal word of God...only a fool would believe anything written in year 101 and after could be the work work of a God. Tell us more about logic.



what work is dated 101ad, Bullet?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Oct 18, 2013)

Here's a tough question for you guys....think on it before answering....

Would you put more credibility into someone who wrote about Abraham Lincoln that lived with him, or someone who wrote about Abraham Lincoln 70 years or more after his death?   

Should be simple answer, but I bet there are some who will argue the other way...


----------



## bullethead (Oct 18, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> what work is dated 101ad, Bullet?



101ad-200ad. All 2nd Century. Is your God limited to the 1st Century?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Oct 18, 2013)

bullethead said:


> 101ad-200ad. All 2nd Century. Is your God limited to the 1st Century?



Yes.   He knew that no one with a brain would trust the credibility of a document long after the lives of the Subject.

Like i've said before, no one would give credibility to a Gospel written in 2013...well, except maybe people with 'coexist' stickers on their cars   lol


----------



## bullethead (Oct 18, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Here's a tough question for you guys....think on it before answering....
> 
> Would you put more credibility into someone who wrote about Abraham Lincoln that lived with him, or someone who wrote about Abraham Lincoln 70 years or more after his death?
> 
> Should be simple answer, but I bet there are some who will argue the other way...



You should carefully think about why it took ANYONE 30-70years to write down miraculous events that they supposedly witnessed first hand.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Oct 18, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You should carefully think about why it took ANYONE 30-70years to write down miraculous events that they supposedly witnessed first hand.



Only someone who can't think would wonder that!   lol    Why would anyone write it down the day after?    Makes no sense.   Why write down things that everyone around you knew?    

You're grasping, Bullet


----------



## bullethead (Oct 18, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Yes.   He knew that no one with a brain would trust the credibility of a document long after the lives of the Subject.
> 
> Like i've said before, no one would give credibility to a Gospel written in 2013...well, except maybe people with 'coexist' stickers on their cars   lol



According to you.... using your thoughts to speak for a God.......No surprise in here.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Oct 18, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Here's a tough question for you guys....think on it before answering....
> 
> Would you put more credibility into someone who wrote about Abraham Lincoln that lived with him, or someone who wrote about Abraham Lincoln 70 years or more after his death?
> 
> Should be simple answer, but I bet there are some who will argue the other way...




btt


----------



## bullethead (Oct 18, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Only someone who can't think would wonder that!   lol    Why would anyone write it down the day after?    Makes no sense.   Why write down things that everyone around you knew?
> 
> You're grasping, Bullet



Hardly. Everything else was recorded in those times. Births, Deaths, Marriages, taxes, weddings, events,....etc etc etc...JUST like everything is recorded today.
They knew those things happened then just like we do today...in fact today it is recorded almost immediately. Why do we make records of those things if we know they happen?

Bandy you are the only one not thinking but you can ignore facts with the best of them.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Oct 18, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Hardly. Everything else was recorded in those times. Births, Deaths, Marriages, taxes, weddings, events,....etc etc etc...JUST like everything is recorded today.
> They knew those things happened then just like we do today...in fact today it is recorded almost immediately. Why do we make records of those things if we know they happen?
> 
> Bandy you are the only one not thinking but you can ignore facts with the best of them.



lol   you are referring to government documents.   

always fun to read your illogic, Bullet.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 18, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Genesis 1:26



A singular entity (God) talking to a plural group ("us").  Wh the heck knows about that one, you're really digging into the concept of the trinity if we want to have this discussion, but, "God" is a singular entity in that verse.

Many options exist for the individual who wishes to talk his was around it


----------



## bullethead (Oct 18, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> btt



You can bump that up ten thousand times and all is does is make it more clear that none of it was 1. Anything special at all that anyone felt it should be recorded as it happened. 2. Never happened and there was nothing to record.

If those events happened they would have been recorded immediately if not sooner.
Using your Lincoln example, his assassination and Presidency was recorded as it happened. The assassination was not reported 30 years after, then again 50 years after and again 70 years after as if it was "New" news. If true, having the Son of God performing center stage all around town for 3 years would be news worthy. My guess is Jesus along with a few hundred "Sons of God" before and after him was not that important for anyone to pass along at the time.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 18, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol   nice try.    2nd century document...



From Wiki:

_Date of composition

Richard Valantasis writes:

    Assigning a date to the Gospel of Thomas is very complex because it is difficult to know precisely to what a date is being assigned. Scholars have proposed a date as early as AD 40 or as late as AD 140, depending upon whether the Gospel of Thomas is identified with the original core of sayings, or with the author's published text, or with the Greek or Coptic texts, or with parallels in other literature.[27]

Valantasis and other scholars argue that it is difficult to date Thomas because, as a collection of logia without a narrative framework, individual sayings could have been added to it gradually over time.[28] (However, Valantasis does date Thomas to 100–110 AD, with some of the material certainly coming from the first stratum which is dated to 30–60 AD.[29])_


Doesn't matter.  I don't want to get into a cut and paste war.  Lets just say that many people claim that the Gospel of Thomas contained actual quotes; sayings, from Jesus.  We can also say for a fact that the body that reviewed the material said that it didn't belong in the Bible.  Some would claim that they left it out because they were compelled by the Holy Spirit to do so.  The most important thing to me is not whether those things were said by Jesus or not it is the fact that a group of men were in charge of writing and compiling the Bible.  

It's so funny.  In the Calvinism thread upstairs, only one person, (maybe a weak other one) is willing to say that they get led to thought or action by the Holy Spirit.  You should see how they go round and round and at each other trying to show that they understand how god either reveals or doesn't reveal his wishes to people today.  They quote scripture, which they proceed to interpret for the non understanding or they simply say that it "makes sense" that god would do such and such all the while saying that 'His" thoughts and ways are clandestine and enigmatic, yet somehow THEY themselves have found a way to 'understand' 'him' and his wishes.  

Bizarre.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 18, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol   you are referring to government documents.
> 
> always fun to read your illogic, Bullet.



