How some creationists pushed me away from christianity

[Oncedeceived]

Why should we?

We are all seekers of truth. It doesn't matter what we believe in, if it is not true it is for nothing. If it is true, then we have much to lose. If the fact that Christ walked the earth and died for the sins of all is true, then it is true for everyone, everywhere and for all times.


Absolute Truth: “Something true for all people, at all times and in all places”


It doesn't matter if I believe or not, it doesn't matter if you believe or not. Truth is truth. If Christianity is true, then it matters a lot.


Belief in God is not just for those with low IQ's. You know this for yourself. There are Christians in every walk of life. There are those who were as skeptical as you that have come to know God and are Christians now.

So why should you, to know if we speak the truth. No other religion on earth gives you a personal relationship with God.

 

[Oncedeceived]

A personal appearance implies in-person. Physically.

This has never happened.

How do you know it didn't happen?

 

[Non sequitur]

How do you know it didn't happen?

Because I have never seen or interacted with any god.

I have also never shaken hands with a leprechaun, so I can still hold firm in my lack of belief of leprechauns.

 

[Catherineanne]

Please do not address me,I have nothing to say to you.

In as much as ye have done this to the least of these my little ones, ye have done it unto me.

Good luck with that.



Meanwhile, I suggest you acquaint yourself with the 'ignore' button if you have a problem with me, or anyone else.

 

[Catherineanne]

That is not what the Bible says. So you have just built a strawman arguement.

Incredible how many people think a strawman is any comment they happen to disagree with. It isn't.

I refer you to Genesis Chapter One, where you can see for yourself.

 

[Catherineanne]

Bible teaches hell by default and that God does not want any to enter hell even to the point of suffering and dying for the persons wrongs so that they do not have to go,however the person has to chose God in this life. That is the clinker,the individual HAS TO CHOSE GOD,if they do not chose God in this life than the death for wrongs that God endured does not apply for that person, that is the rules,sorry but they cannot be changed so all who die without coming to God through faith in Christ go to hell by default. What is horrible is that people will not come to God while they can.

The God I have offered my whole life and soul to is not one who is capable of tormenting souls eternally. As I have already said, a literal hellfire is not a dogma of the Anglican communion, so I have no reason to believe in it, and every reason to regard such a concept of God as unthinkable.

A God who gives his own Son to save each one of us from our sins is not going to be capable of infinite cruelty in return for finite sin.

Others can choose for themselves.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because I have never seen or interacted with any god.

You were not born at the time. You were unable to interact with Him.

I have also never shaken hands with a leprechaun, so I can still hold firm in my lack of belief of leprechauns.

I hope you know that equating Jesus to a leprechaun or pink unicorn or even the spaghetti monster do nothing to further your cause. It might sound good to those who have the same beliefs that you do, but it is mere rhetoric.

 

[Catherineanne]

As for your evidence that there must be a creator, I have never seen anything that convinces me there needs to be a creator, much less the specific version worshipped by the ancient Israelites.

If the ancient Israelites had got their concept of God 100% right, then Christ would not have needed to come. Prophet after prophet tells them that they have it wrong; that God does not want sacrifices, he wants humble and contrite hearts.

Eventually, God sends his Son to spell out the message more clearly than any of the prophets can possibly manage; by dying for us.

Therefore, if you are looking for the most perfect revelation of God, it is in Christ himself, not in the bloodthirsty and frankly rather tribal version of God we see through the eyes of the Israelites.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm pretty sure he means Jesus.

Yes, but he is a she.

 

[Catherineanne]

This is wrong. Purely wrong. Just like most people do not have negative belief in the all-knowing milk jug, atheists do not have negative belief in god. There is an absence of belief. And yes, there is a difference.

For a pedant you are remarkably ill informed.

An absence of belief is agnosticism. A belief that there is no God is atheism. This is not a 'negative belief in God'. It is a positive belief in the non existence of any deity, and in our society particularly in the received Judeo Christian God.

YOU NEED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO LEND CREDENCE TO YOUR CLAIMS.

Actually, I don't. I have no need for external validation of my beliefs. I am simply here to say what I have to say, and I leave it up to other people to make up their own minds. If the evidence of Christ dying and then rising from the dead is not enough, then no evidence I can possibly provide will ever convince anyone.

Therefore, I won't bother. That is not why I am here.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The God I have offered my whole life and soul to is not one who is capable of tormenting souls eternally. As I have already said, a literal hellfire is not a dogma of the Anglican communion, so I have no reason to believe in it, and every reason to regard such a concept of God as unthinkable.

A God who gives his own Son to save each one of us from our sins is not going to be capable of infinite cruelty in return for finite sin.

Others can choose for themselves.

Catherineanne, I have to wonder where you get your basis on God or Jesus without the Bible. If you use the Bible as your basis for either then you are teaching other than the gospel in it.

