Poll: Can someone be a decent person AND a Christian?
Yes, however religious they are anyone can be considered decent
No, all Christians are not decent, period
It depends on how literally they take their religion
I don't think you can say any answer definitively on this
[Show Results]
 
Can someone be a decent person AND a Christian?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-04-2014, 02:24 PM
RE: Can someone be a decent person AND a Christian?
To me it really doesn't matter. I mean, just because you're an atheist, it doesn't mean you're not a selfish asshole despite being for marriage equality and not having other outdated beliefs. Really it's a by person to person sort of thing.

[Image: notagain.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Miss Suzanne's post
26-04-2014, 10:32 PM (This post was last modified: 26-04-2014 10:39 PM by Deltabravo.)
RE: Can someone be a decent person AND a Christian?
(26-04-2014 01:17 PM)natachan Wrote:  Well first thing is to define what we mean by "Christian." I go by the standard definition:

1:We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

Monotheistic belief in a single supernatural creative intelligence. Nothing here that would stop a person from being decent.

2:We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

Belief in the divinity of Jesus and his sacrifice and immortality. I've mentioned how I find the idea of vicarious punishment to be repugnant, but otherwise nothing here demanding or preventing people from being decent human beings.

3:We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

A belief in the omnipresence of God, and about being close to him through the church. A lot of superstitious mumbo jumbo but nothing that influences morality one way or another.

Why do I post this? I take offense to the statement that Christians must take the bible literally, else they're not really Christian. Because that is NOT how they define Christianity, nor is it how most of society defines it.

Of course you can believe in Jesus and be a good decent person. You can believe in the blood gobbling monster Gorak and still be a decent person. The question is silly. Just being a Christian doesn't make you a homophobic mysogynistic bigot.


There is a new theory, based on facts, which is emerging now about what Christianity is. The proponents of it are Joe Atwill and Ralph Ellis although they differ in their interpretatios of the results.

Christianity was around before the time of the biblical Jesus. The word refers to an "annointed one" who is an "avenger". Jesus is simply the fulfilllment of that religion, not the start of it.

Linguistically, "Christ" is a word with two parts, the first part is "Chr". The second is "ist". The first part is the most imporant and gives away the meaning of the word. It is a sound which people made when trying to pronounce the "R" sound, like a throat clearing "R" sound. The "R" sound and the "Chr" sound both have origins in the concept of fire, or shining. Hence, in English it comes down to us as part of "arson" and also as part of "crystal". You also get words like "ker" which means heat and give us "kerosene" and "carat" which is the degree of brilliance of a diamond. In old English we have hearth meaning place of fire.

This sound was synonymous with the underling concept because people only had the sound, they couldn't write. They also didn't all pronounce it the same way, so in many language it has come down to the present day with different pronunciations but if you look at them they all go back to the same concept of something which shines, like the sun.

Here are some examples. "Or" means gold, and also give us "orange", a color like the sun. As the sun give life we get the concept of "origin" and as the sun comes up in the east and allows us to tell direction we get the concept of "orient" and "orientation".

The ancients used fire, which they called "Ur", to heat homes which allowed them to live in stone buildings and build cities so the first cities are places with names like "Ur" in southern Mesopotamia and Urfu in the north. From these we get present day country names like Iran and Iraq. We also get a host of place names with a harder pronunciation, like Cairo, Corinth, Kyrenia, Corsica, Khartoum, Korea and so on.

Then there are the god related names like Horus and the Arabic and Sanskrit "haris" which also gives us names like Heinrich, Henry, Harris, Henriques, and even the Italian Amer which gives us America.

The most prevalent god figure was Horus, the avenging son of Osiris who is represented in the similar sounding star pattern called Orion which sweeps across the night sky with a bow and arrow and his "belt", followed by his two dogs, Canis Major and Canis Minor.

From this notion of Horis we get the concept of the ruler which gives us words like Aris, as in aristocrat and the german "herr". The astrological associations of Horus give us our "horoscope" divided into twelve sectors and that gives us the "hours" of the days, in French, "heur", actually pronouced "ur".

So, Jesus was just the perceived fulfillment of this idea of a messiah who had come to avenge his father, the "sun". He would have had characteristics which led people to think he was the "anointed one". In those days, being the son of god meant the son of a deified human father as in the case of Augustus Caesar and the kings of Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God

The anointed one would also have been part of the sect which believed in a messianic saviour/king and that person would have been a warrior.

