Should an ex-Christian be able to explain why?

Rodan6 said:

words...

Click to expand...

You should edit your response, please. You made your words into my words. I can't follow it that way.

Try this. Copy and past this. [/QUOTE]

When you start a quote remove the forward slash. When you end the quote leave the forward slash.

genez said:

You should edit your response, please. You made your words into my words. I can't follow it that way.

Try this. Copy and past this.

Click to expand...

When you start a quote remove the forward slash. When you end the quote leave the forward slash.[/QUOTE]

THANK YOU! I see how I screwed up my reply. Your instruction has been very helpful as I try to post at this site. I have copied my post and pasted it below:


Please understand that I truly love my Bible. Many of my favorite passages are in the Old Testament. My point is that any effort to "worship" this book requires the worshiper to embrace every word. This is a tragic mistake. The powerful teachings of Jesus cannot be reconciled with some of the primitive understandings in the Old Testament.

Would our loving Father in heaven, as revealed by the Son, destroy every man, woman and child in a great flood? Would this same Father command that a man be stoned to death because he gathered wood on the Sabbath? These and many more passages define God not as a Father, but as an angry, brutal and arbitrary figure.

If Jesus came to our world to reveal the great truth of a loving Father in heaven (as I believe He did), then it is best that we focus on what He had to say and the deeds He performed. He taught us that the "very hairs on our heads are counted". This is a radical departure from earlier teachings contained in the Bible.

I do not dismiss the writings in the Old Testament. Instead, I approach them through the lens of the Master's teachings. In doing this, it becomes possible to see how man's view of God has evolved over a great deal of time. God has NEVER changed. The revelation of the Son IS the one and only true revelation. What has changed is man's concept of God. Primitive man could not embrace or respect a loving Father. The fortunes of war and inevitable environmental catastrophes, all required explanations from early priests. Many explanations revolved around God's anger. And for primitive man, there were many, many "mysteries".

Rodan6 said:

Please understand that I truly love my Bible. Many of my favorite passages are in the Old Testament. My point is that any effort to "worship" this book requires the worshiper to embrace every word. This is a tragic mistake. The powerful teachings of Jesus cannot be reconciled with some of the primitive understandings in the Old Testament.

Would our loving Father in heaven, as revealed by the Son, destroy every man, woman and child in a great flood? Would this same Father command that a man be stoned to death because he gathered wood on the Sabbath? These and many more passages define God not as a Father, but as an angry, brutal and arbitrary figure.

Click to expand...

I am just going to cover one aspect about the flood that most poorly taught people never begin to understand. The "sons of God" who had sex with the daughters of men? These were angels that left their positions of authority and succumbed to lusts they did not wish to deny.



Sons of God only pertained to angels in the OT. We do not see believers being called "sons of God" until the church age began because we now have the indwelling Holy Spirit to make us so. . And, the Hebrew does not say they "married them" (as some translators present it to us.) It was an intense and passionate in action. No marriage is mentioned in the Hebrew.

Why did God need to kill off all the human race except Noah and his family? The angels had infiltrated the small human race (as it existed at that time in its infancy) that to allow that hybrid man to continue the promise of the Messiah (who had to be true humanity in body) could not have been brought into the world. Only Noah and his family remained free from the tainted DNA because they listened to God's preaching through Noah.

If God did not destroy the hybrid human race that was taking place just before the Flood? Jesus in pure humanity could not have been born as a man. Therefore, God had to wipe out that hybridization of men for that reason... besides all the terrible evils they were doing because of their half angelic - half man - bodies.

This is a very interesting hypothesis regarding the "sons of God". I have not heard this one before. Who do you speculate this hybrid race was? Perhaps the Neanderthals? If so, would not this race demonstrate a more "advanced" culture since they were the product of the more advanced angelic species?

Rodan6 said:

This is a very interesting hypothesis regarding the "sons of God". I have not heard this one before. Who do you speculate this hybrid race was? Perhaps the Neanderthals? If so, would not this race demonstrate a more "advanced" culture since they were the product of the more advanced angelic species?

