intro

[Poison Tree]

Don't you think you, your brother and sister were a bit young to make such a decision. I can understand at 18 but, early teens.

How young is an acceptable age for someone to decide that they are a christian?

[claytojar]

I can't speak for my siblings but i can for myself: the utter hatred spewed in the SBC churches i attended prompted me to read the Bible and in doing so i realized--at such a young age--that the Bible was a book of hate guising itself as a book of "love". Also, while the "teachers" at Sunday school were spewing rhetoric over the mythology of other religions (including Catholicism), the same things they denounced against them was the same things in which they believed in their religion. It was hypocritical. And I knew that at 12-13 years old.

It's unfortunate you had to attend a church with such views, I also was told bad things about Catholics in the first church I attended. I can say I do not agree with all the tenets of the Catholic Church an find somethings quite different than what scripture teaches. I know many Catholics and expect to see many them in heaven, but just like some in churches I've attended, I do not expect to see all of them. I can't imagine that the SB would denounce things they also believe, not saying it couldn't happen just doesn't seem likely. Let's be honest here do you know anyone who hasn't been hypocritical about something in their lives, everyone I've met has including me, it is a bad habit at best and down right dishonest at worst. Honestly do you believe the Christian churches are going to defend other beliefs and gods that go against what they believe, that would be like an atheist defending Christianity or any other religion.

My use of "Christian" is a generalization. Where as I feel all Christians (and other religious/theistic believers) have an indoctrinated delusion, that does not mean that i believe each one only loves each other; however, in a simplified way they perhaps do while not wanting those of us who do not believe--they have no problem thinking (consciously or unconsciously) that "we" are deserving of a hell their god/religion created. That, in of itself, is not love--not love by a god/religion that places them in such a scenario and certainly not love by them fearfully accepting it.

If you generalize with the word Christian and that generalization does not fit all Christians I will say something about trying to put the same glove on many different hands, it want always fit. I'm not sure why you believe that a lot of Christians do not love atheist or others who believe differently, trying to introduce nonbelievers to Christianity shows a concern for others, yes I know some go way overboard, but many do it because they have a love for others regardless of what others may or may not believe. Only God can determine who goes to hell and who doesn't. As for your use of the word "deserve," my belief of what hell is would allow for that, but a better word would be "make." The intro thread isn't the place to discuss this, but I'm sure there will be a thread coming up that will.

The handbook. If your church is a member of the convention then you can get the updated version. The version I had was from the 1990's, I believe. But I did post a topic on it at http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/ or http://atheistthinktank.org/thinktank/index.php -- now, what I consider hate (things against women, homosexuals, overall prejudices, bigotry, racism etc.,) you may not. Or, like many Christiansâ,,¢ state that isn't hate but love or deny any of those things exist in their particular sect unless behind closed-doors.

I haven't read these links yet, I will and respond with an answer.

Also, the SBC did nothing to stop the massive amounts of racism spewed in the South by the churches who were members; in actuality, they helped promote it.

The Southern Baptist Church was founded right before the civil war to defend slavery, it spawned out of the south's desire to have cheap labor. Know this for a fact, though my family has always been in the south we do not condone the slavery or the bigotry of any persons. My parents were from North Carolina and even though they were surrounded by bigotry and out right hate of blacks they did not accept it. They taught me to respect all people because we are the same, the same to God and to differentiate by race was sinful, just plain wrong. I grew up right in the middle of the civil rights movement and saw Dr. Martin Luther King as a great man, one of great courage. I have seen the signs saying whites only, blacks to the back of the bus, white bathrooms only, blacks can not sit a the counter, whites only above water fountains. I know the disgrace of the hatred, I was in the middle of it as a young boy and despised what was being done to black people. The Southern Baptist Church was wrong in this and have found itself hurting because of it. We are trying to change things which is good, the convention has elected a black president and is moving to bring in all peoples no matter their color. This is a positive move and anyone who wants to continue to criticize the church now is wrong in doing so, it is a changed church.

