a former Evangelical "born again" explains why Protestantism isn't true

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by adjensen

 

I'm not saying that physicists and mathematicians aren't atheists, just that they have a lower rate, and that there's a reason for it, the same reason that I'm not an atheist. That's a rational reason, I'm just asking why you think that it's irrational to even consider it, as your post stated.

First off, my statement of an all-knowing, mystical magical being is right up there with stories of Alice in Wonderland and Wizard of Oz. Why don't you believe these stories, too? If you find them to be purely fictional, then what part of your rational mind can separate the god story from the others? It is completely irrational to believe in a white rabbit carrying a pocket watch, magic ruby slippers, or a man walking on water. All of these stories are literary nonsense.

The Wizard of Oz and Alice in Wonderland are very deep but not everyone understands their meaning - a bit like the bible really.
Have you read either of the books you have mentioned and tried to understand the philosophy behind them? If not you can always go online and find out.

Originally posted by colbe

If you disbelieve the basic teaching of the Trinity, you are non-Christian.

Do you have Scripture for that?

Originally posted by adjensen

Since he'll be along shortly to state it, I'll pre-empt Truejew -- his cult uses a different version of The Gospel of Matthew which does not have 28:19 in it. Well, actually it does, but the whole verse is just the word "Go".

This alternate version of Matthew that they use is claimed to be the "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew", which they claim is the original text, though all evidence is that it is a forgery, created by Jews in the 14th Century to serve as a basis to argue against Christianity.

He'll also claim that "many modern scholars say that Matthew 28:19 was added after the fact", which isn't true (illegitimate "scholars", such as the Jesus Seminar, do not qualify,) and every Bible ever found (apart from forgeries like his) have that text in them.

Actually, most of us, including myself, mainly use the KJV. The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is only one evidence that supports the truth about Matthew 28:18-20.

The strongest evidence that supports the truth is that the apostles baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. If Jesus said the words "baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost", why did the apostles disobey?

Originally posted by adjensen
Wait a second, did you really just say "God says we're supposed to love each other, we don't and the world sucks as a result"? How is that God's fault?

Playing devils advocate here .... Father God made us, so shouldn't Father God step in and make his presence known .. discipline the kids .. show Himself so that there is no doubt about His being charge ... instead of letting them run crazy?? It's like Lord of the Flies ....

What a strange thread. Catholics calling the protestant church a cult? Lol? Seriously?

And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet color, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

cherrybombcoutour.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by vaelamin
What a strange thread. Catholics calling the protestant church a cult? Lol? Seriously?

ALL Christian groups are a cult by definition.
Cult - noun - A system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.

And yes .. many protestant groups are rather odd .. Seventh Day Adventists for example. According to those I've spoken to - If you have as you rmain day of worship of God on any day except Saturday then you are going to hell. The Baptists who used to come knocking on our door said that all non-baptists were going to Hell. Ditto the Church of Christ people who used to come knocking on our door saying that if you weren't Church of Christ, or if you drank beer, you were going to Hell. etc etc etc. Using the modern term of 'cult' ... those are all pretty 'cultish'.

Wait a second, did you really just say "God says we're supposed to love each other, we don't and the world sucks as a result"?

Don't think so. I thought I getting at how, through the belief in a god, over six billion people have been teaching and preaching love. The point is, there are 7 billion people, so if 90% of them are religious, who is destroying the planet?

Where is the evidence that billions of people, religious or not, are actually following the teachings of God, and, more to the point, where is the evidence that the decision makers, the ones who declare wars and run countries and economies, are following God's teachings? I follow God's teachings, treat those around me well, and am charitable and loving, but my impact on world peace is essentially zero.

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by adjensen

 

I'm not saying that physicists and mathematicians aren't atheists, just that they have a lower rate, and that there's a reason for it, the same reason that I'm not an atheist. That's a rational reason, I'm just asking why you think that it's irrational to even consider it, as your post stated.