Click to expand...

This can get involved and become a too much information at once scenario.


Neanderthals were not of this current creation. Jeremiah spoke of a destroyed race of "generic" humanoids when he was warning rebellious Judah of her impending judgment from God because of her refusing to repent of her evils. For the Jews had degenerated and were offering their children into the fire while performing sexual pagan rituals that God had forbid in His Law.

Jeremiah in his prophetic warning repeats Genesis 1:2. Why? Because the Jews knew that the earth had been previously judged and utterly destroyed by God! Genesis 1:2 was not about a peaceful creation of this planet. It was about judgment, destruction, and recreating the surface of this earth to give us our current world we live in. I know certain people will argue. They always do when Satan's past is having light shed on what happened so we can begin to understand and overcome Satan.



Jeremiah 4

Never we have seen man totally wiped out in this creation. That creation had a "humanoid" type being totally removed from life.... along with all its animal life as well.

Because of the severity of the judgment Jeremiah spoke of, Jeremiah had to make it clear that the coming judgement that was to come upon the Jews would not be as severe as the one that destroyed the prehistoric world!



For, the Jews knew that Genesis 1:2 spoke of a complete and utter destruction. So, Jeremiah had to add that emphasis to reveal God's intent that they would continue as a people. Though very few would survive the judgment that soon came upon them. That was when Nebuchadnezzar crushed the nation and took the young ones into captivity in slavery in Chaldea.

If you want to begin to get a solid grasp on this understanding I would recommend getting this book on Amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/Invisible-War-Donald-Grey-Barnhouse/dp/031020481X

genez said:

I am just going to cover one aspect about the flood that most poorly taught people never begin to understand. The "sons of God" who had sex with the daughters of men? These were angels that left their positions of authority and succumbed to lusts they did not wish to deny.

"Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face
of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons
of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and
they took/'seized passionately' to them women of all whom
they examined and selected." Gen 6:1​

Sons of God only pertained to angels in the OT. We do not see believers being called "sons of God" until the church age began because we now have the indwelling Holy Spirit to make us so. . And, the Hebrew does not say they "married them" (as some translators present it to us.) It was an intense and passionate in action. No marriage is mentioned in the Hebrew.

Why did God need to kill off all the human race except Noah and his family? The angels had infiltrated the small human race (as it existed at that time in its infancy) that to allow that hybrid man to continue the promise of the Messiah (who had to be true humanity in body) could not have been brought into the world. Only Noah and his family remained free from the tainted DNA because they listened to God's preaching through Noah.

If God did not destroy the hybrid human race that was taking place just before the Flood? Jesus in pure humanity could not have been born as a man. Therefore, God had to wipe out that hybridization of men for that reason... besides all the terrible evils they were doing because of their half angelic - half man - bodies.

Click to expand...

What flood?

bhsmte said:

What flood?

Click to expand...

Noah's flood.

genez said:

Noah's flood.

Click to expand...

Ok. Let me know when you have evidence for this flood, besides ancient script.

bhsmte said:

Ok. Let me know when you have evidence for this flood, besides ancient script.

Click to expand...

I believe you have the wrong concept of Noah's flood. Many Christians do as well. It was not there to destroy the entire surface of the earth. It was there to destroy the entire "known" world (to man). The only world known to man.

After all? God was angry with evil men, not the rest of the earth. And, keep in mind, mankind at that point was yet in its infancy. Man was not covering the entire earth. Mankind was probably living in an area not very big. It had to be small in area because not everyone could have heard the warning preaching of Noah if they were on the other side of the earth. God warns before He judges.

It was not until after the flood that God first imposed upon man that men separate into different groups and then scatter over the surface of the earth. It was not like that in the beginning when men spoke only one language.

A flood covering the entire surface of the earth in Noah's day is the myth. A flood is not.

genez said:

I believe you have the wrong concept of Noah's flood. Many Christians do as well. It was not there to destroy the entire world. It was there to destroy the entire "known" world (to man).