The closest person in the history we have to this is Izats Manu Monobasus who was a king and was a Jewish Nazareen High Priest and was crucified and taken down from the cross by Jospephus Flavian.

The New Testament is a sort of time capsule. The writers of it concealed the identity of their hero by changing the time of his life and his upbringing but they put in the New Testament the philosophy of their sect which is that what is supreme is the "logos", which is the "reason" or "purpose" of life, which, for them was to do good deeds. This was all wrapped up in nice stories of magic and miracles in a form which appealed to the Romans so they would adopt it as the state religion.

The problem is that whoever wrote up this religion wrote into it some pretty glaring inconsistencies which intelligent people would eventually see. These are in the resurrection stories which are all different and irreconcilable. In them, every aspect of the story is different and conflicting in every way so that it is impossible to say that any of them is true, so they all have to be equally "false". Read them and compare if you need proof.

Once you realize this and consider what is behind this problem with the New Testament, the only logical and obvious conclusion is that Christianity is an invented religion. I believe that whoever wrote this made it so that even the Romans did not question the inconsistencies. Whoever wrote it was playing a game with the Romans because he used them to carry forward the religious philosophy of his Jewish sect on the back of a "Jesus" figure who is clearly a sham and a conflation of others. When you tease apart the strands of the characters who make up this "Jesus" you get a number of real people from the 1st century, such as Titus Flavius, Izats, and Eleazor and when you discard Titus, you are left with a Jewish Messianic religion which predates Christianity.

In a way, with this discovery, Jesus has come back a second time. Maybe if we begin to see that, we will see the actual message of the New Testament...to love others as one loves oneself as beibg the logos or "purpose" of life. Then we can leave behind the story telling methods which our ancients used to pass on ideas to our illiterate and barbaric ancestors.

Amen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2014, 01:24 AM
RE: Can someone be a decent person AND a Christian?
(26-04-2014 10:32 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(26-04-2014 01:17 PM)natachan Wrote:  Well first thing is to define what we mean by "Christian." I go by the standard definition:

1:We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

Monotheistic belief in a single supernatural creative intelligence. Nothing here that would stop a person from being decent.

2:We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

Belief in the divinity of Jesus and his sacrifice and immortality. I've mentioned how I find the idea of vicarious punishment to be repugnant, but otherwise nothing here demanding or preventing people from being decent human beings.

3:We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

A belief in the omnipresence of God, and about being close to him through the church. A lot of superstitious mumbo jumbo but nothing that influences morality one way or another.

Why do I post this? I take offense to the statement that Christians must take the bible literally, else they're not really Christian. Because that is NOT how they define Christianity, nor is it how most of society defines it.

Of course you can believe in Jesus and be a good decent person. You can believe in the blood gobbling monster Gorak and still be a decent person. The question is silly. Just being a Christian doesn't make you a homophobic mysogynistic bigot.


There is a new theory, based on facts, which is emerging now about what Christianity is. The proponents of it are Joe Atwill and Ralph Ellis although they differ in their interpretatios of the results.

Christianity was around before the time of the biblical Jesus. The word refers to an "annointed one" who is an "avenger". Jesus is simply the fulfilllment of that religion, not the start of it.

Linguistically, "Christ" is a word with two parts, the first part is "Chr". The second is "ist". The first part is the most imporant and gives away the meaning of the word. It is a sound which people made when trying to pronounce the "R" sound, like a throat clearing "R" sound. The "R" sound and the "Chr" sound both have origins in the concept of fire, or shining. Hence, in English it comes down to us as part of "arson" and also as part of "crystal". You also get words like "ker" which means heat and give us "kerosene" and "carat" which is the degree of brilliance of a diamond. In old English we have hearth meaning place of fire.

This sound was synonymous with the underling concept because people only had the sound, they couldn't write. They also didn't all pronounce it the same way, so in many language it has come down to the present day with different pronunciations but if you look at them they all go back to the same concept of something which shines, like the sun.

Here are some examples. "Or" means gold, and also give us "orange", a color like the sun. As the sun give life we get the concept of "origin" and as the sun comes up in the east and allows us to tell direction we get the concept of "orient" and "orientation".

