/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

I'm sorry that you left the faith but as the Scriptures say those who depart from us do so to demonstrate they were not truly of us. I could go through, line by line and critique every claim you make, but I don't think that's really going to help anyone, especially since this thread wasn't made for me, though I appreciate the time you spent making it which is why I want to reply to a few things.

> seeing the hypocrisy intolerance and self-righteouusness of my family…(better people than many Christians were going to hell.)

I think you may have had a fundamental misunderstanding of what Christianity is. It is not a moral system, the explanation of what is good and right behavior is not it's primary focus, though it does address that subject. The primary truth of Christianity is that God is a God of justice, sin is a crime and crime demands punishment. All men are sinners, every last one of us, there is no such thing as a just and upright man before God. God having mercy on the world provided a way for justice to be fulfilled through the substitutionary punishment of Jesus Christ. He satisfies Justice so we do not have to.

No matter how good a person you are, justice is not a scale, you cannot feed ten thousand orphans to make up for the ten million dollars you stole to do so, restitution has to still be made. good deeds do not erase sin.

Recognizing you are a sinner, repenting of that sin and throwing yourself before the mercy of God is the central message of Christianity. We are all evil by our very nature, some give into it more than others but the fact that Christians are sinners is not a proof against Christianity it is the very purpose of it's existence.

> I also disliked going to church. All churches bored me,

Honestly I feel the same, I attend only because scripture admonishes us to be in community with fellow believers. I'm a very private person and would hermit myself in a cave if I thought I could do so viably.

> And I liked the humble and natural aesthetics of the Japanese garden shrines much better than the artificialness of Christian churches.

I feel as though your experience with churches has been skewed. The majority of churches are not megachurches, most American churches look more like what is seen in the embedded video. they are simple churches congregated by simple (that is common, not stupid) people.

That's all I'll say for now unless you want further dialogue. Your other criticisms would be better served by having threads of their own, I just wanted to show light where you may have come under a misunderstanding about the faith as it is practiced.

>As the Scriptures say those who depart from us do so to demonstrate they were not truly of us.

You'd be better to refrain from jumping to judgements like this. It trivializes the past experiences of Atheists, and frankly I consider it insulting that you would suppose I was less of a Christian than you. You have no grounds for that belief.

>most American churches look more like what is seen in the embedded video

I visited many churches on Sunday, but I can't say I found one I truly liked. There was a hipster one where the pastor wore a hawaiin shirt and everyone sat around in plastic chairs, because they had just broken off from a megachurch. Pretty novel, but too far from where I lived.

There was also a Baptist church where I disliked the aloof members, but thought the sermons were passionate and above average. I was a member of that church until the pastor moved and the church deteriorated.

When I did go to church, I considered bible study more interesting than the sermons. I detested hipster contemporary Christian rock bands at the newer churches, and prefered the sound and lyrics of traditional hymns, even though I found them boring and prefered to get on with the preachig. Overall, I think the pastors at a Baptist church are more charismatic and give better sermons. Luthern churches tend to be sterile and dead, although they do have nicer pipe organs.

>>3789

>You'd be better to refrain from jumping to judgements like this. It trivializes the past experiences of Atheists, and frankly I consider it insulting that you would suppose I was less of a Christian than you. You have no grounds for that belief.

Am I literally on fucking tumblr now?

>>3764

I saw your thread last night, just before my Internet died, so I couldn't even read it.

I'm going to read it now but I wanted to say I very much appreciate your thorough response!

Thank you.

>>3764

>Accepting evolution

That should never have been a reason. This is why I can't stand Creationism: it's driving away any Christian who cares for science.

(I'm still reading.)

>>3764

> (I would come to realize that probably happened in the gospels of Judas or Peter.)

There's one major difference though: the earliest manuscripts we have from the NT were from 50 to 100 years after His death (which doesn't mean there weren't earlier manuscripts), while the first written down texts from Buddha came 700 years after his death. It's not just a number, it means that those who wrote the gospels most likely had known Christ firsthand.

We could discuss Buddhism in some other thread, I've studied the question enough to convince myself that Buddhism was definitely not comparable to Christianity in more ways than one (but I haven't done so in the self-righteous style we both dislike).

Reading your post, I really hope you'll stick around because most of your issues with Christianity are things I myself struggle with, right down to the church building and other Christians, which I think are a major reason why you struggle with the faith.

I'm only one step away from you in terms of faith, hence my name.