Bandy, my illogic(new word for me) is only surpassed by your blinders if you think Gov't documents were the only things recorded back then.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 18, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Here's a tough question for you guys....think on it before answering....
> 
> Would you put more credibility into someone who wrote about Abraham Lincoln that lived with him, or someone who wrote about Abraham Lincoln 70 years or more after his death?
> 
> Should be simple answer, but I bet there are some who will argue the other way...



Wiki:
_
The New Testament is an anthology, a collection of Christian works written in the common Greek language of the first century, at different times by various writers, who were early Jewish disciples of Jesus of Nazareth. In almost all Christian traditions today, the New Testament consists of 27 books. The original texts were written in the first and perhaps the second centuries of the Christian Era, generally believed to be in Koine Greek, which was the common language of the Eastern Mediterranean from the Conquests of Alexander the Great (335–323 BC) until the evolution of Byzantine Greek (c. 600). All of the works which would eventually be incorporated into the New Testament would seem to have been written no later than around AD 150.[1]_


No?  There was a scribe next to Jesus as he spoke?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 18, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Wiki:
> _
> The New Testament is an anthology, a collection of Christian works written in the common Greek language of the first century, at different times by various writers, who were early Jewish disciples of Jesus of Nazareth. In almost all Christian traditions today, the New Testament consists of 27 books. The original texts were written in the first and perhaps the second centuries of the Christian Era, generally believed to be in Koine Greek, which was the common language of the Eastern Mediterranean from the Conquests of Alexander the Great (335–323 BC) until the evolution of Byzantine Greek (c. 600). All of the works which would eventually be incorporated into the New Testament would seem to have been written no later than around AD 150.[1]_
> 
> ...



Facts be darned here Ambush. illogic rules!


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 18, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Only someone who can't think would wonder that!   lol    Why would anyone write it down the day after?    Makes no sense.   Why write down things that everyone around you knew?
> 
> You're grasping, Bullet



Really?  REALLY?


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 18, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Are we pretending there is a scale or IS there a scale? Are there levels of being Christian, what are they, and who decides? Where are these rules?



Do you want my opinion on this?  'Cause that's all I got, really........

Best I can tell there are 6 questions above:
1. Yes
2. No
3. No
4. They don't exist, it's an individual pursuit
5. If they existed, God
6. The Bible

You will find disagreement from all angles in reference to above answers.


----------



## HawgJawl (Oct 18, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Why would anyone write it down the day after?    Makes no sense.   Why write down things that everyone around you knew?



Do you believe that it was in God's plan for us to have the Bible to live by today?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 18, 2013)

Take a pic of your Son's first at bat with your smartphone but ignore the Son of God walking across water........... 
REALLLLLLLLLLLLLLY?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 18, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Do you want my opinion on this?  'Cause that's all I got, really........
> 
> Best I can tell there are 6 questions above:
> 1. Yes
> ...



Yeah. I was hoping for something official.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 18, 2013)

ahhhh, don't really miss this place like I thought I would.

Most of the dialogue is still completely insincere.

Carry on....


----------



## bullethead (Oct 18, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> ahhhh, don't really miss this place like I thought I would.
> 
> Most of the dialogue is still completely insincere.
> 
> Carry on....



Yet here you are......


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 18, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Yet here you are......



Why, yes....yes I am here, I thought that was obvious. 


How else would I know that the conversation in here is still insincere?


----------



## David Parker (Oct 18, 2013)

I'm glad you are here.  Sincerely


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 18, 2013)

David Parker said:


> I'm glad you are here.  Sincerely





Don't think I'll be posting much in this forum though.

Maybe I'll go start another ridiculously stupid thread, that will end up 3 pages, in the campfire forum.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> But who helps the homeless?  The Salvation Army, Atlanta Union Mission, Feed the Children, Catholic charities -- all religious-based (Christian) organizations.


A quick search will add non religious groups to your list.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 18, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Really?  REALLY?


And let me add - REALLY?


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 18, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Here's a tough question for you guys....think on it before answering....
> 
> Would you put more credibility into someone who wrote about Abraham Lincoln that lived with him, or someone who wrote about Abraham Lincoln 70 years or more after his death?
> 
> Should be simple answer, but I bet there are some who will argue the other way...


Depends on who was doing the writing. Living with someone doesn't automatically make you credible. Just ask people who have sat in divorce court.
Sometimes an answer appears like it should be simple until you put some thought into it.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 18, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Don't think I'll be posting much in this forum though.
> 
> Maybe I'll go start another ridiculously stupid thread, that will end up 3 pages, in the campfire forum.


Well then Hello and Goodbye!


----------



## bullethead (Oct 18, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Why, yes....yes I am here, I thought that was obvious.
> 
> 
> How else would I know that the conversation in here is still insincere?



Just shows your need for your own insincerity interjected into such an insincere place.

What dialog is insincere?



stringmusic said:


> ahhhh, don't really miss this place like I thought I would.
> 
> Most of the dialogue is still completely insincere.
> 
> Carry on....



You don't miss the place but you have to check in.

I mean everything I say and I have found most others that post in here also do so I cannot agree with your "insincere dialog" claim.

We have been carrying on with or without your blessing.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 18, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Don't think I'll be posting much in this forum though.
> 
> Maybe I'll go start another ridiculously stupid thread, that will end up 3 pages, in the campfire forum.



Bye


----------



## Mako22 (Oct 18, 2013)

LOL, oh yeah those bad old Christians always forcing their beliefs on others, 

Doesn't happen as most supposed Christians are too scared and ashamed of Christ to say anything even slightly judgmental to non believers. Now me for one I don't have that problem, I force it down any ones throat who will stop and listen to me.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 18, 2013)

Woodsman69 said:


> LOL, oh yeah those bad old Christians always forcing their beliefs on others,
> 
> Doesn't happen as most supposed Christians are too scared and ashamed of Christ to say anything even slightly judgmental to non believers. Now me for one I don't have that problem, I force it down any ones throat who will stop and listen to me.



