I hate myself, and hate being an atheist.

[Cerraco]

I probably should have stated that just because the whole Adam and Eve stuff didn't happen, that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It would just mean those events didn't happen. I still believe in the events surrounding Christ and how he died.

 

[Lambano]

I probably should have stated that just because the whole Adam and Eve stuff didn't happen, that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It would just mean those events didn't happen. I still believe in the events surrounding Christ and how he died.

Okay; that's a starting point.

I also believe that Christ rose from the dead and was seen by his friends afterwards. I realize that one may be a little harder for you to accept, but if it's true, would it make a difference to you?

 

[Cerraco]

Okay; that's a starting point.

I also believe that Christ rose from the dead and was seen by his friends afterwards. I realize that one may be a little harder for you to accept, but if it's true, would it make a difference to you?

Well, once things get supernatural, my beliefs start to slip away. The Bible mentions that a few women discovered that Christ's body wasn't where it was left, and back then, women were not as respected back then as they are now. So I guess that leaves my beliefs in the grey zone.

 

[Wrangler]

So you agree that Adam and Eve walked the Earth, and were tricked by a talking snake?

My son, who was an atheist and came to faith two years ago still believes that many of the accounts in the Old Testament were not real events.

Many religions have a Creation and flood myth. Many believe as I do that many OT stories are apocryphal, including the story of Adam and Eve and the oldest book of the Bible, Job.

I've written elsewhere that the ancients did not think as we do. Today, people falsely equate fiction with being untrue. A story does not have to be literally true for it to be true, to contain truth, to promote valid moral principles. Take Aesop Fables. No one thinks these stories are actual historical events. Yet, they survive the test of time because, despite being fiction, they remain true.

Consider the story of the scorpion hitching a ride on the back of a fox. The scorpion promised not to sting the fox causing them both to die. Halfway through the width of the river, the scorpion stung the fox. As paralysis kicked in, he asked the scorpion why he did that as now they will both die. The scorpion replied, "It is my nature." Good life lesson there. True that!

Genesis is a book that Moses is credited with writing, which is confusing because of the oral tradition. Moses lived about 1700 BC and no story is dated until after Noah. Yet, like Aesop's Fables, they contain truth even if not literally true. Please take this into consideration.

I'm not saying it's the worst book ever made, I'll even go so far to say that it might be the most interesting one in existence. Me saying that the book contradicts some history and science is not always "lies from the enemy".

Yes, it is always "lies from the enemy." Why? Because your god is revealed. You do not subscribe to the one true God of the Bible, YHWH. Your authority is manmade knowledge, a violation of the 1C and the 2C. You repeat the apocryphal Original Sin committed by Adam and Eve.

If you were right with God, you'd say history and science contradict the Bible. Of course, most people are blind to their sin. That's what makes it so insidious.


First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye.
Matthew 7:5

 

[Cerraco]

Consider the story of the scorpion hitching a ride on the back of a fox. The scorpion promised not to sting the fox causing them both to die. Halfway through the width of the river, the scorpion stung the fox. As paralysis kicked in, he asked the scorpion why he did that as now they will both die. The scorpion replied, "It is my nature." Good life lesson there. True that!

Isn't that story the Frog and the Scorpion? I already knew that story; wanna know where I heard it? An episode of The Sopranos.

Yes, it is always "lies from the enemy." Why? Because your god is revealed. You do not subscribe to the one true God of the Bible, YHWH. Your authority is manmade knowledge, a violation of the 1C and the 2C. You repeat the apocryphal Original Sin committed by Adam and Eve.

If you were right with God, you'd say history and science contradict the Bible. Of course, most people are blind to their sin. That's what makes it so insidious.

Science is not always "lies from the enemy". Anti-Bible things are not always "evil" like most Christians like to think they are. The Bible is a book that was written a hell of a long time ago, and a lot of religious people like to go "well it's in that old book, so therefore it must be true!!". We can't go back and check what's true or not with time travel. With science, you can check something as many times as you need, and the answer is right there. Does that mean God doesn't exist? No, of course not. You can't prove God isn't there, because you can't prove a negative.

