Ex-Christian here.

[dogsgod]

Why do you try to compare God and a spaghetti monster? There is no comparison.

Substitute God with spaghetti monster in every instance you come across from here on in and you will soon come to realize that there is no difference at all. In the beginning spaghetti monster created the heavens and the earth. See what I mean? It makes not a wit of difference.

 

[Riverwolf]

Substitute God with spaghetti monster in every instance you come across from here on in and you will soon come to realize that there is no difference at all. In the beginning spaghetti monster created the heavens and the earth. See what I mean?

No, not really.

 

[Walkntune]

Substitute God with spaghetti monster in every instance you come across from here on in and you will soon come to realize that there is no difference at all. In the beginning spaghetti monster created the heavens and the earth. See what I mean? It makes not a wit of difference.

Only to those who only think intellectually but not in touch intuitively or with wisdom!
Although there are many different labels for God, most people on the planet are in touch with their intuition and can sense the creative force of energy from which came all existence.People might rationalise this energy from different perspectives but one fact remains and that a majority of people sense it"s existance intuitively.

 

[Oberon]

Only to those who only think intellectually but not in touch intuitively or with wisdom!

No, I think that statement precludes people who think intellectually as well. Even among modern atheist intellectuals, the idea that any theology is equates with the "spaghetti monster" is rare (cf. Pinker, who in his book The Blank State acknowledges that "a sophisticated deism" is not incompatable with modern scientific thought).

 

[Walkntune]

No, I think that statement precludes people who think intellectually as well. Even among modern atheist intellectuals, the idea that any theology is equates with the "spaghetti monster" is rare (cf. Pinker, who in his book The Blank State acknowledges that "a sophisticated deism" is not incompatable with modern scientific thought).

Yes I agree with you. Some people don't recognise the gifts of wisdom and intuition that come when we learn to quiet the mind.

 

[fantome profane]

What I'm saying is, if you believe in the bible which is the word of GOD, then you obviously cannot believe in the concepts of evolution . My point is that there are several people that claim to be Christian by simply picking and choosing passages from the bible, yet the accept theories like evolution. In my opinion if you are going to half *** it, you might as well go all the way.

It is not that I don’t understand the point you are trying to make, you have made yourself quite clear, and you are clearly wrong. I am sorry but you have a very simplistic narrow view of what Christianity is. There is absolutely no logical reason why the “word of God” cannot include an allegory. Do you know what an allegory is?

Many Christians accept the theory of evolution. Many Christians believe that Genesis is the word of “God”, but not meant to be taken literally. There is no reason that “God” must be limited to literal accounts. There is no reason that “God” could not use metaphors, allegories, parables etc to convey ideas. I am not saying that this is what I believe, but many Christians do believe this. It has nothing to do with picking and choosing, it has to do with interpreting the Bible intelligently. This includes Popes, Bishops, Priests, Ministers, and lay people. There are biologists who are Christians. (notice my signature)

You have one interpretation of the Bible, you have recently come to understand that the Bible cannot be true according to this interpretation. I congratulate you on that awakening. But now you insist that all Christians must have that same interpretation of the Bible that you have rejected. This is a very narrow minded position.

 

[dogsgod]

I read Steven Pinker's How The Mind Works. I seem to recall it was Pinker that explained how definitions of God are never too sophisticated or so complex that a four year old child could not understand. There is good reason for this since by that age most children have been introduced to the concept.

 

[tarasan]

Substitute God with spaghetti monster in every instance you come across from here on in and you will soon come to realize that there is no difference at all. In the beginning spaghetti monster created the heavens and the earth. See what I mean? It makes not a wit of difference.

not at all tehy just arnt comparible, they dont have same attributes or anything merely because you slap teh term God to him makes no different, teh speggettia monster is one gaint logical fallacy.

 

[Riverwolf]

Only to those who only think intellectually but not in touch intuitively or with wisdom!

Not even intellectually.

God's attributes are purposely vague and abstract, whereas the very name of the FSM is descriptive.

 

[Walkntune]

Not even intellectually.

God's attributes are purposely vague and abstract, whereas the very name of the FSM is descriptive.

I agree. All names were given for descriptive character and purposes. God is "I Am " signifying he cannot be held into such containment as a name.

 

[Ethos88]

It is not that I don’t understand the point you are trying to make, you have made yourself quite clear, and you are clearly wrong. I am sorry but you have a very simplistic narrow view of what Christianity is. There is absolutely no logical reason why the “word of God” cannot include an allegory. Do you know what an allegory is?

Many Christians accept the theory of evolution. Many Christians believe that Genesis is the word of “God”, but not meant to be taken literally. There is no reason that “God” must be limited to literal accounts. There is no reason that “God” could not use metaphors, allegories, parables etc to convey ideas. I am not saying that this is what I believe, but many Christians do believe this. It has nothing to do with picking and choosing, it has to do with interpreting the Bible intelligently. This includes Popes, Bishops, Priests, Ministers, and lay people. There are biologists who are Christians. (notice my signature)

You have one interpretation of the Bible, you have recently come to understand that the Bible cannot be true according to this interpretation. I congratulate you on that awakening. But now you insist that all Christians must have that same interpretation of the Bible that you have rejected. This is a very narrow minded position.