The ancients used fire, which they called "Ur", to heat homes which allowed them to live in stone buildings and build cities so the first cities are places with names like "Ur" in southern Mesopotamia and Urfu in the north. From these we get present day country names like Iran and Iraq. We also get a host of place names with a harder pronunciation, like Cairo, Corinth, Kyrenia, Corsica, Khartoum, Korea and so on.

Then there are the god related names like Horus and the Arabic and Sanskrit "haris" which also gives us names like Heinrich, Henry, Harris, Henriques, and even the Italian Amer which gives us America.

The most prevalent god figure was Horus, the avenging son of Osiris who is represented in the similar sounding star pattern called Orion which sweeps across the night sky with a bow and arrow and his "belt", followed by his two dogs, Canis Major and Canis Minor.

From this notion of Horis we get the concept of the ruler which gives us words like Aris, as in aristocrat and the german "herr". The astrological associations of Horus give us our "horoscope" divided into twelve sectors and that gives us the "hours" of the days, in French, "heur", actually pronouced "ur".

So, Jesus was just the perceived fulfillment of this idea of a messiah who had come to avenge his father, the "sun". He would have had characteristics which led people to think he was the "anointed one". In those days, being the son of god meant the son of a deified human father as in the case of Augustus Caesar and the kings of Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God

The anointed one would also have been part of the sect which believed in a messianic saviour/king and that person would have been a warrior.

The closest person in the history we have to this is Izats Manu Monobasus who was a king and was a Jewish Nazareen High Priest and was crucified and taken down from the cross by Jospephus Flavian.

The New Testament is a sort of time capsule. The writers of it concealed the identity of their hero by changing the time of his life and his upbringing but they put in the New Testament the philosophy of their sect which is that what is supreme is the "logos", which is the "reason" or "purpose" of life, which, for them was to do good deeds. This was all wrapped up in nice stories of magic and miracles in a form which appealed to the Romans so they would adopt it as the state religion.

The problem is that whoever wrote up this religion wrote into it some pretty glaring inconsistencies which intelligent people would eventually see. These are in the resurrection stories which are all different and irreconcilable. In them, every aspect of the story is different and conflicting in every way so that it is impossible to say that any of them is true, so they all have to be equally "false". Read them and compare if you need proof.

Once you realize this and consider what is behind this problem with the New Testament, the only logical and obvious conclusion is that Christianity is an invented religion. I believe that whoever wrote this made it so that even the Romans did not question the inconsistencies. Whoever wrote it was playing a game with the Romans because he used them to carry forward the religious philosophy of his Jewish sect on the back of a "Jesus" figure who is clearly a sham and a conflation of others. When you tease apart the strands of the characters who make up this "Jesus" you get a number of real people from the 1st century, such as Titus Flavius, Izats, and Eleazor and when you discard Titus, you are left with a Jewish Messianic religion which predates Christianity.

In a way, with this discovery, Jesus has come back a second time. Maybe if we begin to see that, we will see the actual message of the New Testament...to love others as one loves oneself as beibg the logos or "purpose" of life. Then we can leave behind the story telling methods which our ancients used to pass on ideas to our illiterate and barbaric ancestors.

Amen.

I don't think Atwill claims "Christianity was around before the time of the biblical Jesus."

He claims the gospels were an invention of the Flavian dynasty in 69-81 CE.

To my knowledge, he's yet to discuss Paul in depth. Even when we start talking about Paul, we're referring to, at the earliest about 48 to 50 CE, well after Jeebus was supposed to be around.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2014, 01:36 AM
RE: Can someone be a decent person AND a Christian?
(26-04-2014 10:32 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(26-04-2014 01:17 PM)natachan Wrote:  Well first thing is to define what we mean by "Christian." I go by the standard definition:

1:We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

Monotheistic belief in a single supernatural creative intelligence. Nothing here that would stop a person from being decent.

2:We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

Belief in the divinity of Jesus and his sacrifice and immortality. I've mentioned how I find the idea of vicarious punishment to be repugnant, but otherwise nothing here demanding or preventing people from being decent human beings.

3:We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

A belief in the omnipresence of God, and about being close to him through the church. A lot of superstitious mumbo jumbo but nothing that influences morality one way or another.

