Why some people believe in God and in the bible and others do not.

a reply to: spygeek

You were incorrect in your assertions, further elaboration is unnecessary.

Sounds like an assertion.

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: Ceeker63
If atheist do not believe in the Bible. How do they justify its existence over the eon's?

The age of a publication has no bearing on it's factual accuracy. It is an influential book, of course, and those who did not accept it have been systematically massacred in the past, it has been used to justify the existence of powerful and repressive organisations.. That is why it has lasted a couple thousand years so far, (hardly "eons").

If they do not believe the Bible exists is it because the Bible contains words that they do not want to hear and believe, because it goes against their life choices.

This is not even wrong. They believe the bible is not the word of God, not because it is inconvenient or contradicts their choices, but because they find it is the most logical and reasonable conclusion.

I have problems with atheist trying to prevent Christians and governmental agencies co-existing together in a belief that God created us. Our founding fathers believed in a Christian belief. Atheist just need to accept that fact.

The founding fathers were deists, not Christians, and the U.S. was founded as a secular country.

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
-John Adams

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. ... But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding...."
-Thomas Jefferson

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
-Benjamin Franklin

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
-James Madison

"The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession."
-Abraham Lincoln

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
-Thomas Paine

"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society."
-George Washington


The founding fathers could not be clearer: God has no role in government and Christianity has no role in government. They make this point explicitly, repeatedly, in multiple founding documents. America was not founded as a Christian nation, full stop.

A brilliant post.

I'm looking forward to seeing certain members totally ignore what you wrote.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: spygeek

You were incorrect in your assertions, further elaboration is unnecessary.

Sounds like an assertion.

Indeed, a correct assertion based on fact.

a reply to: spygeek

So according to you, your assertions are correct and based on fact, and mine are incorrect..

That's an interesting claim, I'd like to see how.

Maybe more unrelated quotes would help, or you realizing how deep in the sand your head is.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

So, I need to ask this then. You obviously believe in god. That's a given. Do you also believe in fairies? Elves? Santa Claus? Demons? Ghosts? Werewolves? Molemen? ManBearPig? Aliens? Mind control rays? I mean, if you can have the faith to believe in an all knowing spiritual creator, then the others shouldn't be too far fetched for you have faith in. Right? When did you stop believing in Santa? In my case, that's about the time I stopped believing in your God was when I learned Santa was really my parents.

Does voodoo exist? Does black magic exist? I am asking out of sincerity. I truly want to know what the Christian mind thinks of all these things I ask.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: spygeek

So according to you, your assertions are correct and based on fact, and mine are incorrect..

That's an interesting claim, I'd like to see how.

Your assertions were; that the age of the bible grants it legitimacy, that atheists do not believe in the bible because it contains "words they do not want to hear", that "go against their life choices", and that the founding fathers held Christian beliefs..

I clearly explained how these views were incorrect, subsequently you admitted you "don't get my point".

*shrug*

Maybe more unrelated quotes would help, or you realizing how deep in the sand your head is.

Deep sand in my head? Do you employ this level of condescension towards all people, or just those who disagree with your opinion?

The quotes were related. They demonstrated that the founding fathers did not in fact hold Christian beliefs, as you asserted, and their strong position of keeping God and religion out of government, which you said you had problems with when atheists advocate the same thing..

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: spygeek

and those who did not accept it have been systematically massacred in the past

Quite the contrary, actually

A common misconception

Christians have massacred unbelievers and those who refused to convert in the past. That is not misconception, it is recorded history.

The Christian Church started killing unbelievers as early as the 4th century CE. The killing and torture of heretics, church splinter groups, dissenters, atheists, agnostics, deists, pagans, infidels and unbelievers was supported by almost all mainstream Christian theology for over a thousand years, starting with the intolerant St. Augustine, who died in 430 CE.

During this period of history, Christianity had a long run as the world's most violent religion.

Both your claim and mine interestingly enough are problems solved by freedom of religion
Although few public schools teach creation, rather pro-creation with a touch of monkey ancestry and meaninglessness of life as science.

You have freedom of religion already, done deal.

State schools are obligated to teach a curriculum of objective fact and legitimate science. If religion is taught in public school, including creationism, then it is a violation of the freedom of religion and separation of church and state.

Freedom of religion means no religion is given greater significance or special treatment by government over any other.