I'm curious, how old do you Christians think the Earth is?

Edit: As for that last question, I mean each of you, not every Christian altogether.

 

[Wrangler]

Isn't that story the Frog and the Scorpion? I already knew that story; wanna know where I heard it? An episode of The Sopranos.

Agh, you are right! The Sopranos, huh?

Science is not always "lies from the enemy".

Do you see how you altered your position?

Me saying that the book contradicts some history and science is not always "lies from the enemy".

"Science" is nothing but method or procedure. The science of cooking is a step by step process that with the proscribed ingredients in the designated proportion, will result in a predictable outcome.

But defending this was not your original statement. I already explained how your original statement is always "lies from the enemy." You just ignored what I wrote. It has to do with who your god is, what your authority is.

I'm curious, how old do you Christians think the Earth is?

I'm not sure that there is a one size fits all to your question. Christians are a diverse group and have opposing thoughts on many topics. The enemy wants to make a bigger deal about this than it is.

I played Pickleball last night with some guys. Other guys probably went bowling. Others shot pool. There is no essential conflict even though we each think differently about how best to spend our free time.

Regarding how old secular scientists think the Earth is; are you aware the fragility that belief is based on? It is based on the assumption that rates of observed phenomena today are the same rates in the past. On what basis is this assumption believed to be true? Many relationships are nonlinear.

But I still sense you are going down the wrong path, which is why I asked in these posts:

Did you read the 2 threads I mentioned; “Evidence To Be Seen?”

Perhaps this is your confession #2? Do you want to talk about:

1. the parts of a book that left you horrified and confused or
2. do you want to talk about you and your struggle with hate - hating yourself and your atheist world view?

I look forward to you reading the evidence to be seen threads and delving deeper into what you want to talk about.

Evidence To Be Seen

We should not and need not abandon the field of evidence to the lost enemies of our Lord. See Psalm 19. In that thread, I made the following points. While faith is the evidence of things unseen, there is evidence to be seen. (In this thread, I want to compile the evidence.) Are you required to...

www.christianityboard.com

Evidence To Be Seen - Part 2, In Scripture

While folks like @Behold lean heavily on faith and against works, James does talk about the union of faith and works in 2:18. The virtue of works is the objective evidence of its existence. While God rested on the 7th Day, we are not deists. God continues to work, to show his faithfulness. My...

www.christianityboard.com

 

[Cerraco]

Do you see how you altered your position?

You mean how I started off with "I could never agree with that horrible book" and then said "I agree with some parts"? That never changed. I'm sure my wording threw everyone off. Let me rephrase things: there were always parts of the Bible I could get behind, but I can't agree with that book as a whole. Meaning that I don't buy every single solitary word in the book. There's a reason why people say it's not a reliable history book.

"Science" is nothing but method or procedure. The science of cooking is a step by step process that with the proscribed ingredients in the designated proportion, will result in a predictable outcome.

I love how you put science in quotes like it was a concept I made up.

But defending this was not your original statement. I already explained how your original statement is always "lies from the enemy." You just ignored what I wrote. It has to do with who your god is, what your authority is.

I'm not sure that there is a one size fits all to your question. Christians are a diverse group and have opposing thoughts on many topics. The enemy wants to make a bigger deal about this than it is.

I played Pickleball last night with some guys. Other guys probably went bowling. Others shot pool. There is no essential conflict even though we each think differently about how best to spend our free time.

I wasn't being clear. I was asking everyone individually. As for anything I didn't answer, please quote the exact parts I missed and I'll go over it. Sorry.

Regarding how old secular scientists think the Earth is; are you aware the fragility that belief is based on? It is based on the assumption that rates of observed phenomena today are the same rates in the past. On what basis is this assumption believed to be true? Many relationships are nonlinear.

We can study how evolution works, and the timeframe between changes in many things in lifeforms. How do we create medicine? How do we get ourselves closer to who committed a crime? How do we understand how diseases work? How do we find out the mass of an entire planet? I think the answer is obvious. Us humans need methods to figure things out.