Could you give me some examples of what approach you use? I do have trouble in this department because I was never taught this in Church, just that I was suppose to do it.
Do you force it down people who aren't willing? Do you have one of those giant speakers on top of your car and ride around town?
Do you feel guilty if you judge someone for a sin that you don't have a problem with if you have a problem with a different sin? In other words, do you cast the first stone?


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 18, 2013)

Woodsman69 said:


> LOL, oh yeah those bad old Christians always forcing their beliefs on others,
> 
> Doesn't happen as most supposed Christians are too scared and ashamed of Christ to say anything even slightly judgmental to non believers. Now me for one I don't have that problem, I force it down any ones throat who will stop and listen to me.


So when you do that do you feel that you have accomplished something for Christianity or does it just make you feel better about yourself? Just wondering because that is a perfect example of what I meant by this -


> I do believe though that these same Christians have no clue that they do far more damage to Christianity than anything any Atheists says could ever do.


And although Im not a Christian I think your babble about Christians being ashamed of Christ is just absolutely ridiculous. Would love to see you provide something, anything, to back that up. There are thousands of posts by Christians here so it should be pretty easy to find ONE who says they are or even hinted at being ashamed of Christ.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 18, 2013)

TREY1984 said:


> That's the main reason why I have no religion... Honesty I respect every religion. I don't call myself anything I don't have label. People would call me a Atheists but I'm not. I just do the right thing for my family, keep peace and in the end when my life is over I know I made my family happy. My grandmother was a Buddhist until she pass away and my other grandparents told me she's in - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH - because she were not a Christian. That was the point when I started thinking my grandmother didn't hurt anyone she respected everyone and treated everyone as equal. So why would I want to become a Christian or have a religion. Mainly its saying if your not with me your going to - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -


I agree with you Trey.


----------



## centerpin fan (Oct 18, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> A quick search will add non religious groups to your list.



I would definitely need to use Google.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 18, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> I would definitely need to use Google.


Yahoo worked fine for me but Google would probably provide even more.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 19, 2013)

Bobby Jackson said:


> if I needed help..really just needed help without the judgement that goes with it..
> I would go find some homeless people living under a bridge somewhere,they would offer what they had and try to help without judgement or having to show and tell the world all about the good deeds!!...



You might find more Christians there than in a Church. That's the kind of people Jesus hung out with. He was always preaching about rich people giving up their money and that the meek will inherit the earth. 
You've got Christians and you've got religious people. This is true in all of the world religions. 
Those people under the bridge would help. Christians through the ages have always helped people who didn't need any help to begin with.
The Native Americans would be a good example.

There's all kinds of help. First, you can't help people who won't help themselves. Organized religion does offer a lot of help throughout the world. They also use this time to witness. I don't view this as cramming it down the peoples throats.
Christians aren't the only organizations that offer help. I also feel God wants us as individuals to go out and help people. We can also use that time to witness. We should use tact to do this.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 19, 2013)

I felt compelled to add these verses:
Matthew 7:2 "For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. 3"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4"Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? 5 "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.…


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 19, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> I felt compelled to add these verses:
> Matthew 7:2 "For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. 3"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4"Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? 5 "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.…


Has to be a candidate for one of the most ignored verses in the Bible from what Ive seen. Good message too.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 20, 2013)

Hey guys, here is my opinion. I hate religion... But let me attempt to define my personal definition of religion. I devide belief and religion. Religion is a word that, for me, carries all kind of bagage. "Religious" people are legalistic, ready to judge, and use themselves as the standard of how we should live. The bar is set at themselves. Yet even they don't conform to the biblical example of giving of oneself. Sacrifice is something they do with their "extra" money. But..... Strangely, I don't resent the people. It is a product of "religion". Being in church all my life, until recently, I am a good judge of the situation. Lots of genuine good people who wish with all their heart to "do right". I have fond memories of many of older friends who have since passed on, that I would have never known if not for church. I like the idea of "church", just not what it has become. But as time passes, I realize that many of us, and I was one of them, who go through a "stage" that is offensive to the world around us. I have since observed in others as well as myself that this phase now offended me for who I had became. Most, I say most because of one exception that comes to mind, grow out of this and actually become "gentle". Strange word in this case, but somehow, I think viewers will get the picture. So.. on one hand, I love the church.... on the other hand..... I can't stand the church. As I ponder the issue, I think "religion" is like a disease that has infected the church.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 20, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hey guys, here is my opinion. I hate religion... But let me attempt to define my personal definition of religion. I devide belief and religion. Religion is a word that, for me, carries all kind of bagage. "Religious" people are legalistic, ready to judge, and use themselves as the standard of how we should live. The bar is set at themselves. Yet even they don't conform to the biblical example of giving of oneself. Sacrifice is something they do with their "extra" money. But..... Strangely, I don't resent the people. It is a product of "religion". Being in church all my life, until recently, I am a good judge of the situation. Lots of genuine good people who wish with all their heart to "do right". I have fond memories of many of older friends who have since passed on, that I would have never known if not for church. I like the idea of "church", just not what it has become. But as time passes, I realize that many of us, and I was one of them, who go through a "stage" that is offensive to the world around us. I have since observed in others as well as myself that this phase now offended me for who I had became. Most, I say most because of one exception that comes to mind, grow out of this and actually become "gentle". Strange word in this case, but somehow, I think viewers will get the picture. So.. on one hand, I love the church.... on the other hand..... I can't stand the church. As I ponder the issue, I think "religion" is like a disease that has infected the church.



Two thumbs up for that post.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 21, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hey guys, here is my opinion. I hate religion... But let me attempt to define my personal definition of religion. I devide belief and religion. Religion is a word that, for me, carries all kind of bagage. "Religious" people are legalistic, ready to judge, and use themselves as the standard of how we should live. The bar is set at themselves. Yet even they don't conform to the biblical example of giving of oneself. Sacrifice is something they do with their "extra" money. But..... Strangely, I don't resent the people. It is a product of "religion". Being in church all my life, until recently, I am a good judge of the situation. Lots of genuine good people who wish with all their heart to "do right". I have fond memories of many of older friends who have since passed on, that I would have never known if not for church. I like the idea of "church", just not what it has become. But as time passes, I realize that many of us, and I was one of them, who go through a "stage" that is offensive to the world around us. I have since observed in others as well as myself that this phase now offended me for who I had became. Most, I say most because of one exception that comes to mind, grow out of this and actually become "gentle". Strange word in this case, but somehow, I think viewers will get the picture. So.. on one hand, I love the church.... on the other hand..... I can't stand the church. As I ponder the issue, I think "religion" is like a disease that has infected the church.