Life is not meaningless according to science, if that is what you are saying. Material science says nothing about the meaning of life, that belongs to the field of philosophy.

Your "procreation with a touch of monkey ancestry" comment illustrates your ignorance towards evolutionary theory. Monkeys are not our ancestors, they are our far removed cousins. We diverged separately as hominins and chimpanzees from a common ancestor who wasn't chimp or human, but still a primate.

a reply to: spygeek

Your assertions were; that the age of the bible grants it legitimacy, that atheists do not believe in the bible because it contains "words they do not want to hear", that "go against their life choices", that the founding fathers held Christian beliefs, and now that Christians have not massacred people in the past..

False because those are the assertions of a poster named Ceeker63 whom I am not.

The quotes were related. They demonstrated that the founding fathers did not in fact hold Christian beliefs, as you asserted, and their strong position of keeping God and religion out of government, which you said you had problems with when atheists do it..

False because again, those assertions were not made by me.

Christians have massacred unbelievers and those who refused to convert in the past. That is not misconception, it is recorded history.

Believers seldom kill or massacre. Those you call Christians have nothing to do with Christ, in fact their beliefs at that point was more along the lines of survival of the fittest.

Your "procreation with a touch of monkey ancestry" comment illustrates your ignorance towards evolutionary theory. Monkeys are not our ancestors, they are our long separated cousins.

If man and monkey share ancestors, some of those ancestors are chronologically soup, fish, and others, most specifically the long separated aunt and uncle you refer to, are indeed monkeys.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

I would say the reason some do and some don't is because some people don't know very much about the world, history or science.

I mean how could you believe the bible is some god's word. If you knew your history you would know that the bible was put together by a council of people who were deciding what should be in and what should not. They were deciding on what they thought would be best and what would benefit them the most.

Look further back in history and you will find that the same stories of the bible already existed but for other gods. Stuff like Moses was copied from Gilgamesh if I remember right. Jesus was created with a mix of Mithras, Osiris, Horus, and Dionysus stories which were the exact same but far earlier.

So like I said, some people don't know this type of stuff, so they believe that crap. Other people know, and so they don't. That and there is only evidence against what religions say - and only evidence for reality.

Religion relies on faith. Faith is the belief in something without any proof or evidence. Faith is bad, it's a bad word.
Reality relies on fact. Facts have proof and evidence and are reproducible. You would not need faith if your gods were real. It would be fact - you wouldn't have religious faith any longer you would have religious fact.
Fortunately, religion has NO facts - which require proof and evidence, which is why they tell you to have faith and try to convince you that is a good thing. lol sad.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

It really doesnt matter if there is a god or not (their isnt!)

You have the 7 sins, the 10 commandments and so on, yet you follow NONE of the rules of the dictactor "god"
You celebrate the birthday of the son of god, by worshipping demons (like elfs) and by spending an insane amount of money on materialism, which is the exact opposite of what jesus preached
You say that no MAN can speak or understand the words of god, yet MAN wrote a bible
You say dont worship any false idols, yet you have the (very rich) pope and priests to follow
You say that only god can judge man, (dont tell the gays, and whomever else you hate, that)
Why was only western people informed about their "creator" and all the indians left out?
You say that god has planned everything ahead, and everything happens for a reason, according to his plan. So if I dont believe in god, what does it even matter to you? it is what he wants, right? (and nevermind that you also says, that god gave men free will...)

So if a god really exist, why doesnt you follow his rules? why does so many things in the bible contradict each other, to me it just sounds insane

If it is really true, why on earth would i even want to worship that maniac??
Do as you are told, or you will be cast in internal hell fire!! but only because he loves us all, right?

I dont believe in organised religion, your belief should be your own, but i do believe, that any mortal man who tries to convince me to follow the rules of some mighty invisible entity, by the use of (terror) fear of hell, is either insane or up to no good...

Let me ask you a question. According to the bible, the Jews are gods choosen people to rule the earth
If you do believe in the bible and god, do you also believe that the Jews should be given command of everything and that all the rest should follow their every single rule??

It got nothing against jews, or any other people and their beliefes, but that is what the bible is saying, isnt it?? So do you think it should be so?

a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

Let me ask you a question. According to the bible, the Jews are gods choosen people to rule the earth If you do believe in the bible and god, do you also believe that the Jews should be given command of everything and that all the rest should follow their every single rule??

What part says that?

How would that work? What about bacon?

