ex Christians

[syo]

Ex Christians, do you give Christianity a second chance? What's your relationship with christianity?

Christianity confuses me to the maximum. Should I abandon it or not? I'm at a loss about christianity.

 

[Sunstone]

Just out of curiosity, what confuses you most about Christianity?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Ex Christians, do you give Christianity a second chance? What's your relationship with christianity?

Christianity confuses me to the maximum. Should I abandon it or not? I'm at a loss about christianity.

Be true to yourself. Make a list of what you believe, what you don't and what you are uncertain about. There are ways of having a strong faith in Christ that don't require acceptance of all the mainstream church doctrines.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Ex Christians, do you give Christianity a second chance? What's your relationship with christianity?

Christianity confuses me to the maximum. Should I abandon it or not? I'm at a loss about christianity.

No. People aside, human sacrifice, the sound of it, doesnt resignate any positive experiences and feelings that I want to incoporate in my life. Kind of like asking me to experience a second chance of being a part of a death without knowing the victim. There are hospital chaplains that are around the dying all the time. I have a choice not to.

Why does christianity confuse you?

In what way are you approaching it?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Ex Christians, do you give Christianity a second chance? What's your relationship with christianity?

Christianity confuses me to the maximum. Should I abandon it or not? I'm at a loss about christianity.

I was born in a christian family but converted to buddhism when i was 20 years old.
I have no relationship to Christianity anymore, except that i do not talk trash about those who follow it because it is still a truthful religion. It just did not give me those answers i was looking for.

 

[Earthling]

Ex Christians, do you give Christianity a second chance? What's your relationship with christianity?

Christianity confuses me to the maximum. Should I abandon it or not? I'm at a loss about christianity.

I've heard your concerns about the resurrection before in other threads. I can try and help you if you like, understand the resurrection, but I don't know what your problem is with it. I don't think you would accept my explanation. I can certainly try to answer any questions you have. IMO, though, the Bible is the source of those answers. Some people want to take little bits of Christianity they like, peace, love, etc. and leave other parts of it for the trash. I think you have to try to understand as much of it as you can. It isn't really complicated when you understand the big picture.

As for your question, I once briefly abandoned Christianity because I learned something about mythology that turned out not to be true. That pagan gods had similar histories as Jesus. I gave it a second chance. But, maybe you just can't accept some real Bible teaching on the resurrection, in which case maybe it's better you give Christianity up. Because maybe that's really what your heart wants anyway.

 

[ChristineM]

Ex Christians, do you give Christianity a second chance? What's your relationship with christianity?

Christianity confuses me to the maximum. Should I abandon it or not? I'm at a loss about christianity.

I was born into a mildly christian family. Before my teens i had become more devoted than mom or dad and attended service every week and helped out at church events.

But it was difficult, i loved my church but the church goers were a different thing. Such a truly nasty bunch you would never wish to meat. By age 14 they had driven me from the church with snide remarks because i could not read the bible.

I was then diagnosed with dyslexia, various aids provided and epiphany. The letters came into focus, the learning that seemed useless all made sense. I read my first book. Sometime after that i did read the bible how it was written (not selectively as many christians read it) and found in the OT such violence and hatred and rape and slavery and theft and murder, even genocide that i realised where the the hatred of disability came from.

My views on Christianity were formed by christians and reinforced by the book they hold dear.

Every ex christian has their own reason for being ex, i am sure my reason is not typical? Ultimately its up to you?

 

[Jumi]

I was raised Christian, but I never actually belonged to the religion aside from being counted as Christian in statistics. We studied the religion for 10 years in school so at least I knew I was no part of it.

 

[Rival]

I would never go back to Christianity. It makes no sense to me at all.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

I only wish that I'd converted sooner. All that effort I wasted on the study of the Bible and theology, trying to make sense of it.

Jesus was executed. His followers were shocked. Then the body vanished. A miracle! It all made sense, sort of. Mark and Paul were obviously Unitarians, believing that Jesus had indeed been the Messiah, and that the (assumed) resurrection proved it. Then, a couple of generations later, people started to claim that it must show that Jesus was divine. They then had to explain how a god could allow himself to be executed. And if Jesus was a god, how could they be monotheists like the Jews? The result is a mess — one might truly say an unholy mess.

 

[syo]

Just out of curiosity, what confuses you most about Christianity?

Why does christianity confuse you?

In what way are you approaching it?