Do you think that Jesus' example of how to live is to walk the land preaching with nothing but a cup and living off the charity of others?  Do you thing owning a bass boat exhalts him?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Oct 21, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Only someone who can't think would wonder that!   lol    Why would anyone write it down the day after?    Makes no sense.   Why write down things that everyone around you knew?
> 
> You're grasping, Bullet



In the not so distant past, when someone saw something astonishing, they might have waited until they got home to call someone and tell them about it. More recently they would take a picture, or call someone on their cell phone... Today, they facebook, tweet or instagram immediately. 2000 years ago they didn't wait 70 years to write it down. If it was as astonishing as they say, I would have written my cousin in the next town a letter...


----------



## centerpin fan (Oct 21, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> If it was as astonishing as they say, I would have written my cousin in the next town a letter...



... if you could write.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 21, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> In the not so distant past, when someone saw something astonishing, they might have waited until they got home to call someone and tell them about it. More recently they would take a picture, or call someone on their cell phone... Today, they facebook, tweet or instagram immediately. 2000 years ago they didn't wait 70 years to write it down. If it was as astonishing as they say, I would have written my cousin in the next town a letter...



Supposedly "Hundreds" of witnesses at the time......4 writers jot it down play by play with precise quotes 30-70 years later.
Sungthing berry feeshy eez going on here...... Looosy ju hab sum 'splainin to do!

Bandy would have us believe that the regular folks saw these kinds of things on a daily basis and it was so ordinary that they never felt compelled to write it down. "Just another Son of God doing tricks"

Dear Diary: Little Joshua did well in school today. He also got a seashell as a reward in Sunday school for knowing the Torah. I caught 30 fish and sold them all at the market. Walked to the next town with my profits to buy some leather for my sandal project tomorrow. Saw THE SON OF GOD walk on water, , Turn water into wine, heal a leper, cast out a couple demons, get crucified and Rise from the Dead, walk among us and then zoom up into the sky......

Honey, have you seen the eraser?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 21, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> ... if you could write.



Was it common that people were so illiterate that it took 30-70 years for someone to step up with writing capabilities?


----------



## centerpin fan (Oct 21, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Was it common that people were so illiterate that it took 30-70 years for someone to step up with writing capabilities?



It's not a coincidence that two educated men (Luke and Paul) wrote most of the NT.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 21, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> It's not a coincidence that two educated men (Luke and Paul) wrote most of the NT.



That is not what I asked you.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 21, 2013)

Luke and Paul were not the official recorders of events that were of non-Jesus happenings. On average and regarding every day events,Did it take 30-70years for an event to happen and someone educated enough to come along write it down?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 21, 2013)

Is it too outlandish to think that literate and educated people witnessed Jesus in action? Is it unreal to think that no one even wrote it down as it happened or at least when their neighbor told them about the events they had just witnessed? Would none of the Rabbi's have been so overwhelmed with the possibility of the Son of God standing right before them performing God-like miracles that the Rabbi's....even ONE Rabbi..... would record the event as it happened? Even if they were not a "fan".....a miracle is a miracle and worthy of being noted.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Oct 21, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> ... if you could write.



Why wouldn't they be able to? I thought they were NOT uneducated goat herders..


----------



## TripleXBullies (Oct 21, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> ... if you could write.


... ok... I would have finger painted it for my cousin in the next village.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 21, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> ... ok... I would have finger painted it for my cousin in the next village.



Or went to someone you knew that could write and asked them to write it for you(and the 30 other people you could round up that witnessed the same event).


----------



## centerpin fan (Oct 21, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> ... ok... I would have finger painted it for my cousin in the next village.



Reminds me of spooky movie I watched yesterday:  _Sinister_.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 21, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Reminds me of spooky movie I watched yesterday:  _Sinister_.



Another Spaghetti Western Ricocchet


----------



## David Parker (Oct 21, 2013)

trying to engage someone for the purpose of manipulation is lame.  Don't do it.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 21, 2013)

David Parker said:


> trying to engage someone for the purpose of manipulation is lame.  Don't do it.



Can you be more specific as to who and what you are referring to?


----------



## centerpin fan (Oct 21, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Another Spaghetti Western Ricocchet



http://www.megawavs.com/play.aspx?id=1640


----------



## bullethead (Oct 21, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> http://www.megawavs.com/play.aspx?id=1640



No need, I heard it loud and clear here:


centerpin fan said:


> Reminds me of spooky movie I watched yesterday: Sinister.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 21, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Do you think that Jesus' example of how to live is to walk the land preaching with nothing but a cup and living off the charity of others?  Do you thing owning a bass boat exhalts him?


 No and no, but what size motor does this boat have? Will it fly on the water?


----------



## David Parker (Oct 21, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Can you be more specific as to who and what you are referring to?



initiating a conversation with the intent to inform, persuade, enlighten, torment, bother, annoy, etc.

who ?  anyone guilty of the above.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 21, 2013)

David Parker said:


> initiating a conversation with the intent to inform, persuade, enlighten, torment, bother, annoy, etc.
> 
> who ?  anyone guilty of the above.



I can see your point on torment, bother and annoy but to inform,persuade and enlighten all makes for good conversation.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 22, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> ahhhh, don't really miss this place like I thought I would.
> 
> Most of the dialogue is still completely insincere.
> 
> Carry on....



Ditto


----------



## David Parker (Oct 22, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I can see your point on torment, bother and annoy but to inform,persuade and enlighten all makes for good conversation.



why do those who just can't stand it here pop in to let those who enjoy it here know that they don't like it here?  bored a little...?  maybe jez a little?