>>3811

Old Earth Creationism is the same nonsensical unscientific stuff to me. Abraham wouldn't object to the Big Bang Theory. The very idea that how God created the universe is beyond our ounderstand is not demeaning of God, quite the contrary.

I don't think Old Earth Creationism is any more serious than YEC. The only difference is that it has God suddenly creating the planet out of nowhere after some time and taking a bit longer but it remains the same thing: supernatural intervention by God to make planet earth.

I can't stand behind that, either, so I call it all Creationism as most people do.

>>3764

>Many parts of the OT (and NT) began to feel like fiction.

I'm struggling horribly with this too. I don't even struggle with the OT because I assume there's very little truth in any of the more nonfictional accounts, but even the NT can be an issue, especially in view of all the discrepancies that always made me think error existed in the texts and we had to deal with it.

>>3764

> I realized I would rather live an ephermal good life, and die beautifully than live forever, and it made more sense to me than to chase eternity.

A Christian should chase doing good rather than his own salvation, or so I always imagined.

>>3764

>provides choices in your lives, second chances for those who are bound for hell, and a more colorful mythology

Christianity has that too, just not every brand of it. Our Mormon friend can tell you that their approach has different levels of afterlife, and a hell strictly reserved for people who know God exists but still go against Him; a place for people who want nothing to do with God, and God provides such a place, it's called Hell (or Outer Darkness for LDS) but it's unlikely to be what we think it is, given that our ideas of Hell are basically Hades carried over into Christianity. The early Christians did not have such a concept of Hell, and this is very obvious from the first Creeds, where all important points in Christianity are mentioned, but nothing about "eternal punishment".

This subject will attract a lot of hostility from Christians, mostly on /christian/ though, but it can't be discarded easily.

>>3812

>The Big Bang Theory

>by a Catholic Priest

That's Creationism too. If God did it its Creationism.

> so I call it all Creationism as most people do.

Don't bandwagon. Most people are wrong.

>>3764

>That's my story

Thank you very much for having taken the time to tell us your story. I appreciate.

Like I said above, I hope you will stay with us no matter in what capacity (apostate or else), and I don't say this meaning that I'm going to try to reconvert you back to Christ (others will, and I can't blame them for the attempt) but mostly because you're a good person and we need all points of view. Mostly, I can relate to you more so than I can to most other anons here, many who have never been atheist and don't understand what it feels like to be one.

I also think there are many issues where I could help somewhat.

I hope you'll stick around.

>>3816

>That's Creationism too. If God did it its Creationism.

I've explained this away the other day. Creationism, the kind we both mean, is about God suddenly intervening in a universe that already exists: the invervention is supernatural, comparable to a miracle, as opposed to a natural evolution of things from the moment they were created.

In both cases God creates the universe, but in the Creationist views (they call themselves Creationists, I didn't come up with the term), the actual creation of the planet is supernatural: God literally steps in, brings in elements and forces chemical reactions (Old Earth Creationism) or just suddenly makes it appear out of nowhere (YEC).

Everyone uses "Creationism" to mean the supernatural intervention of God to create our planet and/or universe. Non-Creationist Christians just believe that God caused the BB and the rest unfolded according to science.

That's what I believe because I refuse to abandon science and the scientific method, regardless of their flaws. As soon as religion abandons science, it becomes insane and a festival of projections of our wishes and fears. I refuse that.

>>3816

To add to this: you call yourselves Latter Day Saints, and I, out of respect, call you that too because it is your chosen name. I also call you Mormon as you do yourself, even though the term started as an insult, as with many names (impressionism started as an insult too, Quakers as also an insult, and isn't the name Quakers use, they just use Friends).

Creationists call themselves Creationists, using the meaning we all know, so I go along.

I got nothing better to generalise. I'll use YEC and OEC if that's better with you. It's also shorter, but we both know that in the general sense, Creationism is what I defined it to be, and not the idea that God created the universe.

>>3832

Clearly you understand the difference between the correct interpretation of the word and the erroneous colloquialism. I'm just asking that we don't perpetuate this semantics misconception; you're of course free to continue to believe as you like and feel as you might about YEC.

>>3836

Might as well explain that Quakers don't literally quake as part of their rituals. Too late now.

All I do is I sometimes make a comment about how, in a way, all Christians are "creationists" because they believe in creation.

Are you a YEC?

>>3789

>You'd be better to refrain from jumping to judgements like this

Aren't you the one who professed you no longer believe in the God of the Bible? I don't see how I was jumping to any conclusions that you didn't outright state.