First off, my statement of an all-knowing, mystical magical being is right up there with stories of Alice in Wonderland and Wizard of Oz. Why don't you believe these stories, too?

Well, you've two problems there. First, those books are written works of fiction and have never been presented as anything but that. The fact that you don't believe that Christ walked on water doesn't make it fictional for anyone but you, and it doesn't alter the fact of whether he did or he didn't. To think otherwise is irrational.

Secondly, in an essentially infinite universe, of which our knowledge is, essentially, zero, it is similarly irrational to dispute that somewhere, somewhen, there may be, have been, or will be rabbits with pocket watches or flying monkeys.

You're stuck in a mindframe that says "all there is is what is before me, that I can personally witness, measure and attest to", and that's not a reasonable perspective, at least on "big picture" things that are not (and cannot be) limited to what is before you.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by adjensen
Wait a second, did you really just say "God says we're supposed to love each other, we don't and the world sucks as a result"? How is that God's fault?

Playing devils advocate here .... Father God made us, so shouldn't Father God step in and make his presence known .. discipline the kids .. show Himself so that there is no doubt about His being charge ... instead of letting them run crazy?? It's like Lord of the Flies ....

Who's to say that he hasn't, but the majority just ignore it?

Originally posted by truejew
The strongest evidence that supports the truth is that the apostles baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. If Jesus said the words "baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost", why did the apostles disobey?

Where does the Bible having any Apostle baptizing someone and saying the words "I baptize you in the name of Jesus"? Acts 10:44–48 demonstrates that the Holy Spirit (and your "speaking in tongues" proof of salvation) came onto people who weren't baptized, so it's pretty evident that it's not required for salvation.

Originally posted by adjensen

Where does the Bible having any Apostle baptizing someone and saying the words "I baptize you in the name of Jesus"?

The book of Acts. Plus, there is no other name by which we must be saved, baptism is about having Faith in Christ, we are baptized into Christ, and baptism is a symbol of being buried with Christ. In addition, it is Christ who died for us, not the Father/Holy Spirit, and therefore baptism is in the name of Jesus.

Originally posted by adjensen

Acts 10:44–48 demonstrates that the Holy Spirit (and your "speaking in tongues" proof of salvation) came onto people who weren't baptized, so it's pretty evident that it's not required for salvation.

Repentance, baptism, and Holy Spirit are all necessary. God gave the Gentiles the Holy Spirit before baptism as a sign to the early Church that God was opening salvation up to the Gentiles and they should baptize them. The Gentiles conversion was not complete until baptism.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Where does the Bible having any Apostle baptizing someone and saying the words "I baptize you in the name of Jesus"?

The book of Acts.

No, it doesn't. There is no place in Acts, or anywhere else, that has the scene of someone being baptized and those words being spoken.

Repentance, baptism, and Holy Spirit are all necessary.

And, as these are all works, thank you for demonstrating that your theology is one that says salvation is through works, and works alone.

Originally posted by adjensen

And, as these are all works, thank you for demonstrating that your theology is one that says salvation is through works, and works alone.

Incorrect. Faith cannot be separated from action. Repentance and baptism are acts of faith. The Holy Spirit is given by God's grace through our faith. This is the teaching of the apostles and of those who followed right after.

Irenaeus wrote, "We are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord."

1 Peter 3:21-22 (KJV)
21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by colbe

If you disbelieve the basic teaching of the Trinity, you are non-Christian.

Do you have Scripture for that?

Why do you request the Bible Alone, that's a heresy from Martin Luther not God. There's much more than
God's written Word revealed. Jesus said do all I command of you.

Originally posted by colbe

Why do you request the Bible Alone, that's a heresy from Martin Luther not God. There's much more than
God's written Word revealed. Jesus said do all I command of you.

Only the apostles have authority from God to create doctrine.

reply to post by adjensen

Where is the evidence that billions of people, religious or not, are actually following the teachings of God,

That's my point, Ad. Over five thousand years of spreading religion and the belief in an all-loving god, where are the 6 billion believers? Well, they're in the governments and controlling the people. They're the soldiers doing the killing. They're the greedy businessmen. They're in the mafias. They are fishing out the oceans, committing murder...