So you are telling me Christianity is evolving based off of scientific research? To me it just seems like you are trying to validate yourself by attaching a non-literal meaning to that of Christianity. If you are not going to take the bible literally on some parts but do it on other accounts then you are like I said earlier one of those that picks and chooses what you like about your religion. I'm not wrong on any accounts.

 

[Riverwolf]

So you are telling me Christianity is evolving based off of scientific research? To me it just seems like you are trying to validate yourself by attaching a non-literal meaning to that of Christianity. If you are not going to take the bible literally on some parts but do it on other accounts then you are like I said earlier one of those that picks and chooses what you like about your religion. I'm not wrong on any accounts.

And like I said earlier, picking and choosing is how the Bible got canonized in the first place. In fact, the Biblical canon isn't even all that consistent; certain sects contain books that you've probably never heard of, and others remove the Tanakh altogether.

Therefore, there's nothing wrong with picking and choosing from the Bible.

 

[tarasan]

So you are telling me Christianity is evolving based off of scientific research? To me it just seems like you are trying to validate yourself by attaching a non-literal meaning to that of Christianity. If you are not going to take the bible literally on some parts but do it on other accounts then you are like I said earlier one of those that picks and chooses what you like about your religion. I'm not wrong on any accounts.

like i said no certian parts of the bible were not meant to be takin literally, like parabals for an obvious example, ecclesiasties for another.

and like i said we arnt just manipulating what we bleieve the decision that Genesis didnt have to be taken seriously was decided 1400 years ago, way before darwin!

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

The only sad part I find in this, is that I hadn't defected earlier. Through science anything is possible. Through religion, only a false sense of security for what cannot be explained.

Why would a God who cares for us and loves us SO much, allow his creations to suffer. When people are killed from earthquakes, diseases, famine, ect. People say "It's Gods will". Well I'm here to tell you I will never worship a God who claims to love his creations then torture them.

Besides there is so much evidence refuting God it's blinding.

Paradigm shifts can be difficult.

Welcome to RF

 

[Ethos88]

like i said no certian parts of the bible were not meant to be takin literally, like parabals for an obvious example, ecclesiasties for another.

and like i said we arnt just manipulating what we bleieve the decision that Genesis didnt have to be taken seriously was decided 1400 years ago, way before darwin!

Oh so your telling me that Christianity doesn't need to be taken seriously then? Becasue the bible IS the foundation for Christianity.

 

[Riverwolf]

Oh so your telling me that Christianity doesn't need to be taken seriously then? Becasue the bible IS the foundation for Christianity.

No, Jesus is.

...What denomination did you belong to, anyway?

 

[tarasan]

Oh so your telling me that Christianity doesn't need to be taken seriously then? Becasue the bible IS the foundation for Christianity.

were in my message did i say that? youre making wild assumptions. I stated that there are some books that are ment to portray certain messages, the actual story isnt meant to be taken as literal truth, so long as we know what the story means of coarse it can be taken seriously and it doesnt stop the bible being a primary source in Christianity.

You are making wild stabs in the dark to try and defeat soemthing you clearly know nothing about.

 

[LoTrobador]

If you are not going to take the bible literally on some parts but do it on other accounts then you are like I said earlier one of those that picks and chooses what you like about your religion.

I'm afraid Christianity might be far, far more complex and diverse than you perceive it to be.

 

[blackout]

Either you never weere a Christian or you have become insane. No sane Christian would ever give up life eternal for death.

Christianity almost killed me.
literally.
And I loved (the figure) Jesus very much.
At the time of course I believed he was "actual".

Soon after my REAL "re-birth"
or "New Eyes" epiphany...
I dropped the religion all together,
permanently,
for the simpler 'religion' of Life and Self.

I've been SOOOOOO much happier ever since.

Eternity is NOW. Life, is now.

Go figure.

 

[tarasan]

Christianity almost killed me.
literally.
And I loved (the figure) Jesus very much.
At the time of course I believed he was "actual".

Soon after my REAL "re-birth"
or "New Eyes" epiphany...
I dropped the religion all together,
permanently,
for the simpler 'religion' of Life and Self.

I've been SOOOOOO much happier ever since.

Eternity is NOW. Life, is now.

Go figure.

eternity and life are now, they ahve both been given as a Gift by God

and hasnt Christianity almost killed everyone, dear Lord i remeber when i was 16 sitting in a tent in some stupid christian conference believing that the God of the bible hated me and wanted to torture me because of how harsh and judgemental people where.

What they said was a lie, the decieved me in an attempt to raise themselves up above me, but that wasnt true, and it wasnt what the bible taught.