> It trivializes the past experiences of Atheists,

No it doesn't it gives their experiences and departures from the church a transcendental meaning and purpose. To demonstrate that not everyone who calls themselves a Christian is a true follower of Christ.

> I consider it insulting that you would suppose I was less of a Christian than you.

If you gave up on Christ then you were. You may be leaps and bounds a more moral person than I will ever be but unless you want to conflate being a good Christian with being a good person which I explained is a category error, then I don't see how anything I said is insulting.

If you return to the faith repenting of your apostasy and embracing Jesus as lord and savior then you have grounds to say that I judged erroneously and that you were of the faith, only wayward for a time. But if I take you at your word that you are sincerely no longer a Christian it is not insulting then to operate under what you have told me about yourself.

> You have no grounds for that belief.

I have your own statements.

>>3853

>If you gave up on Christ then you were.

Reminder that Christ Himself gave up on God and was no lesser for it. We are not all subjected to the same obstacles and a man who is no longer a Christian can very easily have been a true Christian at some prior point.

One doesn't derive from the other. One can remain a fake Christian his whole life. Typically, people who change faith are people who actually look for some sort of truth. Those who don't care are more likely to remain whatever they were in the beginning. Grant him at least that.

>>3853

>If you return to the faith repenting of your apostasy and embracing Jesus as lord and savior then you have grounds to say that I judged erroneously and that you were of the faith, only wayward for a time. But if I take you at your word that you are sincerely no longer a Christian it is not insulting then to operate under what you have told me about yourself.

You don't know that Shinigami's current apostasy isn't part of his mission in life. Some of us have to learn certain things by going through certain paths. Nevertheless, he remains a human being and you should respect him for that first and foremost, and not wait until he dies a Christian to choose whether you'll show him Christian love or not. Judge not lest ye be judged.

Why are most Christians I talk with so obsessed with judging others? Help as much as you can, throwing accusations around will not help anyone.

Think about this: Shin is here, among Christians. That's what matters here.

>>3841

>Might as well explain that Quakers don't literally quake as part of their rituals. Too late now.

I'd ask you to do this the day that becomes a common misconception. You can't be held accountable for people's lack of knowledge, but you're smart enough that I think its fair to ask for you to not propagate and worsen it.

>Are you a YEC?

I'm on the fence about that, frankly. I'll likely stay on the fence for as long as I remain so uninterested on the subject.

>>3857

>Reminder that Christ Himself gave up on God and was no lesser for it.

Eloi Eloi lama sabacthani wasn't Christ losing faith it was Him referencing Psalm 22 which is a messianic psalm and speaks of the power of God to save his people.

> and a man who is no longer a Christian can very easily have been a true Christian at some prior point.

Christ said that he loses none that the Father gives to Him. If a person truly, leaves the faith then he was never given to Christ in the first place.

> One can remain a fake Christian his whole life.

Yes, this doesn't contradict anything I've said and Christ says that there will be many who cry out to him to whom he will say "I never knew you".

> Typically, people who change faith are people who actually look for some sort of truth. Those who don't care are more likely to remain whatever they were in the beginning. Grant him at least that.

I'll grant him whatever you want. The point is if I'm going to take him at his word that he has truly and sincerely left the faith scripture says why that is the case. You can disagree with scripture or say that he is mistaken about the totality of his apostasy, which I made concession for, but there is no other option.

> You don't know that Shinigami's current apostasy isn't part of his mission in life.

As I specifically allowed for in the section you quoted? Are you even reading what I said or reacting emotionally based on what you think I said?

> Nevertheless, he remains a human being and you should respect him for that first and foremost,

When did I indicate otherwise?

> Judge not lest ye be judged.

When did I judge him? I explained what scripture says about apostasy. If you disagree with scripture so be it, but that doesn't change what it says.

> Help as much as you can, throwing accusations around will not help anyone.

Did you not read the rest of my post? I went out of my way to try and help by explaining where he may have made an error in some of the aspects of why he left the faith.

You've jumped the gun so hard I'm surprised your not shooting yourself in the foot here.

>>3873

This post gave me Tumblr.

>>3873

> The good ol' "You were never one of us," line is meant to close your ears and isolate the group from threats.

No, it's there because Salvation comes from god a-priori to any decision humans make in accepting Christ. God knew from eternity past who He would and would not have mercy on, he gives those people to Christ to be saved for their sins.