Yes, it has. By changing words, by leaving out words, by rewriting sentences one is attempting a "watered-down" version until that version becomes non-existent.

I recommend you read the KJV and The Message, and then come back here and show to me how every single verse is exactly rhe same (in meaning). You won't be able to do it because people SPAG.

I have, way ahead of you, I have and study from several different revisions. The KJV is written in old English a language that is not spoken in the U.S. for at least a century, so it's harder to understand. The Message is a transliteration which is good for reading and some study just as any transliteration version is, I often read and use the New Living translation because of it's more modern English, but my main study Bible is the New American Standard because of its more literal translation and yes this does sometimes pose difficulties because it goes to the literal side,  that's why I have other bibles to help in studying. I think you can see I do not limit myself to one revision and I did not mention all I have and use. I've not found any that give a different message, some explain some verses better or should I say the ones that use today's English aid in understanding. But, none deviate from the others. 

That's funny, a Christian trying to tell an atheist he has to provide proof when the Christian never does.

-Nam

The proof that I have as a Christian comes directly from God, something you would refuse to believe, but has opened up a whole new world to me.

[claytojar]

The Noah myth

http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/top-ten-reasons-noahs-flood-is-mythology/
http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter6.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark

The impossibility of the ark:
http://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark
From the National Center For Science Education. I understand you like scientists.

This is a intro thread I'm not getting into specifics such as these, there are appropriate places for this, I'm sure I'll have a chance to voice my beliefs there, in the mean time find other things less done. Not avoiding just saying it needs to be done in the proper place.

[claytojar]

How young is an acceptable age for someone to decide that they are a christian?

Good question and the answer, there is no set age I've heard of ages 5 to 90. There is a difference between deciding to become a Christian or an atheist, I want get into the spiritual part simply because it want be accepted here. Looking at it from a purely logical view, the one choosing Christianity is not deviating from the teachings of scripture, the one choosing atheism is choosing to deviate totally from the teachings and to do so should require a much longer amount of time through study, just how I see it.

[Nam]

It's unfortunate you had to attend a church with such views

I said "churches". Not one single church but more than one.

I also was told bad things about Catholics in the first church I attended.

That's what the SBC teaches unless they've changed that viewpoint recently, which i highly doubt. Of course many protestant sects teach the same thing.

I can say I do not agree with all the tenets of the Catholic Church an find somethings quite different than what scripture teaches. I know many Catholics and expect to see many them in heaven, but just like some in churches I've attended, I do not expect to see all of them. I can't imagine that the SB would denounce things they also believe, not saying it couldn't happen just doesn't seem likely.

Do you think that because I became an atheist i stopped going to church? I didn't stop going to church until I was 21 years old. And, nothing changed. Even today at my family's church (literally, it's their church since 1902) they teach the same things, and they, like many Southern Baptist churches in the South are members of the SBC. I have an aunt who works for the SBC in Jacksonville, FL -- do you believe i'm just making this up as I go along? These are the things they adhere to, gossip about, and hear at their churches. For you, as a Southern Baptist to simply deny most or all of what I state makes you look the fool to other former Southern Baptists or perhaps to current Southern Baptists; of course from what you state, I really don't believe you are one, unless in name only.

Let's be honest here do you know anyone who hasn't been hypocritical about something in their lives, everyone I've met has including me, it is a bad habit at best and down right dishonest at worst. Honestly do you believe the Christian churches are going to defend other beliefs and gods that go against what they believe, that would be like an atheist defending Christianity or any other religion.

You just stated above:

I can't imagine that the SB would denounce things they also believe, not saying it couldn't happen just doesn't seem likely.