You have a point about good conversations, but when I'm in a poo poo mood, you standing on my porch pitchin that good ole conversation isn't welcome.   Thus, those who want to preach should find their flock and knock themselves out.  Leave me and mine be.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 22, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Ditto



Not that we don't enjoy you and string, but why do the both of you feel the need to come in here after not posting for a while and with your first post(string) fire off both barrels by making cracks about the posters that do frequent the forum? Why the need to get that off your chest(s) unless you really are looking for attention, no matter what type, you are obviously trolling for?
If you have it better somewhere else we are all happy for you. By all means stay there and enjoy. But if we are gonna be honest here.....I gotta say the conversations have not missed a beat without you two and mainly for the examples like you two posted above.

You don't miss the place....but obviously you were compelled to not only check in, read the threads and POST in the thread with a post of your own that adds nothing to the OP of the thread. Instead you must take the time to post a facebook type of rant about your displeasure at people for doing EXACTLY what you are doing with your own post. Two of the biggest hypocrites pop in to point fingers........ and are probably miffed that they did not get a warm reception......Boo-Hoo


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 22, 2013)

I check in from time to time just to note any changes.  It's nice to see some other believers here, and they appear to be doing well.  As for you bullet, I see you are still your old amiable and jovial self.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 22, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I check in from time to time just to note any changes.  It's nice to see some other believers here, and they appear to be doing well.  As for you bullet, I see you are still your old amiable and jovial self.



I give what I get. No changes there.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 22, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I give what I get. No changes there.



Kinda the way of the world nowadays ain't it....givin what you get?  Just a question, but has it ever occurred to you that never settles anything; just insures that the status quo continues?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 22, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Kinda the way of the world nowadays ain't it....givin what you get?  Just a question, but has it ever occurred to you that never settles anything; just insures that the status quo continues?



Semp, this sounds like another hypocritical finger pointing exercise on your behalf. If I am giving you any sort of lack of respect, it is because that is what I have gotten from you. If you were an example of the advice you are offering me right now we would not be having this conversation in the first place.

What has occurred to me is that "give what you get" is what keeps people from taking advantage of others. I have come to this conclusion after trying the other options and experiencing the results first hand. Call it older and wiser.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 22, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Semp, this sounds like another hypocritical finger pointing exercise on your behalf. If I am giving you any sort of lack of respect, it is because that is what I have gotten from you. If you were an example of the advice you are offering me right now we would not be having this conversation in the first place.
> 
> What has occurred to me is that "give what you get" is what keeps people from taking advantage of others. I have come to this conclusion after trying the other options and experiencing the results first hand. Call it older and wiser.


Personally I just put him on the iggy list. The conversations in this forum has been much more of an intelligent exchange of beliefs, thoughts and debate as opposed to providing 100 links to prove the obvious about ridiculous claims and hypocricy. Not going back to that.


----------



## HGUNHNTR (Oct 22, 2013)

piratebob64 said:


> What better place to post this!
> 
> How many people have been turned or pushed away from mainstream christianity because of  overbearing, condesending christians who throw their veiws and religous  agendas up in your face as the only one true religion and condem all other religions as not christian  instead of being understanding.
> 
> (this ought to be interesting)



No, but I'm turned off by the religious that attempt to use their belief in a god to propose legislation, and influence school curriculum.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 22, 2013)

HGUNHNTR said:


> No, but I'm turned off by the religious that attempt to use their belief in a god to propose legislation, and influence school curriculum.



Lots of religious folks are too.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 22, 2013)

bullethead said:


> What has occurred to me is that "give what you get" is what keeps people from taking advantage of others. I have come to this conclusion after trying the other options and experiencing the results first hand. Call it older and wiser.



It could also mean mutual respect.  Doesn't have to be a negative connotation.  That is not specific to the current dialog, btw.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 22, 2013)

I just can't get past the "eternal torment" thing for the non-Christians. Yeah, I hate Hitler as much as the next guy, but I think after 1,000 years or so of burning I would think that's enough payback. But having the nicest, most giving person get ETERNAL torment just because they follow Buddah or whatever (in effect lumping them in with Hitler) is insane. 

Christians are supposed to be all about forgiveness, patience,  kindness, charity, etc. but at the end of the day it's all about believing in a deity that will send people to eternal torment + torture - the very things Christians are opposed to! 

Yes, we have a choice. But what type of twisted mind would even consider eternal torment as "Plan B"? 

Then again, if you want to scare the populace and control them and keep the money flowing...you need a good motivator.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 22, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Lots of religious folks are too.


Probably true. They seem to be less vocal though. At least on this forum anyway. Up to this point you are the only one who has said that, that I have read. Typically its given as one reason why everything is going down the tubes supposedly.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 22, 2013)

oldfella1962 said:


> I just can't get past the "eternal torment" thing for the non-Christians. Yeah, I hate Hitler as much as the next guy, but I think after 1,000 years or so of burning I would think that's enough payback. But having the nicest, most giving person get ETERNAL torment just because they follow Buddah or whatever (in effect lumping them in with Hitler) is insane.
> 
> Christians are supposed to be all about forgiveness, patience,  kindness, charity, etc. but at the end of the day it's all about believing in a deity that will send people to eternal torment + torture - the very things Christians are opposed to!
> 
> ...





> Yes, we have a choice. But what type of twisted mind would even consider eternal torment as "Plan B"?


You have to wonder why just not getting a ticket to heaven isn't enough. Eternal torment sure sounds like a man made scare tactic to me.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 22, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> You have to wonder why just not getting a ticket to heaven isn't enough. Eternal torment sure sounds like a man made scare tactic to me.



I wonder if not getting into Heaven..."being without God" for eternity somehow got turned into going to H311. I can see where a believer would think being without God for eternity would be an eternal punishment for them.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 22, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> It could also mean mutual respect.  Doesn't have to be a negative connotation.  That is not specific to the current dialog, btw.