Those who truley embrace Christ do so because they have been indwelt by the Holy Spirit sent to them by the Son in accordance with the will of the Father. The Holy Spirit enables the individual who is dead in sin to respond to the gospel and have true saving faith which saves persistently and without failure. Those who are exposed to the gospel but reject it or if having spent time among the people of God leave the people of God do so it is because the Holy Spirit did not indwell them.

This is basic soteriology and has been understood in full at least from the time of Augustine. It isn't about in-group vs out-group it's about the process by which a person becomes saved. Your bias is showing in your unwillignness to engage the subject meaningfully.

What I don't understand is why I'm being called intolerant for taking you at your word that you are truly outside the faith now. Were you lying about that? Am I supposed to not trust that you can give me an accurate account of what you do and do not believe about yourself?

You might not like the fact that I'm going to speak to you from a Christian perspective but I am under no obligation to abandon my religion while discussing it with you.

> no true scotsman

We're talking about what defines saving faith. If you contradict the definition and I tell you you are doing so it is not a fallacy. You're committing a category error. If your understanding of being a true Christian contradicts the historic theological understanding of what that means then you were not in that category.

It'd be like me telling you "You aren't a dog because the way we define what is a dog excludes you" and you responding by saying "I am a dog that does not fit that definition, I am still a dog therefore you are committing a no-true Scotsman".

It's a misappropriation of what that fallacy actually is.

>>3870

>Eloi Eloi lama sabacthani wasn't Christ losing faith it was Him referencing Psalm 22 which is a messianic psalm and speaks of the power of God to save his people.

You really think that this was a time for literary quoting? Plenty of critics have considered this line to mean Christ had finally experienced the worst a human can live through: disconnection from God. The fact that it's a quote could suggest Christ didn't even say that but the author figured it could be a good idea. We know this happens because one of them changed the genealogy of Christ to get more interesting numbers (3 times 14), removing some generations, doubling others, etc.

It remains that assuming Christ, at this point, is merely quoting a psalm, with the intention you give Him, is ridiculous. Nothing with Jesus having shortcomings; it's what makes Him stand out. To be human is to have shortcomings, that's likely what God needed to learn in order to save us from ourselves. Another Christ shortcoming is when He cannot perform any miracle or heal anyone in His hometown because nobody has faith in Him (in case you were going to tell me He had no shortcomings ever).

>>3870

>Christ said that he loses none that the Father gives to Him.

I'm curious about the reference here. Some would argue that this means Christ fails to save nobody, that He saves everyone. This was a common belief among the early Church.

>If a person truly, leaves the faith then he was never given to Christ in the first place.

I disagree with this. It sounds like the logic behind divorce. I gave you examples: a man of little faith doesn't get tested so much in his life, he lives a Christian to the end; the same man, in a parallel dimension, has to go through hardship that makes him question God much more, to the point where he loses faith. In this case, you see that the very same man can retain or lose his faith depending on what happened or didn't happen.

>>3870

>The point is if I'm going to take him at his word that he has truly and sincerely left the faith scripture says why that is the case.

Brother, notice that he is here. If he had utterly lost the faith, he would not be here. This man isn't here to convince us to lose the faith as well, you'll have noticed, he is here to discuss faith with us. I am convinced there is still some faith in Him and he might be here to see if he can revive it with our help. He may define himself as an atheist, but who of us can fathom one's own soul to perfection? I call myself a Christian (of little faith), but I feel like an atheist 95% of the time.

>>3870

>As I specifically allowed for in the section you quoted? Are you even reading what I said or reacting emotionally based on what you think I said?

Uh? I am not limited to "reacting" to your comments, I can offer my own in return. The idea that some of us have to go through the desert to come back to God in a purified way isn't some weird, fringe idea. I've been through that as a child and teenager and the reasons I left the faith very early on were the same that made me go back to God, on a better level.

>reacting emotionally

>what you think I said

I read what you wrote and offered my own comment. Not being a direct answer to yours doesn't mean it's an emotional reaction and that I'm on my period. I do believe I understand what you are saying, I simply say something else.

>If you disagree with scripture so be it, but that doesn't change what it says.

I don't know which Scripture you're thinking of exactly, but I'd definitely like a reference for it (not doubting you, just acknowledging my ignorance, forgetfulness).

>Did you not read the rest of my post? I went out of my way to try and help by explaining where he may have made an error in some of the aspects of why he left the faith.

>You've jumped the gun so hard I'm surprised your not shooting yourself in the foot here.

Forgive me, I must have spent too much time on the defensive and started seeing everything as an attack.