The miracles mostly. On another thread I was told by a dear forum member that the miracles of Jesus aren't to be taken literaly. I have to explore this further, actually... There is new perspective that I was introduced to.
Up till now I took the bible too literally.

 

[syo]

I've heard your concerns about the resurrection before in other threads. I can try and help you if you like, understand the resurrection, but I don't know what your problem is with it. I don't think you would accept my explanation. I can certainly try to answer any questions you have. IMO, though, the Bible is the source of those answers. Some people want to take little bits of Christianity they like, peace, love, etc. and leave other parts of it for the trash. I think you have to try to understand as much of it as you can. It isn't really complicated when you understand the big picture.

As for your question, I once briefly abandoned Christianity because I learned something about mythology that turned out not to be true. That pagan gods had similar histories as Jesus. I gave it a second chance. But, maybe you just can't accept some real Bible teaching on the resurrection, in which case maybe it's better you give Christianity up. Because maybe that's really what your heart wants anyway.

Resurrection and then the miracles that deny natural phenomena didn't fit well. I was told today by a dear forum member that the resurrection etc aren't to be taken literally. My problem with the literal resurrection is that a body that has only a damaged skeleton can't be brought back to life without seriously denying the laws of nature. Did God create the laws of nature to break them?

 

[Earthling]

Resurrection and then the miracles that deny natural phenomena didn't fit well. I was told today by a dear forum member that the resurrection etc aren't to be taken literally. My problem with the literal resurrection is that a body that has only a damaged skeleton can't be brought back to life without seriously denying the laws of nature. Did God create the laws of nature to break them?

Well, it sounds to me like you reject the Bible due to science. Paul made it pretty clear that the resurrection was literal. 1 Corinthians 15:12-21. Jesus was resurrected, and since science can't see that possibility or a great deal more of God's workings of a supernatural nature you can't accept those as real.

That's pretty much it. You aren't going to be open to the possibilities. To you they seem silly, primitive, superstitious. So, like your forum friend you have to make God's workings unreal to avoid looking stupid in the eyes of most. That's pretty much the end of you and Christianity. To subscribe to some pointless watered down version that isn't what the writers of the Bible suggested would be a sort of insult to those teachings and pointless to you.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Well, it sounds to me like you reject the Bible due to science. Paul made it pretty clear that the resurrection was literal. 1 Corinthians 15:12-21. Jesus was resurrected, and since science can't see that possibility or a great deal more of God's workings of a supernatural nature you can't accept those as real.

That's pretty much it. You aren't going to be open to the possibilities. To you they seem silly, primitive, superstitious. So, like your forum friend you have to make God's workings unreal to avoid looking stupid in the eyes of most. That's pretty much the end of you and Christianity. To subscribe to some pointless watered down version that isn't what the writers of the Bible suggested would be a sort of insult to those teachings and pointless to you.

Can you close your eyes and pretend it is yesterday. It seems real? Go back weeks, months, years. How far so you have to go back before the reality of not being able to be resurrected a month, year, the years ago, but one can a thousand?

Is two thousand years so far back for you that that historical and real time period can defy laws of physics but not today?

If you close your eyes, can you imagine the resurrection happening today?

Do you believe in this generation, people can be resurrected?

Remember. God isnt physical. Is it possible? And can you tell its god?

Add.

Serious questions. To me, when you take the Bible literal but everything else metaphoric based on your belief, it puts a strain on how reality can change in Only two thousand years. Unless you believe a resurrection can take place today without god being visible to prove it, I dont see how the laws of physics change.

Also, being written in the bible (physically) doesnt make something literal. If god told jane to write more of what god told her why would you not believe her today but if she were a man before the last book was written in BC you would be all ears?

Can time period and writing change reality within two thousand years?

 

[Earthling]

Can you close your eyes and pretend it is yesterday. It seems real? Go back weeks, months, years. How far so you have to go back before the reality of not being able to be resurrected a month, year, the years ago, but one can a thousand?

Is two thousand years so far back for you that that historical and real time period can defy laws of physics but not today?

If you close your eyes, can you imagine the resurrection happening today?

Do you believe in this generation, people can be resurrected?

Remember. God isnt physical. Is it possible? And can you tell its god?

Add.

Serious questions. To me, when you take the Bible literal but everything else metaphoric based on your belief, it puts a strain on how reality can change in Only two thousand years. Unless you believe a resurrection can take place today without god being visible to prove it, I dont see how the laws of physics change.

Also, being written in the bible (physically) doesnt make something literal. If god told jane to write more of what god told her why would you not believe her today but if she were a man before the last book was written in BC you would be all ears?