It was (I think) mutual respect from the beginning. I do not pre-judge anyone.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 22, 2013)

bullethead said:


> It was (I think) mutual respect from the beginning. I do not pre-judge anyone.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 22, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I wonder if not getting into Heaven..."being without God" for eternity somehow got turned into going to H311. I can see where a believer would think being without God for eternity would be an eternal punishment for them.


Interesting thought. And just becoming fertilizer isn't nearly as scary as actually going somewhere that you are aware of your eternal punishment.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 22, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> You have to wonder why just not getting a ticket to heaven isn't enough. Eternal torment sure sounds like a man made scare tactic to me.



I've asked this on one of the forums upstairs and most Christians agreed that Christianity would be pointless without a belief in HE!!. Salvation in and of itself is from eternal dahmnation in He!!. Heaven is just the gravy and not a good enough incentive for being a Christian.

I don't personally hold this mindset  although I do believe in He!!. I would hope my love of God and his Son would be reason enough to live an eternity with both of them.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 23, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> I've asked this on one of the forums upstairs and most Christians agreed that Christianity would be pointless without a belief in HE!!. Salvation in and of itself is from eternal dahmnation in He!!. Heaven is just the gravy and not a good enough incentive for being a Christian.
> 
> I don't personally hold this mindset  although I do believe in He!!. I would hope my love of God and his Son would be reason enough to live an eternity with both of them.


This makes perfect sense to me -


> I would hope my love of God and his Son would be reason enough to live an eternity with both of them.


This doesn't say a whole lot about Christianity. How powerful or almighty or true could a God be if he's dependent on something else or he's pointless? -


> most Christians agreed that Christianity would be pointless without a belief in HE!!.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 23, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Semp, this sounds like another hypocritical finger pointing exercise on your behalf.



Nope.  It wasn't.  Later


----------



## bullethead (Oct 23, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> This makes perfect sense to me -
> 
> This doesn't say a whole lot about Christianity. How powerful or almighty or true could a God be if he's dependent on something else or he's pointless? -



Exactly.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 23, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> This makes perfect sense to me -
> 
> This doesn't say a whole lot about Christianity. How powerful or almighty or true could a God be if he's dependent on something else or he's pointless? -



Not every Christian believes in an eternal He!! or eternal torture. Some believe you just die when you die. 
They believe in "everlasting life." This everlasting life might be here on earth as a "new Heaven."

Maybe they are better Christians than me as I need the "eternal torture" belief to act right. It scares me into behavin'.


----------



## HGUNHNTR (Oct 23, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Not every Christian believes in an eternal He!! or eternal torture. Some believe you just die when you die.
> They believe in "everlasting life." This everlasting life might be here on earth as a "new Heaven."
> 
> Maybe they are better Christians than me as I need the "eternal torture" belief to act right. It scares me into behavin'.



Do you feel compelled to give devotion and love to a god that would grant eternal life to a human being for the purpose of torturing them for eternity?  Not me.  No matter how badly my children act, no matter if they disown me at my deathbed, I will always love them.  I may disapprove of their actions but my love for them never diminishes.  This is what makes good human fathers so far superior to the Christian god.


----------



## David Parker (Oct 23, 2013)

Energy is eternal.  Ergo, there is an element of the human species that is eternal regardless of whether they are good or evil.  

I am not special and nothing I do here will make my life any more enriching after I die.  The result of my life can be measured by my actions between birth and death.    Eventually we all go the way of our ancestors and our energy is recycled and reformatted infinately.


Religion breeds the idea that your actions won't come back to haunt you in the afterlife if you accomplish a, b, and c.   Basically, you get a "do over" if you meet the requirements.   Dangerous for those working on immediate solutions to worldly problems as well as their personal ones.


----------



## HGUNHNTR (Oct 23, 2013)

David Parker said:


> Energy is eternal.  Ergo, there is an element of the human species that is eternal regardless of whether they are good or evil.
> 
> I am not special and nothing I do here will make my life any more enriching after I die.  The result of my life can be measured by my actions between birth and death.    Eventually we all go the way of our ancestors and our energy is recycled and reformatted infinately.
> 
> ...



If you are going to use "ergo" in an argument, you had better be sure to spell "infinitely" correctly.  lol


----------



## David Parker (Oct 23, 2013)

HGUNHNTR said:


> If you are going to use "ergo" in an argument, you had better be sure to spell "infinitely" correctly.  lol



I don't wanna


----------



## oldfella1962 (Oct 23, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Interesting thought. And just becoming fertilizer isn't nearly as scary as actually going somewhere that you are aware of your eternal punishment.



Becoming fertilizer would be "Plan C" otherwise known as "just leave me alone and let me be dead already."


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 23, 2013)

oldfella1962 said:


> Becoming fertilizer would be "Plan C" otherwise known as "just leave me alone and let me be dead already."


Cant have that. Too many people might choose it. The Church's budget would take a hit.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 23, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Not every Christian believes in an eternal He!! or eternal torture. Some believe you just die when you die.
> They believe in "everlasting life." This everlasting life might be here on earth as a "new Heaven."
> 
> Maybe they are better Christians than me as I need the "eternal torture" belief to act right. It scares me into behavin'.





> Some believe you just die when you die.
> They believe in "everlasting life." This everlasting life might be here on earth as a "new Heaven."


To be honest I didn't know that was an option offered in the Bible.


> It scares me into behavin'


As it was intended


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 23, 2013)

HGUNHNTR said:


> Do you feel compelled to give devotion and love to a god that would grant eternal life to a human being for the purpose of torturing them for eternity?  Not me.  No matter how badly my children act, no matter if they disown me at my deathbed, I will always love them.  I may disapprove of their actions but my love for them never diminishes.  This is what makes good human fathers so far superior to the Christian god.





> Do you feel compelled to give devotion and love to a god that would grant eternal life to a human being for the purpose of torturing them for eternity?  Not me.


If we were talking about anybody else but God, our military would be removing them from power for being a ruthless dictator.


----------



## HGUNHNTR (Oct 23, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> If we were talking about anybody else but God, our military would be removing them from power for being a ruthless dictator.



With a parade of flag waving, god fearin' patriots.