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: spygeek

Apologies, I did indeed confuse you with the earlier poster..

Christians have massacred unbelievers and those who refused to convert in the past. That is not misconception, it is recorded history.

Believers seldom kill or massacre. Those you call Christians have nothing to do with Christ, in fact their beliefs at that point was more along the lines of survival of the fittest.

Actually, the beliefs of that time were almost identical to those of the church today. You can claim that the Christian church of the middle ages were nothing to do with Christ, but if so, then the same goes for the church of today for the most part.

For a thousand years, Christianity murdered and tortured its way across countries, destroying empires and eradicating native populations that would not convert. It wasn't survival of the fittest, it was the conquering of nations through religious motivation by force. Not unlike the Islamist extremists we are faced with today.

Christianity has a bloody and repressive history, there is no denying or avoiding that fact. It is the main reason it is so widespread today.

Your "procreation with a touch of monkey ancestry" comment illustrates your ignorance towards evolutionary theory. Monkeys are not our ancestors, they are our long separated cousins.

If man and monkey share ancestors, some of those ancestors are chronologically soup, fish, and others, most specifically the long separated aunt and uncle you refer to, are indeed monkeys.

They are cousins, not aunts and uncles. You seem to be getting mixed up here. Our aunts and uncles were primates, but not chimpanzees or monkeys.

a reply to: spygeek

Apology accepted

Actually, the beliefs of that time were almost identical to those of the church today.

Does the church today murder those who disagree with it?

It wasn't survival of the fittest, it was the conquering of nations through religious motivation by force. Not unlike the Islamist extremists we are faced with today.

Through religious motivation or imperial impulse described as religious motivation?
Much like today's defence forces attacking in the name of defence, does not make it defence.

Christianity has a bloody and repressive history, there is no denying or avoiding that fact. It is the main reason it is so widespread today.

What you call Christianity has nothing to do with Christ, just as what some call defence is offence and invasion today.

They are cousins, not aunts and uncles. You seem to be getting mixed up here. Our aunts and uncles were primates, but not chimpanzees or monkeys.

primates are monkeys according to Webster, like I said. link

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: spygeek

Apology accepted

Actually, the beliefs of that time were almost identical to those of the church today.

Does the church today murder those who disagree with it?

Rarely. But my original post regarding the atrocities of Christianity in the middle ages was in response to a question of why the bible has survived as long as it has.

Other than the forceful spread of the Church through violence and death, the core beliefs of the church remain basically unchanged..

There is still a strong exclusionist value and implied moral and spiritual superiority in Christianity, as well as an underlying mistrust of scientific inquiry and endeavour, not to mention a sense of entitlement and attitude of being beyond reproach, to name a few traits.

It wasn't survival of the fittest, it was the conquering of nations through religious motivation by force. Not unlike the Islamist extremists we are faced with today.

Through religious motivation or imperial impulse described as religious motivation?
Much like today's defence forces attacking in the name of defence, does not make it defence.

The violence and conquering was ordered and sanctioned by the church. Yes it was religiously motivated. The imperialism of the government was secondary to the church's "God given right" to destroy the heathen and evil populations. The government was a tool of the church in the middle ages, thankfully that is no longer the case in this day and age.

The church was responsible for the massacres, starting with St. Augustine and carrying on for a millennia of repression of anything that may challenge it, including not only differing religious beliefs but also scientific inquiry.

The church set us all back during this period, and it continues to do so in some communities.

Christianity has a bloody and repressive history, there is no denying or avoiding that fact. It is the main reason it is so widespread today.

What you call Christianity has nothing to do with Christ, just as what some call defence is offence and invasion today.

What do I call Christianity? The Christian church? Is the Christian church not Christianity? It was and is the organised religion of Christ's followers. They behaved unchristianly, certainly, but they were still Christians, it was still the Christian church.

They are cousins, not aunts and uncles. You seem to be getting mixed up here. Our aunts and uncles were primates, but not chimpanzees or monkeys.

primates are monkeys according to Webster, like I said. link

You are relying on oversimplification and ignoring the scientific definition. All monkeys are primates, but not all primates are monkeys. Primate is the family, monkey is a specific member of that order. webster link you seem to have missed.

Similarly, apes are not monkeys are not humans, but all are primates. We are more closely related to apes than monkeys, but neither are examples of our primate ancestors. We are descended from a common homininae ancestor.