God was angry with evil men, not the rest of the world. And, keep in mind, mankind at that point was yet in its infancy. Man was not covering the entire earth. Mankind was probably living in an area not very big. It had to be small in area because not everyone could have heard the warning preaching of Noah if they were on the other side of the earth. God warns before He judges.

It was not until after the flood that God first imposed upon man that men separate into different groups and then scatter over the surface of the earth. It was not like that in the beginning when men spoke only one language.

A flood covering the entire surface of the earth in Noah's day is the myth. A flood is not.

Click to expand...

Floods leave evidence. Let me know when you have some.

bhsmte said:

Floods leave evidence. Let me know when you have some.

Click to expand...

Find the relatively small area where man was living that that time and you will find it. Only animals indigenous to where man lived were to enter the ark.

I know... what I say is a myth buster. But, unless the Bible is objectively understood we will continue with myths until what is being said is correctly understood. Those who wish to disprove are punching the wind because the premise they wish to disprove is a myth.... and the reality gets right by us.

genez said:

Find the relatively small area where man was living that that time and you will find it.

Click to expand...

The biblical description of this flood, was not small.

bhsmte said:

The biblical description of this flood, was not small.

Click to expand...

No context there, sir. It was the entire KNOWN world. That's the context.

Was man scattered all over the surface of the earth at that time?????? No! God demanded that men scatter only after the flood...(Genesis 11)

BEFORE THE FLOOD? How could all men hear the warnings of Noah if they were living not within a days walk to him?


Hint... Man was in his infancy. Small population all living in one area.

bhsmte said:

The biblical description of this flood, was not small.

Click to expand...

It was all encompassing to Noah. He did not know the earth other than the few miles he had explored on foot.

Thanks to atheists (and the like) who caught inconsistencies in the emotion driven interpretation of the flood, some Christians have been able to snap out of the myth thinking only to discover that there is much more contained in the Bible that does explain how that flood took place.

The flood spared the rest of the surface of the earth that was NOT being judged. God was only judging man. Not the entire planet. Read Genesis 6! Man was to be destroyed. If men were not yet living on the other side of the earth? And, men were not. No need to flood that area.......

Would God burn down a forest in Nebraska when God wants to destroy a criminal hiding in the woods in Virginia? You see.... The Bible provides what is needed to be understood. Sometimes it takes a cynical sharp atheists to help a Christian see how he had been stupid about a matter.

But does the atheist appreciate it when the correction is found and the Christian sees clearly what previously was clouded by myth thinking? I do not think so. But, some might.

You see... God does not waste the atheist. The atheist too, serves a purpose in the advancement of truth in a world where contentment leads to intellectual laziness and apathy. Myths are a lazy man's answer.

God did not design the Word of God for the lazy mind. Yet... it does contain aspects that even a small child can grasp. But, we are all to grow up and mature eventually. Unfortunately some resist growing up and wish to perpetuate their feelings of being in Sunday school while in a world demanding real answers. Those Christians who refuse to mature will be losers in eternity. Not of their salvation though. But of eternal reward.

So, God sends in an atheists to stir up the nest and get those Christians who are willing to get moving and find real answers to leave behind traditional myth thinking, which can not longer be a haven for them once the nest is stirred up in seeing the inconsistency that demands an answer.

Noah's flood? The flood was probably covering an area the size no more than the small state of Rhode Island. And, God needed only the animals saved that were indigenous to only that part of the world about to be destroyed. Because? Once the flood was over that part of the world was to be restored.

cloudyday2 said:

I've been thinking about this issue again. For some reason I have trouble identifying specifically why I don't believe in Christianity. People assume I still believe, and I don't correct them. If I was open about disbelieving, then I might be asked to explain why, and I would not be able to do that.

I think my brain doesn't work like a normal brain. I'm more instinctual. I might be what psychologists call a "concrete thinker", because I often read words and they don't make any sense to me if the concept is abstract. I like to have concrete examples of a concept. IDK

My sister may stop by to see me next week and apparently she is going to give me a Christian book that she enjoyed. So I hate concealing my lack of belief, but it just seems simpler to let people assume incorrectly that I still believe. ... Sometimes I wish I still believed, because it would be simpler.