----------



## Major Ridge (Oct 26, 2013)

I was turned off from Catholicism when a priest visited my Mother, in a hospital, and threatened to have us excommunicated because she was getting a medically necessary hysterectomy.  My Dad literally gave that priest the finger.

I was turned off from the cult denomination of Baptists, when both "preachers", in both Baptist churches I attended, got cold-busted for improprieties.  One, in his 40s, married, with a recently adopted baby, was busted for having an inappropriate relationship with a deacon's 18 year old daughter.  The other, also married, with an infant child, got busted having an inappropriate relationship with the also married church piano player.  Need names of both particular churches?  Oh, and in both, the preachers practically looked me in the eye, as they told the congregation that they would go to "Dante's Inferno" for drinking a beer or two with dinner.  But, I guess it's ok to "you know what" an entirely inappropriate female.

Religion is bull hunkey - for sheeple (people that cannot think for themselves).  It's a social occasion.  Somewhere to see and be seen.  Show up, showing off your new car, dressed for each other (do you really thing a God would give a flying flip what kind of clothes you wear???????)

Religion is utter nonsense, for foolish people.  Really.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 26, 2013)

Major Ridge said:


> Religion is bull hunkey - for sheeple (people that cannot think for themselves).  It's a social occasion.  Somewhere to see and be seen.  Show up, showing off your new car, dressed for each other (do you really thing a God would give a flying flip what kind of clothes you wear???????)



Eh, preachers wear hawiian shirts now, wearing a tie is no longer cool.



Major Ridge said:


> Religion is utter nonsense, for foolish people.  Really.



You make a lot of generalizations.  Which, is funny, because absolutes are typically what atheists and agnostics claim to detest the most about religious people.

Most people, including most religious folks, would agree the two preachers and the priest in your stories were total losers.  I got my stories too.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 27, 2013)

Atheist aren't the only ones turned off to religion.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 27, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Eh, preachers wear hawiian shirts now, wearing a tie is no longer cool.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The problem seems to be that the majority of people who are supposed to be representatives of God are in your words "total losers" now a day....everybody in here not only has a story but it seems multiple. History shows that these representatives have been poor representatives especially in the positions that are supposed to be of higher importance within the big religious organizations. You name the violation, they have done it yet somehow these men of the cloth are supposed to be closer to a God than us mere followers. Save the "they are just human too" excuses. If that is what God wants representing him then there are no excuses. These people claim to have a higher calling that lead them to that life but that communication must be put on hold once they are ordained. If they know the rules and willingly break them it leads me to believe that there are no repercussions since Man not God is making those rules.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> The problem seems to be that the majority of people who are supposed to be representatives of God are in your words "total losers" now a day....everybody in here not only has a story but it seems multiple. History shows that these representatives have been poor representatives especially in the positions that are supposed to be of higher importance within the big religious organizations. You name the violation, they have done it yet somehow these men of the cloth are supposed to be closer to a God than us mere followers. Save the "they are just human too" excuses. If that is what God wants representing him then there are no excuses. These people claim to have a higher calling that lead them to that life but that communication must be put on hold once they are ordained. If they know the rules and willingly break them it leads me to believe that there are no repercussions since Man not God is making those rules.



I bet I could come up with a "Super System" that would help people abstain from drinking or looking at porn or eating pork.  The program would be based on guilt and some fear.   Of course part of the program would be the recognition that you will eventually fail but if you stay with it you will improve.  

I could come up with a system and make a zillion bux, but I couldn't live with the guilt.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Oct 27, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Atheist aren't the only ones turned off to religion.


Did anyone see in the news where the Charlotte preacher...... I think I'll start a thread


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> The problem seems to be that the majority of people who are supposed to be representatives of God are in your words "total losers" now a day....everybody in here not only has a story but it seems multiple. History shows that these representatives have been poor representatives especially in the positions that are supposed to be of higher importance within the big religious organizations.



There's the problem, bullet.  You, and many others who feel that way, are assigning qualities which are not accurate.   This is a long discussion, but here is the scripture which sinks that premise:



> *1 Corinthians 12:12 *The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ.  13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free--and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.  14 Now the body is not made up of one part but of many.  15 If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body.  16 And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body.  17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be?  18 But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be.  19 If they were all one part, where would the body be?  20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body.  21 The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!"  22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable,  23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty,  24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it,



Seems to me that different members should be viewed on an equal plane, not one greater than the other.




bullethead said:


> You name the violation, they have done it yet somehow these men of the cloth are supposed to be closer to a God than us mere followers.



No, Bullet, they are not.  They just serve a different function.

I understand that what you are saing is how it is in many cases, but that is totally not how it ought be.



bullethead said:


> Save the "they are just human too" excuses.



Ok.  That is not what I am building my case on, at all. 



bullethead said:


> If that is what God wants representing him then there are no excuses. These people claim to have a higher calling that lead them to that life but that communication must be put on hold once they are ordained. If they know the rules and willingly break them it leads me to believe that there are no repercussions since Man not God is making those rules.



Things seem to go south when folks place themselves in higher places than they ought be.  First, consider that humility is supposed to be a trademark of Christianity.  If a person seeks to be "higher," than they have already missed the point.  If an organization seeks to make one person "higher," then they have missed a lot.

How can that be God's fault?  It's kind-a like a student, with proper instructions, just making up his own methods, and then getting mad when he gets the question wrong 

Like I said, a long conversation, but I wanted to get this stuff about them being "higher and closer" out of the way.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 27, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> There's the problem, bullet.  You, and many others who feel that way, are assigning qualities which are not accurate.   This is a long discussion, but here is the scripture which sinks that premise:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There is how it ought to be and how it is. These members of Clergy are God's representatives. What then is there purpose in this ignored hierarchy? I wonder why they don't use the verses you gave me when a Bishop meets with a Priest, a Cardinal meets with a Bishop and the Pope meets with a Cardinal? Why the ranks? Or "they" got it wrong....right?

Are you comparing worldly earthly humans to God? It's all God's fault because he appointed the ranks. Why do we worship Jesus if Christianity is about humility?