Why do I post this? I take offense to the statement that Christians must take the bible literally, else they're not really Christian. Because that is NOT how they define Christianity, nor is it how most of society defines it.

Of course you can believe in Jesus and be a good decent person. You can believe in the blood gobbling monster Gorak and still be a decent person. The question is silly. Just being a Christian doesn't make you a homophobic mysogynistic bigot.


There is a new theory, based on facts, which is emerging now about what Christianity is. The proponents of it are Joe Atwill and Ralph Ellis although they differ in their interpretatios of the results.

Christianity was around before the time of the biblical Jesus. The word refers to an "annointed one" who is an "avenger". Jesus is simply the fulfilllment of that religion, not the start of it.

Linguistically, "Christ" is a word with two parts, the first part is "Chr". The second is "ist". The first part is the most imporant and gives away the meaning of the word. It is a sound which people made when trying to pronounce the "R" sound, like a throat clearing "R" sound. The "R" sound and the "Chr" sound both have origins in the concept of fire, or shining. Hence, in English it comes down to us as part of "arson" and also as part of "crystal". You also get words like "ker" which means heat and give us "kerosene" and "carat" which is the degree of brilliance of a diamond. In old English we have hearth meaning place of fire.

This sound was synonymous with the underling concept because people only had the sound, they couldn't write. They also didn't all pronounce it the same way, so in many language it has come down to the present day with different pronunciations but if you look at them they all go back to the same concept of something which shines, like the sun.

Here are some examples. "Or" means gold, and also give us "orange", a color like the sun. As the sun give life we get the concept of "origin" and as the sun comes up in the east and allows us to tell direction we get the concept of "orient" and "orientation".

The ancients used fire, which they called "Ur", to heat homes which allowed them to live in stone buildings and build cities so the first cities are places with names like "Ur" in southern Mesopotamia and Urfu in the north. From these we get present day country names like Iran and Iraq. We also get a host of place names with a harder pronunciation, like Cairo, Corinth, Kyrenia, Corsica, Khartoum, Korea and so on.

Then there are the god related names like Horus and the Arabic and Sanskrit "haris" which also gives us names like Heinrich, Henry, Harris, Henriques, and even the Italian Amer which gives us America.

The most prevalent god figure was Horus, the avenging son of Osiris who is represented in the similar sounding star pattern called Orion which sweeps across the night sky with a bow and arrow and his "belt", followed by his two dogs, Canis Major and Canis Minor.

From this notion of Horis we get the concept of the ruler which gives us words like Aris, as in aristocrat and the german "herr". The astrological associations of Horus give us our "horoscope" divided into twelve sectors and that gives us the "hours" of the days, in French, "heur", actually pronouced "ur".

So, Jesus was just the perceived fulfillment of this idea of a messiah who had come to avenge his father, the "sun". He would have had characteristics which led people to think he was the "anointed one". In those days, being the son of god meant the son of a deified human father as in the case of Augustus Caesar and the kings of Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God

The anointed one would also have been part of the sect which believed in a messianic saviour/king and that person would have been a warrior.

The closest person in the history we have to this is Izats Manu Monobasus who was a king and was a Jewish Nazareen High Priest and was crucified and taken down from the cross by Jospephus Flavian.

The New Testament is a sort of time capsule. The writers of it concealed the identity of their hero by changing the time of his life and his upbringing but they put in the New Testament the philosophy of their sect which is that what is supreme is the "logos", which is the "reason" or "purpose" of life, which, for them was to do good deeds. This was all wrapped up in nice stories of magic and miracles in a form which appealed to the Romans so they would adopt it as the state religion.

The problem is that whoever wrote up this religion wrote into it some pretty glaring inconsistencies which intelligent people would eventually see. These are in the resurrection stories which are all different and irreconcilable. In them, every aspect of the story is different and conflicting in every way so that it is impossible to say that any of them is true, so they all have to be equally "false". Read them and compare if you need proof.