The point is, where's the good that should have come from all of this? If there is one logical point in the bible, it's that only 144,000 (I think that's the number) will enter into the kingdom of god. This makes sense seeing as the billions of so-called believers on this planet today are actually working for Satan (if you believe in that kind of stuff).

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by adjensen

 

Where is the evidence that billions of people, religious or not, are actually following the teachings of God,

That's my point, Ad. Over five thousand years of spreading religion and the belief in an all-loving god, where are the 6 billion believers? Well, they're in the governments and controlling the people. They're the soldiers doing the killing. They're the greedy businessmen. They're in the mafias. They are fishing out the oceans, committing murder...

Again, people behaving poorly is neither God's fault, nor does it say anything about his existence or non-existence. And, in the end, there are many more people who do not behave badly than there are those who are murderers, thieves and selfish jerks.

The point is, where's the good that should have come from all of this? If there is one logical point in the bible, it's that only 144,000 (I think that's the number) will enter into the kingdom of god.

Unless you're a Jehovah's Witness, that number means nothing, as far as those who will enter the Kingdom of God. It is open to everyone and anyone, and there are some views of God (the Quakers and Universalists are the largest) who say that, in the end, God saves everyone.

reply to post by adjensen

You're stuck in a mindframe that says "all there is is what is before me,

Not at all, my friend. Though highly improbable I cannot state matter-of-factly that there is no designer. Was this universe created for a purpose, I can't say 'no'.

What I am very comfortable saying is there is no god. I can say this because there is no such thing as 'perfect'. Nothing can be perfect; it's impossible.

On the highly improbable scale, through religion we are taught that we are born with sin. We are sick, and only through Jesus or god can we be made healthy, but as sick as we are in god's eyes he still created the universe just for us? I seriously doubt it.

reply to post by adjensen

Again, people behaving poorly is neither God's fault, nor does it say anything about his existence or non-existence. And, in the end, there are many more people who do not behave badly than there are those who are murderers, thieves and selfish jerks.

My point was, if god's supposed message isn't getting through, then what's the point?

On those who do not behave badly: When thinking on the phrase, Those who are not with me are against me, I get the impression this implies that those good people aren't good in the eyes of god because they're not actively spreading peace, love, and goodwill all over the world. What good is being good if one does nothing with it?

Originally posted by jiggerj



On the highly improbable scale, through religion we are taught that we are born with sin. We are sick, and only through Jesus or god can we be made healthy, but as sick as we are in god's eyes he still created the universe just for us? I seriously doubt it.

Quite the paradox, eh? I remember reading the Book of Abraham? where Abraham was taken to talk to God. Well in this section, if I remember correctly, Michael was bringing Abraham all around the world and God told Michael to do whatever Abraham said to do. Along this journey, Abraham sees a couple having sex or extramarital affairs. Abraham basically says, SCREW THESE PEOPLE, they should die. Then Michael had to do what Abraham said. Michael then went up to God and basically said, This man does not have compassion for the sinners. I think this is the course of actions as allegedly described in the book of Abraham, I may be wrong on some information but the message is there.

The message is love, compassion, truth, understanding, and humility. This simple message is suffice for the world but we have allowed the convolution of this simple message into precepts upon precepts upon precepts upon precepts and so on.

The message is love, compassion, truth, understanding, and humility. This simple message is suffice for the world but we have allowed the convolution of this simple message into precepts upon precepts upon precepts upon precepts and so on.

reply to post by DelayedChristmas


And I'm saying that a perfect god could only give us a perfect message that cannot be adulterated in any way, no matter how imperfect we are.

If there is a message out there that concerns us, it's this: To be human is to hate as well as love, to be cruel as well as to show mercy, to be ignorant on some matters while understanding other matters. We are humble at times, and prideful at times. We can be peaceful at times, and war-like at times. We cannot be anything more, or anything less, than what defines the animal known as human.