Rather than solely relying on the Webster dictionary of "monkey", perhaps you should learn the specific definitions of all of these words, and how they are intended to be applied. It would help avoid such confusion.

a reply to: spygeek

They behaved unchristianly, certainly, but they were still Christians, it was still the Christian church.

If you don't accept the "defence" forces invading countries not actually being defence forces as a comparison, perhaps this one will strike a chord:

"War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength" from Blair, not the one who defended Britain against Iraq, the one who took the pen name Orwell. Technique isn't new by any stretch.
saying "imperialism is Christianity" is so 1984. WWJD

Rather than solely relying on the Webster dictionary, perhaps you should learn the scientific definitions of these words, and how they are intended to be applied. It would help avoid such confusion.

Perhaps I know the jargon and write in English because it's the language of the website?

What confusion are you referring to?


edit to add: I confused primates and monkeys somehow?
my bad.

the correct way to express that thought would be: since monkeys are our long removed cousins, a fact the bible doesn't actually dispute since all primates would be created by the same God, then subjectively if the first ancestor is soup instead of God, there is a couple of non human primates who have had human offspring, and that's funny to me.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: spygeek

They behaved unchristianly, certainly, but they were still Christians, it was still the Christian church.

If you don't accept the "defence" forces invading countries not actually being defence forces as a comparison, perhaps this one will strike a chord:

"War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength" from Blair, not the one who defended Britain against Iraq, the one who took the pen name Orwell. Technique isn't new by any stretch.
saying "imperialism is Christianity" is so 1984. WWJD

Except I didn't say imperialism is Christianity.

Look at the crusades in the 11th century for example. The Church regarded crusaders as military pilgrims. They took vows and were rewarded with privileges of protection for their property at home. Any legal proceedings against them were suspended. Another major inducement was the offer of indulgences for the remission of sin. Knights were especially attracted by what were effectively Get-Out-Of-Hell-Free cards allowing them to commit any sins throughout the rest of their lives without incurring liability in this or the next world. During the Crusades the Western Church developed new types of holy warrior. These were military monks such as the Knights Hospitaller and Knights Templar. They were literally both soldiers and monks, and took vows for both callings, fulfilling their holy duties by killing God's enemies.

Look at The Inquisitions, and how Christians under the power of the church were so afraid of unbelievers they employed horrendous torture methods to repress them. If you disagreed with the church, you were tortured or killed. All for the glory of God, these things took place.

The Christian church trained armies, dedicated to taking the lives of innocent people in order to purify the population. It wasn't just imperialist land grabbing. There were forced conversions, slavery, persecution and torture, all considered acceptable, a holy right, mandated by the church and all in the name of the Lord. The bible itself is full of it, and it took until around the 17th century CE for it to be considered wrong and unchristian, and even longer for many of these practices to actually stop.

Rather than solely relying on the Webster dictionary, perhaps you should learn the scientific definitions of these words, and how they are intended to be applied. It would help avoid such confusion.

Perhaps I know the jargon and write in English because it's the language of the website?

What confusion are you referring to?


edit to add: I confused primates and monkeys somehow?
my bad.

the correct way to express that thought would be: since monkeys are our long removed cousins, a fact the bible doesn't actually dispute since all primates would be created by the same God, then subjectively if the first ancestor is soup instead of God, there is a couple of non human primates who have had human offspring, and that's funny to me.

Evolution does not work like that. Non human primates did not suddenly have human offspring. The speciation is gradual, taking place over a multitude of generations. It cannot be said that one species suddenly appears after another or produces offspring of another, only that eventually one species diverges far enough from it's ancestors to be recognised as a distinct species from them.

A whole population of non human primates eventually evolved into homosapiens over successive generations. It wasn't a couple of non human primates having human offspring.

They way you describe it is funny indeed, but only because it is incorrect.

a reply to: spygeek

Good post and I would like to add:

The bible consists of sixty six books and some of these books were written well over two thousand years ago.

You speak of the founding fathers in the late 17th century which is correct and most realize this.... I hope! And they were all MASONS. But you have left out a large part of why..... they made these remarks. The founding fathers and their families came from England...... a time where the KIng and church was one. It was the King who set policy and its religion in England, Wales and Scotland. BTW the founding fathers were traitors to the King of England such as George Washington so depending on what you side you were on depends on your opinion.