Can time period and writing change reality within two thousand years?

I tried associating this response to the context of the post it was responding to and came up with nothing. I can't imagine what it could be, but in just responding to what you are saying I can maybe just say, what, are you like 20 years old or something?

What is different now from when the Bible was written? Cell phones and WiFi? I'm 52 years old and I can easily remember what it was like without those things. I can remember my grandmother telling me what it was like to never see a plane in the sky. These things have only been around for a really short time.

You are basing your sense of reality on the laws of physics as we know them now? What about 2,000 years from now? Are those laws unimaginable because they are at least as old as Aristotle or Archimedes? Is that too old? I don't get the logic in any of that.

Why wouldn't I believe Jane? Because she's a woman? That has nothing to do with it. Because she didn't live in that time? Yes, because, that is the way the Bible was written. In relatively brief periods of time when the events being considered were taking place. As Paul said, those times were over upon the death of Jesus' disciples. There was no need to write any more, or to prophecy, speak in tongues, etc.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What is different now from when the Bible was written? Cell phones and WiFi? I'm 52 years old and I can easily remember what it was like without those things. I can remember my grandmother telling me what it was like to never see a plane in the sky. These things have only been around for a really short time.

I'll come back, but this is basically my point. I was around a little before beepers when Ronald Reagan was elected. Which doesn't mean anything in the skim of things because I have memory issues due to medical conditions and surgery.

That aside, my point is since we cannot look too far back, why would I or anyone expect regardless of age that reality of resurrections can happen then as opposed to now? I mean, when you were young, I'm sure reality was quite different than the first desktop that came around in my days.

So, how can the resurrection be literal then but not now when we can't even remember past two or three generations (or for me, last month) of our time?

I reply fast because I have to read it in sections. If I read it at once, it will take forever.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Follow me here...

I tried associating this response to the context of the post it was responding to and came up with nothing. I can't imagine what it could be, but in just responding to what you are saying I can maybe just say, what, are you like 20 years old or something?

I can't imagine either since because of medical conditions it's hard for me to remember one month back. I have two canes a white and support cane. Balance issues and so forth. I live in a senior disability residential home and I look like I'm 20 but I'm about ten years or so younger than you. If anything, like my neighbor counterparts, you probably have more memory than me.

So, age isn't an issue. My point was if you can't remember X far, how in the world can you take resurrection as literal (going by your post) unless you're taking the bible's word for it? And even so, having faith that the bible is literal is one thing. Nothing wrong with it. However, if we say these things (not message) are literal, I wonder how you got to that conclusion.

Is there other criteria that validates how the resurrection is true outside your faith? I'm not a "need science" person. I do believe that physical nature such as physics, psychology, and sociology has a lot to do with our religious systems and beliefs. Age, of course. Environment, and how we are raised.

What is different now from when the Bible was written? Cell phones and WiFi? I'm 52 years old and I can easily remember what it was like without those things. I can remember my grandmother telling me what it was like to never see a plane in the sky. These things have only been around for a really short time.

B.C and 20th century are two totally different eras...right?

You are basing your sense of reality on the laws of physics as we know them now? What about 2,000 years from now? Are those laws unimaginable because they are at least as old as Aristotle or Archimedes? Is that too old? I don't get the logic in any of that.

I think the laws of physics then are no different than now. Laws of physics exist and work the same regardless if humans, animals, and planets (edit plants) exist or not.

Can Aristotle exist the same as the abrahamic god?

The Romans believed that the gods were human but eternal thereby why they were gods; so, if you believe in jesus' divinity, wouldn't that be the same as zues and other human like gods?

I'm going by your comment. It's not a personal issue just RF discussion.

Why wouldn't I believe Jane? Because she's a woman? That has nothing to do with it. Because she didn't live in that time? Yes, because, that is the way the Bible was written. In relatively brief periods of time when the events being considered were taking place. As Paul said, those times were over upon the death of Jesus' disciples. There was no need to write any more, or to prophecy, speak in tongues, etc.

Male or female, how is something written in BC different in validity of something written today?

If someone said that god told them today to continue writing the bible, would you believe him or her?

If god can do anything, would one limit god to the bible or limit the bible to god? If time difference doesn't matter in religion (yet matters by your age) what criteria does it not exist today (or does it?) as opposed to it being valid thousands of years ago?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What is different now from when the Bible was written? Cell phones and WiFi? I'm 52 years old and I can easily remember what it was like without those things. I can remember my grandmother telling me what it was like to never see a plane in the sky. These things have only been around for a really short time.