First, it's "SBC" not "SB", one is a sect the other is an organization adhering to that sect. Yes, they would and then deny they ever did. Like many politicians. They say something then deny they ever said it; place the negativity on others by stating "You have no proof.", "You took what I said out of context." etc.,

Protestant Christians tend to denounce Catholics as even being Christians themselves unless it benefits them. I hear, and read all the time by protestants how Catholics aren't real Christians, they need to repent and accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour until they are being persecuted by another faction or religion (or atheists) and then state the "statistics" of how there are almost 2 billion Christians in the world. 1.5 billion of those are Roman Catholics. At that particular moment they are Christians, any other moment: they are not. That's not only contradictory but hypocritical, as well.

If you generalize with the word Christian and that generalization does not fit all Christians I will say something about trying to put the same glove on many different hands, it want always fit. I'm not sure why you believe that a lot of Christians do not love atheist or others who believe differeothers

You ("you" is in general) condemn them, berate them, persecute them, try to strike fear into them (sometimes succeeding), consider them not even human, state they are devil worshippers, etc., and yet to "you" that is being loving. That is asinine.

trying to introduce nonbelievers to Christianity shows a concern for others, yes I know some go way overboard, but many do it because they have a love for others regardless of what others may or may not believe.

Nonsense. They do it because a book orders them to do it. They are ruled by a book, not love of others.

What did Sarah Palin recently say, "Waterboarding is bringing Christ to terrorists."? Ever think "you" are the terrorist? "You" force your beliefs on others around the world because you love them. If that's love, you can have it.

Only God can determine who goes to hell and who doesn't. As for your use of the word "deserve," my belief of what hell is would allow for that, but a better word would be "make." The intro thread isn't the place to discuss this, but I'm sure there will be a thread coming up that will.

I'm sure you'll create it.

The Southern Baptist Church was founded right before the civil war to defend slavery, it spawned out of the south's desire to have cheap labor. Know this for a fact, though my family has always been in the south we do not condone the slavery or the bigotry of any persons. My parents were from North Carolina and even though they were surrounded by bigotry and out right hate of blacks they did not accept it. They taught me to respect all people because we are the same, the same to God and to differentiate by race was sinful, just plain wrong. I grew up right in the middle of the civil rights movement and saw Dr. Martin Luther King as a great man, one of great courage. I have seen the signs saying whites only, blacks to the back of the bus, white bathrooms only, blacks can not sit a the counter, whites only above water fountains. I know the disgrace of the hatred, I was in the middle of it as a young boy and despised what was being done to black people. The Southern Baptist Church was wrong in this and have found itself hurting because of it. We are trying to change things which is good, the convention has elected a black president and is moving to bring in all peoples no matter their color. This is a positive move and anyone who wants to continue to criticize the church now is wrong in doing so, it is a changed church.

No it's not. Same organization, just a different guise.

I have, way ahead of you, I have and study from several different revisions.

Unless you have read 14 versions of the Bible, The Book of Mormon, and the Qur'an, you are not "way ahead" of me.

The KJV is written in old English

It's written in Middle English. Old Englush is comparable to a type of Gaelic (which I can read).

language that is not spoken in the U.S. for at least a century, so it's harder to understand.

No, it's not. That's an excuse, and a poor one.

The Message is a transliteration which is good for reading and some study just as any transliteration version is, I often read and use the New Living translation because of it's more modern English, but my main study Bible is the New American Standard because of its more literal translation and yes this does sometimes pose difficulties because it goes to the literal side,  that's why I have other bibles to help in studying. I think you can see I do not limit myself to one revision and I did not mention all I have and use. I've not found any that give a different message, some explain some verses better or should I say the ones that use today's English aid in understanding. But, none deviate from the others.

My point is: it's not the original English version nor the original non-English version since things get lost in translation so people have to either make something up or try to edit to suit.

The proof that I have as a Christian comes directly from God, something you would refuse to believe, but has opened up a whole new world to me.

Your "proof" amounts to nothing. It's your opinion, and opinions do not equate to evidence.

-Nam

[stromboli]

Right, Middle English. it was also written at the behest of some James guy for his church. Which was (cough) modified (cough) from some earlier versions because the Puritans complained there were problems with the previous book.

Damn Puritans. Apparently between burning witches they were messin' with the bible.

[Nam]

Right, Middle English. it was also written at the behest of some James guy for his church. Which was (cough) modified (cough) from some earlier versions because the Puritans complained there were problems with the previous book.

Damn Puritans. Apparently between burning witches they were messin' with the bible.

Technically it's early Modern English but on the cusp of Middle English.

-Nam

[Mr.Obvious]

That argument holds no water, the bucket you use is full of holes, those holes are called Christians, Christians are in large numbers in all those areas, plus you want to deal in what ifs, they have nothing to do with real life and here's the proof, Christians in all those areas you mentioned. What ifs are a terrible place to start a debate from. 

You do realize that the people of Africa and other colonies were forcibly indoctrinated and pretty much tortured in the name of conversion. If your counterargument is to be; look at how sensible Christianity is as it spreads across the globe and gets accepted everywhere, just realize this point. Because, I'm not saying it's what you are saying, but if it is what you are saying it's quite insensitive and a major distortion of history.

Secondly, even Christianity isn't 'in large numbers in all those areas'. Even to date there are areas in which people live who've never even heard of Jesus Christ, the bible, the gospels or Jehova. These areas are growing smaller, yes, but are definitely not gone.

Thirdly, even if these pockets of ignorants-towards-christianity dissapear entirely in the near future; it would still have left millions of years of people who hadn't heard of Jesus before he was born and even nearly two thousand years of a globe not having heard of him after he was born and died.

Fourthly, while changing 'religion' does occur from Islam to Christianity or from Christianity to Islam or from Jewish to Hindu or from Hindu to Jewish or whatever... these are by and large anomalies. And in a lot of cases it's like you say: these christians live there in large numbers. Which means that they form a substantial part and within that part raise and indoctrinate their kids, not so much convert others. Which does nothing to add to your point.
Look at it this way. Belgium is technically a 'Roman Catholic Country'. But in Antwerp we have a major Orthodox-Jewish community and a substantial Islamic community. People who are born in Roman Catholic households by and large become Roman Catholics. Orthodox-Jewish kids by and large become Orthodox Jews and Islamic children by and large become followers of Islam.
The 'where you were born decides your faith' bit may indeed be interpreted as in 'if you were born in an X-country you would be an X instead of a Y. But what it really gets at is that your cultural upbringing and heritage, which can differ within a country or even within a city, for the main part decides your religious views in later life.

[Mr.Obvious]

Good question and the answer, there is no set age I've heard of ages 5 to 90. There is a difference between deciding to become a Christian or an atheist, I want get into the spiritual part simply because it want be accepted here. Looking at it from a purely logical view, the one choosing Christianity is not deviating from the teachings of scripture, the one choosing atheism is choosing to deviate totally from the teachings and to do so should require a much longer amount of time through study, just how I see it.

That would only make sense if scripture had any value, which it doesn't outside of what scripture says. That's been the entire point.

You ask us to look at it from a 'purely logical view' but then immeadiately after put Christian scripture on a pedestal and affirm it's imagined value and from that bias make your point. After all, I could ask you to keep studying Hindu or Islam scripture untill you find yourself convinced of it, rather than just dismissing it after a first read. You would need years of studying each and every religion on earth and it's scriptures before you could validly dismiss them, if we were to take up your point and made it fair to every religion.

People believe what they believe, claytojar. And teaching and learning can influence what you believe. But as soon as someone becomes convinced that the evidence for any God is bogus he or she turns atheïst. The age doesn't matter. If they in a later point in their lives become convinced of the existance of a Deity, they (re)turn to theism. The age doesn't matter for that either. As soon as someone interprets a point of view as BS, it's like a paradigm-shift and you don't choose later on; you become it instantly by realization.

[SGOS]

Good question and the answer, there is no set age I've heard of ages 5 to 90. There is a difference between deciding to become a Christian or an atheist, I want get into the spiritual part simply because it want be accepted here. Looking at it from a purely logical view, the one choosing Christianity is not deviating from the teachings of scripture, the one choosing atheism is choosing to deviate totally from the teachings and to do so should require a much longer amount of time through study, just how I see it.