Click to expand...

I would say possibly that you did not actually believe. That you observed others who had the grace to believe, and tried imitating their belief.

In reality... We do not choose to believe. Faith is a gift from God that He bestows by grace. We found ourselves able to believe. Its like witnessing to a miracle.

When God's grace is working positively in a soul, that soul will find at some point suddenly having the ability to believe. Its impossible to explain any other way.

Giving a logical argument alone is not what that leads us to believe. For, the logic that is needed is what follows our moment of believing. We need to begin to understand what it is that just happened to us at the point of regeneration.

The Greek word "logos" (word) is used for the Word of God. (John 1:1) The word logos is also the root from which we get the word logic from.

cloudyday2 said:

Of course I believed. I was brainwashed from the crib to believe in Christianity. Everybody I knew either believed or kept their disbelief discretely hidden. It never even occurred to me that Christianity might not be true until I was in college. Atheism seemed so ridiculous that I suspected atheists must secretly believe in God.

I assume you are coming from the "once saved always saved" perspective, but "believe" has a definite meaning in the English language. If my case contradicts your theology, then it's time to revise your theology rather than denying reality.

Click to expand...

Some kids believe in Santa Claus. I remember the day when I was talking to my neighbor Gordy and told him there is no Santa Claus. He was screaming and in tears shouting "Yes there is!" That kind of believing is cultural believing due to conditioning from babyhood. Its why Muslim children in the Middle East are taught Jews are pigs to be killed. They believe it because of environmental conditioning. Belief in Christ is a genuine unique experience. Not conditioning.

You were what is called a "cultural" Christian. If you grew up in a Hindu, or Muslim home? Under the same conditions, you would have culturally adjusted and believed in what you had ingrained.

When someone genuinely believes he is not following some cultural conditioning. For example.. I was a Jew. To believe in Jesus ran counter to all my cultural conditioning. When I believed I sensed a gentle and quiet power present enabling me to find myself believing. There was no one brainwashing like you were.

When the Church first began Gentile people suddenly found themselves being filled with the Spirit. They too, had a previous cultural conditioning that they suddenly snapped out of. There was no cultural conditioning preparing them for what happened. They had to scramble after regeneration to discover what it was that had taken place in their hearts. That is why they attended Bible teaching meetings.

Conforming to cultural conditioning is not the same thing as believing. Believing happens when something absolutely real happens to CHANGE a person. Then one must come to terms with what just took place. Its mysterious and profound.

cloudyday2 said:

"Cultural Christians" are not people who believe in Christianity because they grew-up in a Christian culture. Here is the actual definition:

Cultural Christian - Wikipedia

When we say we "believe", we are stating that we have confidence in an idea for some reason. We might "believe" in anything and for any reason, but we still "believe".

I believed in Christianity because I had been told by my parents that Christianity was true and I had not yet encountered any reasons to doubt what I was told. I still believed in Christianity. I was not a cultural Christian. You might think you had better reasons for believing in Christianity, because you converted as an adult. That's a separate issue from whether I or not I "truly believed" or "believed enough" etc.

Click to expand...

If you really believed? Did you know at some point Jesus is real? Or, was your experience more of a hopeful desire? A hope that he be real that made you "believe?"

That means? God must do the drawing... and its subconscious and invisible as a process.

All the brainwashing in the world can not make you saved. It has to be a "knowing" belief. Not a, "I hope so," belief. Muslim children grow up believing in Allah via cultural conditioning. Ask one if he believes in Allah? You will be told,"yes." Yet? Is Allah real? Its why "Allah" can not make a Muslim confident and secure with his faith. They must do works to be saved for that reason. There is no real contact made to give them assurance like God does ... only a concept is ingrained. But, they will assume they have believed in Allah. They will even get themselves killed to try to overcome their doubting.