----------



## centerpin fan (Oct 27, 2013)

For every "bad" minister that makes the papers, there are a thousand good ones who love their congregations and labor tirelessly to serve them.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 27, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> For every "bad" minister that makes the papers, there are a thousand good ones who love their congregations and labor tirelessly to serve them.



1000:1 might be the right ratio but the "good"/"bad" may have to swap. I am using guesses too.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> There is how it ought to be and how it is.



Absolutely.  That's one reason why there are quite a few disenchanted church "refugees" like myself out there.



bullethead said:


> These members of Clergy are God's representatives.



Each and every person who claims to be a believer is a representative of that belief system.  Clergy are no different, or no more special than anybody else.  The just serve a different role within the group.  Within Christianity, EVERYBODY is supposed to be a representative.




bullethead said:


> What then is there purpose in this ignored hierarchy? I wonder why they don't use the verses you gave me when a Bishop meets with a Priest, a Cardinal meets with a Bishop and the Pope meets with a Cardinal? Why the ranks? Or "they" got it wrong....right?



In my personal opinion.......yes.  There are elders in the NT, and there is a Bishop, but, they serve a function based on that title, and that title is given based on a set of characteristics.  But, they are no more or less important than the dude who sets up the coffee station before Sunday service......and they are no more or less representative of the faith than the ladies singing in the choir, or teaching Sunday School.

Once you put people on a pedestal, everybody wants to see them get knocked down.  I tend to think that's the reason why the NT is quite specific about humility, and equality.  Everybody can fall victim to gettin' a big-head.  It leads to pride......pride is often discussed in the Bible.

Putting people on pedestals opens the door to pride, which opens the door to a whole other mess (which were detailed previously).



bullethead said:


> Are you comparing worldly earthly humans to God? It's all God's fault because he appointed the ranks.



Did he?  Titles in the Bible were for organizational purposes only, not to make somebody "better" or "mightier" than anyone else.



bullethead said:


> Why do we worship Jesus if Christianity is about humility?



Kind-a hard to worship a God is your ego is in the way.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 27, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Absolutely.  That's one reason why there are quite a few disenchanted church "refugees" like myself out there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Personal opinion is the only thing that fuels and quenches those religious flames. 

What is Jesus roll in this humility part? Is he waving one hand "no" and the other "yes" like the late night hosts do at applause? Is he saying No but shaking his head Up and Down? 
"No way to the Father but through me" he must have been blushing when he said that tho.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Personal opinion is the only thing that fuels and quenches those religious flames.



Hmm.....could you elaborate, was going to respond, but not sure I am certain your meaning.



bullethead said:


> What is Jesus roll in this humility part? Is he waving one hand "no" and the other "yes" like the late night hosts do at applause? Is he saying No but shaking his head Up and Down?
> "No way to the Father but through me" he must have been blushing when he said that tho.



Assume for a minute that Jesus is who he says he was......would it not be an act of humility to live poor, be persecuted, and crucified given you have the means to change it?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 27, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Hmm.....could you elaborate, was going to respond, but not sure I am certain your meaning.


You have your opinion of what it should be.
I have mine.
Poll 1 Billion people and your gonna get 1 billion different opinions.
All we have are opinions because no one knows what is true.





JB0704 said:


> Assume for a minute that Jesus is who he says he was......would it not be an act of humility to live poor, be persecuted, and crucified given you have the means to change it?



Assuming Jesus is who he says he is he cannot lose. He fulfilled his purpose. He was made solely to do everything you say he did. Did he really suffer? Being his Pop was God could it be possible that the pain was lessened to no pain? Might have been a heck of a visual show (for onlookers sake) but did he suffer? Did he really die? Assuming God is what we make Gods out to be it just may have been a show. The plan went exactly as expected....I mean God would know if it is going to work out or not. We know about Jesus for 3 years of his "life". A lot(but not all) of it just happened to go along with earlier prophesy. Things that make you go hmmmmm. But Jewish history shows there were some that came along before and after Jesus that had better credentials for fulfilling prophesy....and they didn't cut the mustard either.

To be honest I have a real hard time believing that a God's only solution was to impregnate a virgin and have his baby, make a few instances in his early 2 years known then disappear for 28 years only to burst on the scene when God(I guess) decided to save the world by letting him dazzle a few people for 3 years before his Son HAS to be killed to save the world.. I mean that HAD to be the only solution right? It was so foolproof that most of the world doesn't believe it. I mean I just have a real hard time assuming ANYTHING about this stuff, but in reality that is the only way non-believers AND believers can talk about it.
I guess we have to assume that his childhood was uneventful. That he did not have any powers until he was about 30 and no one thought to write about growing up with Jesus in a "I knew him before he was famous" type of article. We can do nothing but assume about any and all of it.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 28, 2013)

My top 3 reasons...

1) I hate ultimatums
2) Religion is responsible for atrocities.
3) Just makes no sense. (any of them)


----------



## David Parker (Oct 28, 2013)

Invisible beings that will guide my judgement but expect me to make profound decisions that if wrong, could cause tragedy and I would be held accountable.  Then punish me further when my decisions are poor and at no time, giving me any indication i am on the right path.   

That's about as clear as a mud puddle on a red clay road after an 18 wheeler splashed through.

I have a better idea....


----------



## TripleXBullies (Oct 28, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Atheist aren't the only ones turned off to religion.



Are you saying that you are turned off to religion as well, that's why you aren't religious, you just have a personal relationship... No... You are still religious, just the religion the way that you want it to be. The way that it works best for you, the way that makes you happy about it all. It's just the next progression/evolution of the religion. The same thing that there are stories about in the bible and that happened before and since. Some group didn't like the way that the other group was doing it so they made up their own ways and justified it with some holy words that they were right and the other guys were wrong.


----------



## vowell462 (Oct 31, 2013)

660griz said:


> My top 3 reasons...
> 
> 1) I hate ultimatums
> 2) Religion is responsible for atrocities.
> 3) Just makes no sense. (any of them)



My thoughts as well. Short and simple.


----------