And yes, you're right, scientists or any other type of person in those fields don't have the exact same answer, but we can still come to very informative conclusions regardless. The Bible telling us to not kill, steal, cheat, lie, etc. is perfectly fine, but it's not this perfect history book that a lot of people think it is. It doesn't mean that there's no God, it just means that chances are, we didn't have talking snakes and fully developed people that contradict archaic humans and cavemen that we found physical evidence for.

I look forward to you reading the evidence to be seen threads and delving deeper into what you want to talk about.

Evidence To Be Seen

We should not and need not abandon the field of evidence to the lost enemies of our Lord. See Psalm 19. In that thread, I made the following points. While faith is the evidence of things unseen, there is evidence to be seen. (In this thread, I want to compile the evidence.) Are you required to...

www.christianityboard.com

Evidence To Be Seen - Part 2, In Scripture

While folks like @Behold lean heavily on faith and against works, James does talk about the union of faith and works in 2:18. The virtue of works is the objective evidence of its existence. While God rested on the 7th Day, we are not deists. God continues to work, to show his faithfulness. My...

www.christianityboard.com

Yeah, that first thread is gonna take a while. And I've already seen some of the videos in them already. Some of them are... okay, but not exactly groundbreaking. The reason I hate myself and being atheist is because, if there's no God, there's no objective reason to live. That would also mean that justice fails, as everyone gets a no-afterlife sleep at the end. The bad people don't get punished, the good people don't see their loved ones again. Some people are okay with that, but I'm not. Imagine being one of the children who don't get to live a full life because you grew up in a dangerous place, or you get cancer or something, then there's nothing. We can all agree that's depressing.

I thought, if I don't get anything good in life, at least there might be a good afterlife I can fall back on. Oh wait, I may not get that either, because according to many Christians, you have to have a certain mindset before reaching heaven. Leave it to a lot of Christians to say "only us Christians are getting in!" Well gee! God's love isn't very unconditional then, now is it?!

I'm not knocking down Christianity or even religion in general, if someone is happier believing something, and it makes them a better, happier person, then good on them. I might be one of the few atheists out there that believes that taking away all religion won't make the world a better place, at least not in the way that Richard Dawkins thinks. The fault is not always the religion being followed, but how the person chooses to follow it.

 

[Wrangler]

Do you see how you altered your position?

You mean how I started off with "I could never agree with that horrible book" and then said "I agree with some parts"?

No. I quoted what I meant.

Science is not always "lies from the enemy".

Me saying that the book contradicts some history and science is not always "lies from the enemy".

1st, you said, "Me saying that the book contradicts some history and science is not always "lies from the enemy"." When I explained how it is based on it revealing who your god is, who your authority is, you changed to.

2nd, the more defensible statement that science is not always "lies from the enemy." If you cannot bring yourself to admit you changed your statement, so be it.

 

[Wrangler]

I love how you put science in quotes like it was a concept I made up.

I put science in quotes in response to folks like you confusing the gift with the giver, i.e, personification with capitalization. "Science" is not a person who says things or contradicts things. It is a gift, a tool.

For many, including you, "Science" has become their god.

 

[Wrangler]

The Bible telling us to not kill, steal, cheat, lie, etc. is perfectly fine, but it's not this perfect history book that a lot of people think it is. It doesn't mean that there's no God, it just means that chances are, we didn't have talking snakes and fully developed people that contradict archaic humans and cavemen that we found physical evidence for.

Again, you reveal how "Science" is your God. You suppose evidence showing archaic humans and caveman must mean that evolution is unidirectional, that devolving cannot take place? Take snakes for instance, are you aware that snakes have atrophied limbs as appendages and their evolutionary path took the form of devolving? Fascinating.

Regarding the notion of a talking snake, I don't think you acknowledged my post where I said many consider Genesis and Job to be allegorical.

I don't think you acknowledged my post where I pointed out that the ancients did not think as we do, that a story is only true if it is literally true. They considered the story true is it contained truth. Many look at Aesop's Fables that way.