Believe me Earthling, 52 is young. I live with people over 70. My parents are way older than you. (I have pet peeves over the age thing, if you can't tell.)

My points in a nutshell:

1. Since we can't remember anything two generations back, what criteria do you have that validates the literal resurrection back then? and, if someone today said god spoke to them, would you believe them? If not, why not?

2. Supernatural belief (I do believe in the supernatural wholeheartedly) is based on psychology, upbringing, environment, how we make sense of our place in the environment, culture, our experiences, biases, and to some people an emphasis on faith. These are the crux of our belief systems regardless the religions. Nothing wrong with this.

Literalism wasn't around until later when philosophers and scientists started questioning the mythology etc with new discoveries of the natural world. The younger we are, the more we are skeptics.

Think about it. Catholics had (have) a lot of mystics. All of the sudden, younger generations started making things more literal. It wasn't like that in countries back when. We're not that old.

 

[Earthling]

Follow me here...



I can't imagine either since because of medical conditions it's hard for me to remember one month back. I have two canes a white and support cane. Balance issues and so forth. I live in a senior disability residential home and I look like I'm 20 but I'm about ten years or so younger than you. If anything, like my neighbor counterparts, you probably have more memory than me.

So, age isn't an issue. My point was if you can't remember X far, how in the world can you take resurrection as literal (going by your post) unless you're taking the bible's word for it? And even so, having faith that the bible is literal is one thing. Nothing wrong with it. However, if we say these things (not message) are literal, I wonder how you got to that conclusion.

Is there other criteria that validates how the resurrection is true outside your faith? I'm not a "need science" person. I do believe that physical nature such as physics, psychology, and sociology has a lot to do with our religious systems and beliefs. Age, of course. Environment, and how we are raised.



B.C and 20th century are two totally different eras...right?



I think the laws of physics then are no different than now. Laws of physics exist and work the same regardless if humans, animals, and planets (edit plants) exist or not.

Can Aristotle exist the same as the abrahamic god?

The Romans believed that the gods were human but eternal thereby why they were gods; so, if you believe in jesus' divinity, wouldn't that be the same as zues and other human like gods?

I'm going by your comment. It's not a personal issue just RF discussion.



Male or female, how is something written in BC different in validity of something written today?

If someone said that god told them today to continue writing the bible, would you believe him or her?

If god can do anything, would one limit god to the bible or limit the bible to god? If time difference doesn't matter in religion (yet matters by your age) what criteria does it not exist today (or does it?) as opposed to it being valid thousands of years ago?

The difficulty in what you seem to be suggesting, from my perspective, is that it isn't concrete. Practical. I tend not to think in metaphysical, philosophical or theological terms. To me, and I think to the writers of the Bible as well, this is true.

However, when I define what a god is or what a soul is, they are not dissimilar to that in your signature. I don't see the relevance in what you are saying.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

With my signature, when I think of god, I don't see it as an incarnation, person, or anything of that nature. So, when you say resurrection, that is completely foreign to me literally. It honestly reminds me of Greek and Roman history and mythology and their stories. There are honest and actual Pagans who believe the literal and/or metaphorical deities just as many christians. I don't see the difference cause I'm not a right or wrong person in religion unless someone is using their religion to harm others.

The difficulty in what you seem to be suggesting, from my perspective, is that it isn't concrete. Practical. I tend not to think in metaphysical, philosophical or theological terms. To me, and I think to the writers of the Bible as well, this is true.

That's why you are confusing me. BC isn't that long ago and the laws of physics didn't change in the last ten or twenty years on back. There is no time period in regards to physics.

So, if the resurrection is literal, like any other topic regardless if it's religious or not, I would ask for some logic of how that can happen. We don't have to test it or anything; but, there must be some logic that got you to that literal conclusion beyond your faith or belief.

You can say metaphysics is new age; however, metaphors, stories, testimonies such as turning water to wine, and so forth, the supernatural, are, by definition, metaphysics. Unless you are a materialist, the names are the same regardless of whichever we chose to use given our generational language familiarity.

However, when I define what a god is or what a soul is, they are not dissimilar to that in your signature. I don't see the relevance in what you are saying.

Yes. If we talked about just god, the only thing we would differ with is jesus christ.

Since we are talking about the resurrection and not the existence and nature of god, I wanted to know how you got to that conclusion in the literal sense of the term.