Once you realize this and consider what is behind this problem with the New Testament, the only logical and obvious conclusion is that Christianity is an invented religion. I believe that whoever wrote this made it so that even the Romans did not question the inconsistencies. Whoever wrote it was playing a game with the Romans because he used them to carry forward the religious philosophy of his Jewish sect on the back of a "Jesus" figure who is clearly a sham and a conflation of others. When you tease apart the strands of the characters who make up this "Jesus" you get a number of real people from the 1st century, such as Titus Flavius, Izats, and Eleazor and when you discard Titus, you are left with a Jewish Messianic religion which predates Christianity.

In a way, with this discovery, Jesus has come back a second time. Maybe if we begin to see that, we will see the actual message of the New Testament...to love others as one loves oneself as beibg the logos or "purpose" of life. Then we can leave behind the story telling methods which our ancients used to pass on ideas to our illiterate and barbaric ancestors.

Amen.

"Christianity is an invented religion." Agreed!

"Whoever wrote it was playing a game with the Romans because he used them to carry forward the religious philosophy of his Jewish sect on the back of a "Jesus" figure who is clearly a sham and a conflation of others." YEP!

"when you discard Titus, you are left with a Jewish Messianic religion which predates Christianity." Yeah, I buy that (but I may be wrong.)

"the actual message of the New Testament...to love others as one loves oneself as beibg the logos or "purpose" of life." NOPE! There's thousands of "messages" in the New Testament, not just one important one. Many of them are immoral and most are contradictory. They are very poorly expressed. The purpose of my life is not the same as yours, and not the same as anyone elses' who is reading this.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2014, 04:11 AM
RE: Can someone be a decent person AND a Christian?
(26-04-2014 10:32 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  There is a new theory, based on facts, which is emerging now about what Christianity is. The proponents of it are Joe Atwill and Ralph Ellis although they differ in their interpretatios of the results.
Yeah, no, we (read: the forum) have been over that before. No

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2014, 06:25 AM
RE: Can someone be a decent person AND a Christian?
Robert T. Bakker and Francis Collins. I rest my case.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2014, 10:35 PM
RE: Can someone be a decent person AND a Christian?
Well, I've changed my vote on this one. Charis' post was exceptional and has changed my opinion.

I originally voted for the third option as I felt that there was no excuse for someone to be in favour of some of the less savoury teachings in the Bible. I thought that someone who was that warped that they believed in the subjugation of women and gays was discounted from being decent as a result.

However, I now think that some people think this as the result of being effectively brainwashed from a very young age and they don't feel they can ever question such things because, in their eyes, who are they to question to decision of God. I do not think I can blame them for being in such a position and now see them more as victims of religion.

Really can't say this enough but great post Charis. Thumbsup

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2014, 11:10 PM
RE: Can someone be a decent person AND a Christian?
From an external point of view, if they don't object to the inhuman acts in the bible, then they can't be considered decent, even if they appear to be in all other areas.

A decent Christian would be editing the bible, or at least going to great pains to refute parts of it.

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2014, 11:20 PM
RE: Can someone be a decent person AND a Christian?
(27-04-2014 11:10 PM)sporehux Wrote:  A decent Christian would be editing the bible, or at least going to great pains to refute parts of it.

I disagree. If someone honestly believes in God and the Bible they are not going to see it as their place to be refuting it.

I think atheists sometimes think about Christianity from an atheist mindset when trying to understand Christians, which doesn't work. We have to remember that these people (well, not all but many of them) see the Bible as being literally the word of God. If you truly believed in an omniscient being would you question their judgement? I doubt any of us would.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hughsie's post
27-04-2014, 11:37 PM (This post was last modified: 28-04-2014 12:39 AM by sporehux.)
RE: Can someone be a decent person AND a Christian?
(27-04-2014 11:20 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(27-04-2014 11:10 PM)sporehux Wrote:  A decent Christian would be editing the bible, or at least going to great pains to refute parts of it.

I disagree. If someone honestly believes in God and the Bible they are not going to see it as their place to be refuting it.

I think atheists sometimes think about Christianity from an atheist mindset when trying to understand Christians, which doesn't work. We have to remember that these people (well, not all but many of them) see the Bible as being literally the word of God. If you truly believed in an omniscient being would you question their judgement? I doubt any of us would.

I'm not saying they are intentionally indecent, i judge myself to be a very decent person, yet on reflection of my Christian years I judge myself guilty of indecency via ignorance.The world viewed through a theist lens masks out indecency because of the so called "gods plan" ,

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: