• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Hi!

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Thanks for the welcome! Although I I have no problem with Christianity, I am non-religious myself. My views on what the scripture writers were saying are not always welcome by Christians. We will see what happens.
Welcome....
And now i am curious!!
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I have been around religion oriented forums for years. While not religious myself, I find the subject of religion and especially the Christian scriptures to be fascinating. I have no quarrel with anyone's flavor of religiosity or lack thereof. Yet I have my own opinions about what the authors of the various scripture intended to be understood. This is not based on any ideology pro or con but simply on what I see in the writings in the context of their times and situations.

So again, Hi!

Welcome to the forums Miken. I hope you have a great time here. :)
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I have been around religion oriented forums for years. While not religious myself, I find the subject of religion and especially the Christian scriptures to be fascinating. I have no quarrel with anyone's flavor of religiosity or lack thereof. Yet I have my own opinions about what the authors of the various scripture intended to be understood. This is not based on any ideology pro or con but simply on what I see in the writings in the context of their times and situations.

So again, Hi!
Welcome to RF :)
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Thanks for the welcome! Although I I have no problem with Christianity, I am non-religious myself. My views on what the scripture writers were saying are not always welcome by Christians. We will see what happens.
We will debate heartedly! But in a friendly manner. I always give you a wide berth for being wrong. :D ;) LOL
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I have been around religion oriented forums for years. While not religious myself, I find the subject of religion and especially the Christian scriptures to be fascinating. I have no quarrel with anyone's flavor of religiosity or lack thereof. Yet I have my own opinions about what the authors of the various scripture intended to be understood. This is not based on any ideology pro or con but simply on what I see in the writings in the context of their times and situations.

So again, Hi!

And Hi to you. Time to sit back, relax and enjoy the RF cake

3291372281_d72ef5e24f_b.jpg
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Thanks for the welcome! Although I I have no problem with Christianity, I am non-religious myself. My views on what the scripture writers were saying are not always welcome by Christians. We will see what happens.

My views are not always welcomed by other "Christians" either, but we have broad shoulders here and hopefully the maturity to discuss sensitive topics without animosity. Sometimes that is a challenge but we try. :D

It is my experience that many "former Christians" or those raised in Christian families have taken the time to search the scriptures for themselves and try to answer some of the bigger questions. If no satisfying answers are forthcoming, they usually tend to ditch the whole deal and start looking elsewhere. Would that describe you, or are there other reasons for your your identification..."none"?
 

Miken

Active Member
My views are not always welcomed by other "Christians" either, but we have broad shoulders here and hopefully the maturity to discuss sensitive topics without animosity. Sometimes that is a challenge but we try. :D

It is my experience that many "former Christians" or those raised in Christian families have taken the time to search the scriptures for themselves and try to answer some of the bigger questions. If no satisfying answers are forthcoming, they usually tend to ditch the whole deal and start looking elsewhere. Would that describe you, or are there other reasons for your your identification..."none"?

I was raised Roman Catholic including 13 years of Catholic school. (My first year of college was at a Catholic University.) I did very well in learning Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. But it was academic. Somewhere in high school I came to realize that although I knew it very well, religion was not inside me. It was as I said, only academic, just like all the mythology stories I loved to read.

I am not an adherent of any religion but I find labels like agnostic or atheist too limited. The possible existence of a creator entity of this gigantic super complex and really weird universe does not strike me as in any way related to any religion I ever studied.

Although I am curious about exploring religions in general and Christian scriptures in particular it is because they are fascinating and entertaining, not because I am seeking anything beyond my curiosity. Therefore ‘None’.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I was raised Roman Catholic including 13 years of Catholic school. (My first year of college was at a Catholic University.) I did very well in learning Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. But it was academic. Somewhere in high school I came to realize that although I knew it very well, religion was not inside me. It was as I said, only academic, just like all the mythology stories I loved to read.

Thank you so much for your reply. I have studied the Bible with quite a few Catholic people over the years and found them all to be sincere, but lacking even in basic knowledge of the scriptures. They know Catholicism but are not well versed in the scriptures at all, which is a pity because if they had been more schooled in scripture they would have picked up on the unscriptural doctrines that they were espousing. This was true in my case. I had a church upbringing but no real Bible education. It wasn't until I actually studied the Bible that I came to appreciate how far Christendom had wandered off the track....and how many of her doctrines were not biblical but adoptions from other religious ideas.

It is interesting that you say that 'religion was not inside you'. I began to feel that way too until I started looking into evolution and finding that the intricate design in nature would not allow me to imagine that it all happened by accident. I began to feel as if God was there, but he was not the same God that I had learned about in church.
When I studied the Bible...I found him. He was awesome!

I am not an adherent of any religion but I find labels like agnostic or atheist too limited. The possible existence of a creator entity of this gigantic super complex and really weird universe does not strike me as in any way related to any religion I ever studied.

One of the things I learned is that religion is man made....God did not have a religion in the beginning...there was no need. There was no great list of rules and his instructions were really simple.
It wasn't until humans started inventing other gods that he needed to distinguish his worship from the worship of the phonies.

Although I am curious about exploring religions in general and Christian scriptures in particular it is because they are fascinating and entertaining, not because I am seeking anything beyond my curiosity. Therefore ‘None’.

That makes sense. Anything in particular that you wanted to discuss curiosity-wise? I don't think there is a question left that I haven't already answered. LOL :D

Do you have pet subjects? e.g. things you were taught about God or creation that just don't sit well with you?
 
Last edited:

Miken

Active Member
Thank you so much for your reply. I have studied the Bible with quite a few Catholic people over the years and found them all to be sincere, but lacking even in basic knowledge of the scriptures. They know Catholicism but are not well versed in the scriptures at all, which is a pity because if they had been more schooled in scripture they would have picked up on the unscriptural doctrines that they were espousing. This was true in my case. I had a church upbringing but no real Bible education. It wasn't until I actually studied the Bible that I came to appreciate how far Christendom had wandered off the track....and how many of her doctrines were not biblical but adoptions from other religious ideas.

Catholicism does not subscribe to sola scriptura which only came about in the 16th century. Tradition is also important. A number of the (more or less) unique tenets of Catholicism arose from consideration of early non-canonical writings that related to the canonical ones. These were taken to represent the common understanding of the time. One example: The idea of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary comes from the 2nd century Protoevangelium of James. It was assumed that this represented actual truth that was handed down and not invention.

It is interesting that you say that 'religion was not inside you'. I began to feel that way too until I started looking into evolution and finding that the intricate design in nature would not allow me to imagine that it all happened by accident. I began to feel as if God was there, but he was not the same God that I had learned about in church.
When I studied the Bible...I found him. He was awesome!

You are entitled to your own take on God and I will not gainsay it. I will just note that I do not find God in the Bible. (Or anywhere else, but that is a different topic.)

One of the things I learned is that religion is man made....God did not have a religion in the beginning...there was no need. There was no great list of rules and his instructions were really simple.
It wasn't until humans started inventing other gods that he needed to distinguish his worship from the worship of the phonies.

Agreed. But as you might guess, I think all the gods were invented.

That makes sense. Anything in particular that you wanted to discuss curiosity-wise? I don't think there is a question left that I haven't already answered. LOL
clip_image001.png


Do you have pet subjects? e.g. things you were taught about God or creation that just don't sit well with you?

My Catholic upbringing did not insist on that much literal understanding of the OT, so I am not terribly concerned with six days or a literal flood or why God sent those bears (although that is an interesting and usually misunderstood passage).

I find the NT very interesting. Of very special interest to me is the several Gospel writers bouncing off each other. I see multiple contradictory viewpoints driven by varying ideological agendas and the authors writing intentionally at odds with each other. But that is a really big topic. Not here. Not now. Suffice it to say that I do not see a secure basis for a religion here.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Thank you for your reply....
Catholicism does not subscribe to sola scriptura which only came about in the 16th century. Tradition is also important.

It occurs to me that God used humans to write what he inspired them to record for the benefit of his people.....and generations to come. Sola scriptura makes sense to me because humans have a tendency to embellish oral instructions, adding things that end up corrupting the original and deviating from its intent.

Having his instructions and historical information written down and meticulously copied over time meant that man would not add, (even a little at a time) to what God inspired and preserved to this day, despite many attempts to destroy it. But humans being humans....”I think we should do this, or believe that” becomes “God said we must do this or believe that”. Most of the flock, who were kept in ignorance for centuries, didn’t know the difference.

We saw with the nation of Israel that very problem.....they added to the Torah by creating an oral tradition that purportedly supplied more explicit explanation of God’s instruction. In time that tradition overtook the word and became a substitute that God never sanctioned. I believe that the church did exactly the same thing. These additions compounded over centuries until Christianity was almost unrecognizable. But not many people know that it was foretold that this would happen. Christendom pretends that it didn’t. But her divided state....her diverse unscriptural doctrines...and her record of bloodshed, betray her.

Jesus told the religious leaders of his day that they had “made the word of God invalid by their tradition”. Tradition is the words and thoughts of men, so if God had wanted additions, he would have inspired them......I do not see where he ever did that.

A number of the (more or less) unique tenets of Catholicism arose from consideration of early non-canonical writings that related to the canonical ones.

And a lot of what Catholicism added was nothing to do with God’s word. You see the writings were voluminous but the canon was not chosen by the church....it is God’s word and he determined what should be included....whom he used to compile it is irrelevant. Canonical scripture is harmonious in its flow from Genesis to Revelation. It tells one story from the beginning of the universe to man’s creation and fall......and what God did from then on to provide a rescue mission for Adam’s children, caught up in a struggle over sovereignty. The issues raised in Eden had to be resolved once and for all time, or else free willed creatures would never let it rest. We are part of the greatest object lesson that God will ever conduct, because the end result will create precedents for all time to come so that his sovereignty can never be challenged again by anyone.

What you call “unique tenets of Catholicism” can all be traced back to Babylon and the rebellion of man at its unique tower.

These were taken to represent the common understanding of the time. One example: The idea of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary comes from the 2nd century Protoevangelium of James. It was assumed that this represented actual truth that was handed down and not invention.

The trappings of mother goddess worship found their way into the Catholic Faith by elevating the person of Mary to a virtual deity on equal footing with her son....something the Bible does in no way even suggest.
In Babylonian mythology, Semiramis, the mother of Nimrod deified her murdered son and thus made herself “the mother of God”.
Nimrod was worshipped as the god Tammuz whom Israel were lured into worshipping at one time. (Ezekiel 8:13-14)
In Sumerian text, Tammuz is called Dumuzi and is identified as the consort or lover of the fertility goddess Inanna (the Babylonian Ishtar). Ishtar is immortalised to this day as Easter.....her symbols were rabbits and eggs. Are you getting a clearer picture now?

Mother goddesses were perpetual virgins but Mary was a typical Jewish mother who, along with her husband Joseph, were blessed with a large family. Jesus was her firstborn but the Bible indicates that they had at least six other children.
Elevating Mary to ‘goddess’ level produced a whole lot of other doctrines which were never scriptural but nonetheless taught as if they were. How could the church ever claim to follow scripture when a multitude of their doctrines never originated there? It served her purpose to ditch sola scriptura because so much was adopted from outside of scripture.......never even close to anything that Jesus taught.

You are entitled to your own take on God and I will not gainsay it. I will just note that I do not find God in the Bible.

Each person must do their own search, but I do not believe that we find God on our own. If we are genuinely looking for God, he knows it and will draw that person to an understanding of his truth. Without that invitation from God, no one will be able to understand a thing. (John 6:44; 65)

Agreed. But as you might guess, I think all the gods were invented.

If there is one true God and one truth taught by him, what is the best way for his adversary to hide them?

Have you heard the illustration about how you can hide a 40ft tree out in the middle of a cleared field? The answer is you can’t...but if you have time up your sleeve, and you plant a virtual forest of similar looking trees all around that original tree.....eventually, as all the trees grow to the same height, it will become nigh on to impossible to identify the original, especially if you don’t really know what it looked like. This is what I believe God’s adversary has done with true worship......he has planted all manner of false worship in the world so that no one knows what true worship even looks like.

My Catholic upbringing did not insist on that much literal understanding of the OT, so I am not terribly concerned with six days or a literal flood or why God sent those bears (although that is an interesting and usually misunderstood passage).

My Anglican upbringing at least gave me a consciousness about God and an appreciation for nature. I had no reason to question the literal application of the OT stories because I examined them carefully to see for myself if they could be taken literally.

The six days of creation for example....I studied the Jewish text and discovered that the word “day” (yohm) could mean either a 24 hour period or it could mean an undetermined period of time. So, as science confirms, the universe and the earth and all it contains could not have come into existence only 6,000 years ago. But if Genesis 1:1 was a statement separate from what followed (as in God preparing this raw planet for habitation) and the “days” themselves were not 24 hours, but thousands or even millions of years in length, that would explain creation in a way that supports what science knows (as opposed to what science assumes about a lot of things) The Bible must agree with what science can prove....I believe it does.....but science disagrees with the Bible in what it assumes about evolution. True science verses theoretical science is not the same ball game.

I find the NT very interesting. Of very special interest to me is the several Gospel writers bouncing off each other. I see multiple contradictory viewpoints driven by varying ideological agendas and the authors writing intentionally at odds with each other.

I don’t see any of them at odds with the others but I do see four different viewpoints all included to round out one story.

But that is a really big topic. Not here. Not now. Suffice it to say that I do not see a secure basis for a religion here.

Is there such a thing as a “secure basis” for something that requires faith? (Hebrews 11:1-3) Isn’t faith what separates the believer from the unbeliever? So where does faith come from?
What makes a person a strong believer when there is no ‘secure basis’ for their belief except what they know about their God, their personal experience of him, and the truthfulness of his word?

Rejecting what a religion teaches about God is different from accepting what the Bible says about him....or at least that is my experience.
 
Last edited:
Top