Regarding a perfect history book, another error secular atheists make is to suppose the Bible is meant to be a scientific book. They set a standard designed to fail the book. The problem is not with the book. The problem is with the false standard, based on the false god of "Science."

 

[Wrangler]

The reason I hate myself and being atheist is because, if there's no God, there's no objective reason to live.

Scientific studies show people who believe in God are happier and life longer. This is reason enough to believe in God.

Leave it to a lot of Christians to say "only us Christians are getting in!" Well gee! God's love isn't very unconditional then, now is it?!

With all due respect, you are confusing love with reward. Ever hear of tough love?

God loves unconditionally and rewards as he alone deems fit. Grace is unearned favor. Not even Christians deserve to get in.

 

[Wrangler]

@Cerraco I thought you'd like this vid on the personification of science, er umm, politicization of "Science." LOL

 

[Cerraco]

1st, you said, "Me saying that the book contradicts some history and science is not always "lies from the enemy"." When I explained how it is based on it revealing who your god is, who your authority is, you changed to.

2nd, the more defensible statement that science is not always "lies from the enemy." If you cannot bring yourself to admit you changed your statement, so be it.

Me bringing up the whole "lies from the enemy" thing was a reference to what Michiah-Imla was saying about my posts. This isn't about me not wanting to admit something. It was just about me saying that I wouldn't completely rely on the book, at least not historically.

Again, you reveal how "Science" is your God. You suppose evidence showing archaic humans and caveman must mean that evolution is unidirectional, that devolving cannot take place? Take snakes for instance, are you aware that snakes have atrophied limbs as appendages and their evolutionary path took the form of devolving? Fascinating.

Yes, there are fossils that reveal the shape of snakes billions/millions of years ago. Although calling my science my God is... maybe not exactly how I would put it, as I think both can exist.

Regarding the notion of a talking snake, I don't think you acknowledged my post where I said many consider Genesis and Job to be allegorical.

And that's perfectly fine. The mental wires get crossed because I think I already read or responded to something since I'm also discussing a somewhat similar thing at the other Christian forums.

I don't think you acknowledged my post where I pointed out that the ancients did not think as we do, that a story is only true if it is literally true. They considered the story true is it contained truth. Many look at Aesop's Fables that way.

Regarding a perfect history book, another error secular atheists make is to suppose the Bible is meant to be a scientific book. They set a standard designed to fail the book. The problem is not with the book. The problem is with the false standard, based on the false god of "Science."

That depends on how the stories are verses are interpreted. Some of the nastier atheists would even say that a bunch of hacks wrote the Bible just to manipulate people, which I don't believe. I can give the benefit of the doubt and say the writers of the Bible meant well, as they were all anonymous, right? Or most of them were? Some see the Bible as this flawless rule book, some see it as both a flawless rule and history book.

Given how difficult it is to translate things, it can also be possible that maybe some words were twisted or misinterpreted a bit, can't it? I mean, I'm sure the main points are still there, but the exact wordings can still get muddied. I'll even throw in a bonus and go so far to say I love Christ, because he's the greatest example of a prophet. How many false prophets out there said "I'll give you good things if uh... all the women sleep with me and everyone gives me money and stuff!"? Jesus wasn't like that, he did things for others, not for himself.

Why do you keep putting science in quotes?

 

[Wrangler]

It was just about me saying that I wouldn't completely rely on the book

What would you completely rely on?

 

[Wrangler]

That depends on how the stories are verses are interpreted. Some of the nastier atheists would even say that a bunch of hacks wrote the Bible just to manipulate people, which I don't believe. I can give the benefit of the doubt and say the writers of the Bible meant well, as they were all anonymous, right? Or most of them were? Some see the Bible as this flawless rule book, some see it as both a flawless rule and history book.

It's an interesting point of semantics and hard for us modern people to imagine this information data storage was retained verbally for centuries.

For instance, the first 5 books of the Bible are credited with "being written" by Moses. In point of fact, Moses lived ~1700 BC and the books in written form did not take place until about 600 BC. So, today we are all scribes but back then only a few were. So, who "wrote" the 1st 5 books, Moses or the anonymous scribe?