I was around 5 when I started to question the existence of God.  At that time, I did not know the words agnostic or atheist, but in retrospect, this was the cutting edge of agnosticism but not quite agnosticism, since I had not yet come to the realization that God could not be proven. 

While I was confirmed in the Lutheran Church, I lived in an extended family situation with a fire breathing Baptist grandmother (who hated Catholics.  I didn't realize that was a Baptist thing.  I thought it was just her).  She had a much stronger impact on my life than the Lutheran Church because she was so much more evangelical, opinionated, and pushy.  She is the one who probably got me thinking about the reality of God's non-existence first because her stories of a "loving" god with such a penchant for inhuman torture and intolerance for petty shit was too contradictory to logically accept (although I was too young to know the word logic).

And yes, the journey to atheism took much more study than simply accepting the Bible myths, but oddly, it required a closer study of the Bible than what the average Christian is willing to devote to it.

[Poison Tree]

Good question and the answer, there is no set age I've heard of ages 5 to 90. There is a difference between deciding to become a Christian or an atheist, I want get into the spiritual part simply because it want be accepted here. Looking at it from a purely logical view, the one choosing Christianity is not deviating from the teachings of scripture, the one choosing atheism is choosing to deviate totally from the teachings and to do so should require a much longer amount of time through study, just how I see it.

And what if the child were, instead of choosing to be a christian or atheist, becoming Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist or a Jain or Zoroastrian or Sikh or . . . ? What if the child had Jewish parents but chose to be christian; should deviating from Torah and Talmud (or Hadith and Quran or . . .) carry the same significance as deviating from scripture? Are those choices more like being a christian or more like being an atheist?

From my point of view, there is no in kind difference between choosing to be any one. Except that christianity, as the majority position, is less likely to result in ostracism, mistrust and persecution--despite constant howls from the pullet.

[stromboli]

It takes a Christian to ignore what to us are obvious facts. The level of indoctrination involved from Sunday School to attempts at teaching Creationism in schools to Bible camps to being constantly presented with religious biblical material in one form or another.

The one thing I did as a parent, after leaving Mormonism, was to let my children choose for themselves. My youngest was age 8, and all were initially baptized as Christians. I never thought that dunking somebody in a tank of water was anything but symbolic, although a lot of Christians think it is a highly important act of transition. Whatever. No one should force religion on an untrained mind. They went to (1) Bible camp, but after transiting Mormonism it didn't have much affect.

I am very much against anything that serves as intimidation or coercion or indoctrination. A free mind should be allowed to make its own choices.

[DunkleSeele]

How many times do I have to say I'm here to have discussions, period. If anyone becomes enlightened from the discussions I have, it will be because they wanted to, you act like I'm here to force something on you. I will stand for what I believe and if that bothers you and atheist standing for what they believe doesn't bother you then you will have a dishonest opinion of me. How could you possibly know I do not have something new or different, I know this, without civil discussion we want know.

OK, I won't comment on the other drivel you posted because it's exactly the same bullshit you've been spewing on AF.org under the name of Godschild and, frankly speaking, it's not worth the effort. Still, the snippet above is a clear sign of your hypocrisy: you say you "want discussions" but, at the same time, you hope some of us will "be enlightened". No asshole, you aren't here to have discussions. Having discussions means that both parties accept the possibility of changing their opinion. What you want is to spew your bullshit and proselytise, because your disgusting book of horror fiction tells you so. You're a condescending, hypocritical asshole. Go shove an umbrella up your ass and open it, shithead.

[aitm]

 

Looking at it from a purely logical view, ....

[stromboli]

Enlightened? How the fuck does one, living in a modern scientific era, become enlightened by a Bronze Age theology that was out of date like ten centuries ago? Well, working on my new religion. Beer and chili, yo. Later.