Why did you leave out the settlement of the original white people in what we call USA today? Clearly you have heard of the Puritans and they were living in the USA long before any of the founding fathers were born.... long before the founding fathers grandparents were born. The Puritans left England because of the strict rules and punishments set by the King and the protestant church. This too is a part of USA history. For those who do not know about the Puritans here is a link

The puritans were not allowed to worship God as they saw fit. They left England for one reason...... freedom to practice their religion. During the time when our founding fathers were growing up in England and in USA their parents and grandparents taught them of the time as they lived in England and the oppression they experienced under the King and his church. Catholics and other religions were forbidden in England. Did you forget this? This should have been mentioned in your original post. Our founding fathers hated religion and I don't blame them after what their families went through while under the King of England.

So the founding fathers took part in forming a new government.... one that was opposite of the King of England. One they wanted to make sure would not form in USA and again the NUMBER ONE reason for their families to migrate to USA was from religious persecution.

a reply to: spygeek

Not sure why the deception with your post and also being one sided but did you forget that it was forbidden to own a bible? For OVER one thousand years it was illegal to own a bible.

Decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229 C.E.): "We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books."

Ruling of the Council of Tarragona of 1234 C.E.: "No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned..."

Proclamations at the Ecumenical Council of Constance in 1415 C.E.: Oxford professor, and theologian John Wycliffe, was the first (1380 C.E.) to translate the New Testament into English to "...helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ's sentence." For this "heresy" Wycliffe was posthumously condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury. By the Council's decree "Wycliffe's bones were exhumed and publicly burned and the ashes were thrown into the Swift River."

Fate of William Tyndale in 1536 C.E.: William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. According to Tyndale, the Church forbid owning or reading the Bible to control and restrict the teachings and to enhance their own power and importance.

Have you forgotten this? It appears many at this site have too. Many have been executed for having a bible. The Vatican controlled what message they wanted to teach and the followers had NO OTHER way to know any better. So to say that Christendom has slaughtered and murdered the answer is yes but it needs clarification as to why.... due to a FEW men not an entire organization.....which is a lie.

The message of the bible has been hidden by our ancestors for a thousand years after the apostles had been murdered AND it was in ONLY ONE LANGUAGE. The Catholic church knew to keep control of the believers they had to keep its message a secret.

When discussing religion.....especially Christendom I think people should discuss both sides something not being done within this OP. Most here make remarks which show they actually know very little about the Christian faith.

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: spygeek

They behaved unchristianly, certainly, but they were still Christians, it was still the Christian church.

If you don't accept the "defence" forces invading countries not actually being defence forces as a comparison, perhaps this one will strike a chord:

"War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength" from Blair, not the one who defended Britain against Iraq, the one who took the pen name Orwell. Technique isn't new by any stretch.
saying "imperialism is Christianity" is so 1984. WWJD

Except I didn't say imperialism is Christianity.

Look at the crusades in the 11th century for example. The Church regarded crusaders as military pilgrims. They took vows and were rewarded with privileges of protection for their property at home. Any legal proceedings against them were suspended. Another major inducement was the offer of indulgences for the remission of sin. Knights were especially attracted by what were effectively Get-Out-Of-Hell-Free cards allowing them to commit any sins throughout the rest of their lives without incurring liability in this or the next world. During the Crusades the Western Church developed new types of holy warrior. These were military monks such as the Knights Hospitaller and Knights Templar. They were literally both soldiers and monks, and took vows for both callings, fulfilling their holy duties by killing God's enemies.

Look at The Inquisitions, and how Christians under the power of the church were so afraid of unbelievers they employed horrendous torture methods to repress them. If you disagreed with the church, you were tortured or killed. All for the glory of God, these things took place.

The Christian church trained armies, dedicated to taking the lives of innocent people in order to purify the population. It wasn't just imperialist land grabbing. There were forced conversions, slavery, persecution and torture, all considered acceptable, a holy right, mandated by the church and all in the name of the Lord. The bible itself is full of it, and it took until around the 17th century CE for it to be considered wrong and unchristian, and even longer for many of these practices to actually stop.

Rather than solely relying on the Webster dictionary, perhaps you should learn the scientific definitions of these words, and how they are intended to be applied. It would help avoid such confusion.

Perhaps I know the jargon and write in English because it's the language of the website?