 

[Non sequitur]

Because I have never seen or interacted with any god.

You were not born at the time. You were unable to interact with Him.

That's why I'm waiting for an appearance.

Shouldn't be too hard.

I hope you know that equating Jesus to a leprechaun or pink unicorn or even the spaghetti monster do nothing to further your cause. It might sound good to those who have the same beliefs that you do, but it is mere rhetoric.

It may not, but it's a perfect analogy

 

[Non sequitur]

An absence of belief is agnosticism.

ag·nos·tic (g-nstk)
n.
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

Unknowable or doubtful isn't honestly represented in your definition and doesn't really fit in your context.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

For a pedant you are remarkably ill informed.

An absence of belief is agnosticism. A belief that there is no God is atheism. This is not a 'negative belief in God'. It is a positive belief in the non existence of any deity, and in our society particularly in the received Judeo Christian God.

It's so easy to look words up in a dictionary these days. Why don't you do it?

 

[Skaloop]

An absence of belief is agnosticism.

Not, it's not. Agnosticism is about knowledge; belief (or absence thereof) is irrelevant. But I'd propose thateveryone is an agnostic, from the Pope to Richard Dawkins, because nobody knows or can know anything for certain. If someone suggests they do, that is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Catherineanne]

If you are saying god made me gay according to his plan and he is satisfied with that.. then, that would be a first and I can't possibly rep you enough.

Got it in one.

Being gay is a particularly challenging and onerous cross to bear, and I frankly have no idea why some people get to carry this, while other people get to simply look on and denounce them with sanctimony. It is a mystery.

I have to say, some of the finest priests I know have been gay. Their ability to minister to women - and in particular abused women such as myself - is superb, and I thank God for them. Heterosexual male priests do not understand abused women in the same way, in my experience. Whether these particular priests are celibate or not is immaterial to me. I assume they are, and I don't ask any further, just as I don't ask anyone else in the church - or anywhere else for that matter - about his or her private life.

 

[Catherineanne]

This is the strangest thing I think I have ever heard.

Why, thank you.

Satan doesn't know who God is? That goes completely against Scripture.

Certainly Satan knows who God is, but he denies the Divinity of Christ. Satan would be delighted if we would all stop regarding Christ as divine, and regard him instead as some kind of teacher or prophet.

 

[Non sequitur]

Certainly Satan knows who God is, but he denies the Divinity of Christ. Satan would be delighted if we would all stop regarding Christ as divine, and regard him instead as some kind of teacher or prophet.

I'm pretty sure he does.

 

[Catherineanne]

Catherineanne, I have to wonder where you get your basis on God or Jesus without the Bible. If you use the Bible as your basis for either then you are teaching other than the gospel in it.

Bible poker!! My favourite game!!

So, I will see your accusation and raise you. You tell me what part you disagree with, or think is unScriptural, and I will provide the Scripture for it.

And then no doubt you will disagree with the interpretation, or claim that I have taken it out of context, and I will laugh, for the simple reason that the Bible does not interpret itself. In other words, you can disagree all you like with the interpretation, but you will not be able to prove me unBiblical.

However, good luck trying.

For further explanation of what this means, see below.

How Can The Bible Be Authoritative? by N.T. Wright

The question of biblical authority, of how there can be such a thing as an authoritative Bible, is not, then, as simple as it might look. In order to raise it at all, we have to appreciate that it is a sub-question of some much more general questions. (1) How can any text function as authoritative? Once one gets away from the idea of a rule book such as might function as authoritative in, say, a golf club, this question gets progressively harder. (2) How can any ancient text function as authoritative? If you were a Jew, wanting to obey the Torah (or, perhaps, obey the Talmud) you would find that there were all sorts of difficult questions about how a text, written so many years ago, can function as authoritative today. Actually, it is easier with the Talmud than with the Bible because the Talmud is designed very specifically to be a rule book for human beings engaged in life in a particular sort of community. But much of what we call the Bible—the Old and New Testaments—is not a rule book; it is narrative. That raises a further question: (3) How can an ancient narrative text be authoritative? How, for instance, can the book of Judges, or the book of Acts, be authoritative? It is one thing to go to your commanding officer first thing in the morning and have a string of commands barked at you. But what would you do if, instead, he began ‘Once upon a time . . .’?

 

[British Bulldog]

Catherineanne, I have to wonder where you get your basis on God or Jesus without the Bible. If you use the Bible as your basis for either then you are teaching other than the gospel in it.

I must say it's great fun watching American Christians getting confused when confronted with other, saner versions of Christianity. You can almost watch their brains going "abort, retry, fail".

Obviously, being an atheist, I find plenty of nonsense to disagree with in Catherineanne's posts, but I can at least appreciate that her version of Christianity makes much more sense on a humane and emotional level than the American fundamentalist infantalist version, which doesn't.