>>3869

>that I think its fair to ask for you to not propagate and worsen it.

I think it's too late by now, but if YEC and OEC is good enough to you, I'll do that.

>I'm on the fence about that, frankly. I'll likely stay on the fence for as long as I remain so uninterested on the subject.

In the interest of yourself and Christianity, please get off the fence and leave geology to geologists. Genesis isn't literal and can't be (Adam & Eve = mandatory incest for third generation) and was never read literally until the 16th century or so. You may not realise it, but YEC or OEC is pure lunacy to anyone with some knowledge on the matter (I don't count myself as one of those). In doubt, trust the scientist, it doesn't remove God from anything.

>>3880

>No, it's there because Salvation comes from god a-priori to any decision humans make in accepting Christ.

Ouch… This is the part where Protestantism goes nuts to me. The idea that God chooses, beforehand, whether you go to Heaven or Hell is one of the worst insults you can give God.

It explains your perspective (although you don't know whether anon will go back to God or not before the end, so you really can't say anything, in theory).

I believe God doesn't know the future, simply because the future doesn't exist. It's a matter of whether God can know the colour of Monday and if He can make a square circle or create a rock He can't lift and all that stuff. If God knew the future, He'd also know His own future actions, which means He'd be literally bound to do what He has foreseen Himself do, which can't work, because if you know the future, you react accordingly, and you change accordingly, which can't happen if God truly knows the future. God isn't on rails, and He isn't the source of sin (which predestination makes Him). I'm amongst those Christians who readily believe that God's omniscience is limited (by Himself) to permit us, just like His omnipotence is limited so that we can be free and exist. God's omniscience stops where our free will begins, as He has chosen.

It eludes me how you can have faith in a God who would make a list of who goes where even before you get a chance to prove yourself.

>What I don't understand is why I'm being called intolerant for taking you at your word that you are truly outside the faith now.

You sound like the Catholics of /christian/ and discuss almost entirely on a legal level. It's far too mechanical and simple and makes a joke of both us and God (in my opinion). We're not talking about getting a fine after forgetting to give back some library books.

>You might not like the fact that I'm going to speak to you from a Christian perspective but I am under no obligation to abandon my religion while discussing it with you.

We all speak from a Christian perspective, you're not the only Christian here, and there are more shades of grey between what you do and what we do than just "ceasing to be Christian altogether".

I think you have a far too simplified vision of things, and no good comes of it for now, even if it makes perfect sense in your theology of predestination (which it doesn't quite because it requires foreknowledge which you don't have).

Lastly, I don't mean to sound hostile to you, I'm trying to defend Shin on the points where I disagree as a Christian, for the reasons stated above, but don't take it personally if you can. Preserving a Christian "togetherness" matters more to me than disagreements on theology. Let's keep that in mind, all of us, so we don't end up a bitter board.

>>3896

>Dude stop, just as you know that when a kid trhows a rock above his head its going to fall and hit him, God knows what happens to His childrens.

The laws of physics don't have free will.

>Gods omniscient doesnt not in any way removes our personal choices.

No, but it makes God evil, which can't be. If you know a rock is going to fall down on a child and you can save that child, but don't, you're not doing a good deed.

>The same as Creationism, you have this idea that creationism invalidates the scriptures which is false

I never said that. Creationism is scientific lunacy. Literalism is equally lunatic. That's what I said.

>>3886

>In the interest of yourself and Christianity, please get off the fence and leave geology to geologists.

Nah, I'll stay on the fence. Would you believe that in this matter I think the best answer is what is most faith promoting and practical, not what is true? In this one the reactionary and the Mormon in me agree well in that it doesn't matter whether the peasants, merchants and warriors believe we were born from cabbages or came from outer space; it never leads to anything productive except for dick measuring contests on the internet. The scientists and leaders should try their best to be informed, and only insofar as they might do something useful. Research of our origins is only worthy of the resources when it can help us understand eugenics better, create better medicines and remove undesirable traits from our race; curiosity or wanderlust are wastes of time.

Anyway, the theory of evolution is only an issue when it leads people away from the Church, not in and of itself. Mormon theology is a lot more flexible in this department and allows LDS people to believe "Young Earth" I hesitate to call it that (its some weird stuff but its great) stuff and still be in agreement with the things they might see around them. BYU does a good job of teaching evolution in a faith-promoting way (which is the main reason why evolution gets maligned, thanks to liberals and Jews), as well as allowing for people to still be able to hold whatever theory or fantasy they want.