What confusion are you referring to?


edit to add: I confused primates and monkeys somehow?
my bad.

the correct way to express that thought would be: since monkeys are our long removed cousins, a fact the bible doesn't actually dispute since all primates would be created by the same God, then subjectively if the first ancestor is soup instead of God, there is a couple of non human primates who have had human offspring, and that's funny to me.

Evolution does not work like that. Non human primates did not suddenly have human offspring. The speciation is gradual, taking place over a multitude of generations. It cannot be said that one species suddenly appears after another or produces offspring of another, only that eventually one species diverges far enough from it's ancestors to be recognised as a distinct species from them.

A whole population of non human primates eventually evolved into homosapiens over successive generations. It wasn't a couple of non human primates having human offspring.

They way you describe it is funny indeed, but only because it is incorrect.

Again you speak of wars that Christendom participated in and again I remind you that the Vatican and the Church Of England BOTH being run by ONE MAN made the decisions and NOT the faith.

Again the followers DID NOT know the teachings of the bible or its writings. It was kept secret but yet you involved the entire religion as being "evil" when actually it was TWO PEOPLE (and a small handful of advisors) NOT an entire faith. That would be the same if someone in your family a few hundred years ago had rape someone ..... this means your ENTIRE family including you are a perverted family of rapist and probably paedophiles as well. I use the exact same reasoning as you do.

Is this fair to assume?

If you were my child and I raised you to hate a certain race or religion until you were an adult what is the possibility that you would hate that race? Many Muslim families teach their children to kill a Jew anyway they can and just the other day a few children were shot and killed by Jewish patrols for attempting to stab Jewish soldiers. Bringing a knife to a gun fight....how silly but can you see what manipulation can do?

Just like the type you attempt to use here at this thread?

So how does all this apply to former Christians?

God changed his mind about them so sent strong delusions?

They were never "Christian"?

And what of this willingness to understand?

Plenty of former believers were more than willing to understand God, or at least put forth their best, and honest efforts. There was no stubbornness to try. There was only the lack of real results. The rejection of the beliefs came after the honest faith in them was tested.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

And yet there are numerous Muslims, Hindu's, etc.... where Jesus appeared to them and chose them out right. Hardcore believers in their faiths and within seconds walk away from a life long study and worship of their beliefs. How can that be? This is nothing less than a miracle in itself. Have you ever tried to convince a person of another faith to leave it? I try all the time and most of the time I walk away empty handed. Have you ever tried to convince an atheist to believe in God? I do all the time .... here at ATS and does it do any good? Most of the time NO but not always.

If using the word "chosen" bothers you than what about SELECTED? Is that better?

I was SELECTED to be class president did that make me delusional? Of course not.

Simply going to church and singing hymns does nothing. Going to church once a week and then living a life of sin for the rest of the week is nothing more than a hypocrite. Demons love going to church. Most congregations have many hateful, gossiping, jealous, adulterous people roaming the halls of their church POSING as Christians.

You asked if you were chosen and then later rejected, right? Well, if you had to ask then you never were chosen..oops I mean SELECTED.

People do change faiths but most often will remain in the one they were born and raised in. I don't think you've quite understood what I was saying. I'm saying that there's millions of people not of your faith that believe as strongly in their faith as you do. That they are the ones who are chosen or selected, not folks such as yourself.

If you picked up my sentence "I sang in the choir, I fell for the lies" as being some marginal churchgoing believer, then you're mistaken again. By that I meant I was right where you are at in the whole believing thing. After all, I was a child of teenage years. Still awfully innocent about the world and all that.

But you'll say that's not possible or true won't you? Because only you know how special and truly selected you are by your god. And for me, an atheist, to claim I was once as "selected" as you are is clearly impossible. Otherwise I'd be right by your side starring every post you make huh?

And you've essentially ruled out that anyone that differs from your opinion could be chosen - even if they had once believed as you do now. By simple rationalization, you can eliminate anyone from possibly being right because they were never in your special club to begin with obviously.

If you refuse to believe in God, what about Jesus? Is he a lie too? Were the apostles a lie?

I've seen quite a bit of evidence against the existence of Jesus on this site alone, and more are contesting it all the time. There's a lot of information out there that strongly suggests that Jesus was more of an amalgamation of several prophets. link1 link 2
After all, everything written about him was written over 30+ years past his death But you won't take these possibilities and links seriously, because you already "know" from your little near-death dream...