Naturally, if your semantic take is literally doing the writing, then the author is anonymous. But if your semantic take is who compilled the information and had it stored originally, the answer is Moses - even though stored in the oral tradition for 11 centuries.

There can be no denying a book that covers 4,000 BC to 2,000 years ago is a history book. There are few books of history that can compete with it. However, it is not a text book but source material.

Regarding the notion of the infallibility of the Bible, I am not in the mainstream when I identify rampant IDOLATRY among Christians of the collection of books written by men many centuries ago. (Yes, I believe it was inspired by God but that hardly qualifies as infallible writings of men). What we all should hold is the infallibility of the author of the cosmos and life - if anything.

I say this because again, some invent a standard designed to fail the practical application of the concept. One example is the notion that if Adam and Eve were made perfect, it would be impossible for them to sin. I reject this conception of perfection. Having said all this, I still feel you are going down the wrong path. No matter how perfect God or the Bible is or is not, it really doesn't address you hating yourself or your atheism.

My church does not believe what the Bible says is true because it is in the Bible; We believe it is true and that is why it is in the Bible. Atheists have arguments, which fail against us Christians who've had supernatural experiences. This is true even if we cannot explain it to anyone's satisfaction. This is why witnesses and testimony are terms so commonly invoked. The parallel is a civil trial, where the burden is more likely than not (as opposed to a criminal trial, where the burden is beyond reasonable doubt. Atheists set the standard as all doubt (including unreasonable doubt), a standard designed to fail).

 

[Wrangler]

I'll even throw in a bonus and go so far to say I love Christ

You are an exceptional athiest @Cerraco.

Thank you for making my day.

 

[Wrangler]

Why do you keep putting science in quotes?

To emphasize the word's common usage of IDOLATRY as a god.

 

[Waiting on him]

Me bringing up the whole "lies from the enemy" thing was a reference to what Michiah-Imla was saying about my posts. This isn't about me not wanting to admit something. It was just about me saying that I wouldn't completely rely on the book, at least not historically.

Yes, there are fossils that reveal the shape of snakes billions/millions of years ago. Although calling my science my God is... maybe not exactly how I would put it, as I think both can exist.

And that's perfectly fine. The mental wires get crossed because I think I already read or responded to something since I'm also discussing a somewhat similar thing at the other Christian forums.

That depends on how the stories are verses are interpreted. Some of the nastier atheists would even say that a bunch of hacks wrote the Bible just to manipulate people, which I don't believe. I can give the benefit of the doubt and say the writers of the Bible meant well, as they were all anonymous, right? Or most of them were? Some see the Bible as this flawless rule book, some see it as both a flawless rule and history book.

Given how difficult it is to translate things, it can also be possible that maybe some words were twisted or misinterpreted a bit, can't it? I mean, I'm sure the main points are still there, but the exact wordings can still get muddied. I'll even throw in a bonus and go so far to say I love Christ, because he's the greatest example of a prophet. How many false prophets out there said "I'll give you good things if uh... all the women sleep with me and everyone gives me money and stuff!"? Jesus wasn't like that, he did things for others, not for himself.

Why do you keep putting science in quotes?

Welcome to the forum!

I’ve read through many of the post here bypassing a lot of the fluff. My question for you is what do you admire about jesus?

 

[Waiting on him]

I probably should have stated that just because the whole Adam and Eve stuff didn't happen, that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It would just mean those events didn't happen. I still believe in the events surrounding Christ and how he died.

The Adam and Eve stuff that didn’t happen, is what you are reading in the New Testament. You see this isn’t an account of the creation of the cosmos it was a vision given from God to a man that penned his interpretation of the vision he was given.

 

[Gottservant]

I was at the other Christian Forums, but they banned me [...] I am screaming in my head right now, where is this god? Where is this "heals the broken-hearted" that he does? If he doesn't answer, I might have to escape somewhere, because I can hardly even think.

I've been burned too, the best thing you can do is keep living a better life (that's the best form of revenge).

God was hurt the day you were, if He could take the pain from you He would.