Charity

Thankfully, there are others who contribute to this post. And I figure, any time Chockfull posts, then it's open for replies.

All I remember is that vpw taught Abraham "misunderstood" what God meant. If this was true, God would have known this immediately and yet he waits until the last second where Isaac sees the knife being raised above him to correct Abraham. That teaching was simply to blame Abraham and stop God from looking horrendous. The writer of Hebrews 11:17-19 did not take Genesis 22 figuratively. Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: 19Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure. This confirms that God did tell Abraham to kill Isaac and the mention of it in Hebrews 11 is to draw attention to Abraham's faith which is why he was willing to obey such a hideous command. (A faith, BTW, that believers are expected to follow Heb 12:1) I stand by my previous post that Gen 22 is a ridiculous story meant to teach obedience. Any relationship it has to John 3:16 only shows God is no greater than Abraham in being willing to give up their only begotten son.

Genesis 22 - the real story Why does God need to test a believer's faith if he knows their thoughts and what's in their heart? He had to have known what Abraham would do. (You have to ignore verse 12 though - for just like with Adam and Eve, YHWH appears to be a totally clueless God.) So, if testing was not necessary to prove Abraham's faith to God, it must have been to prove Abraham's faith to himself. Regardless of having to experience for 3 days the mental and emotional anguish from having to kill his only child, Abraham would learn just how strong his trust in God actually was. BUT, there incredibly Abraham doesn't struggle with the idea at all. Supposedly, the reason for this was because Abraham knew that God's plan was to raise Isaac from the dead! So, the rational question is why play the whole thing out? God could have said to Abraham, "Look Abe, I knew if I asked you that you would do it. Wait to go!" Then Abraham could say, "I knew, all-powerful and merciful God, that you would raise Isaac's ashes back to life. Glory be to you!" Then they could have shook hands - end of story. This whole ridiculous story was not about God and Abraham - it's a lesson to the readers. OBEY GOD NO MATTER WHAT AND YOU WILL GET YOUR FULL REWARDS AFTER YOU DIE. (See vs 16-18) One last thing, apologists will say that the purpose of the story is to foretell God sending his own only-begotten son into the world to die FOR US. My response is what's so great about God doing it when Abraham was willing to do the same thing.

You know cman, I really appreciate this post of yours. Thanks

Thanks for your post Raf. It's obvious that you have spent time researching evolution which is great. There is so much information about it out there, all of which never interested me in the past. But now that I no longer believe a god exists and that the bible is not his word, what's left is how do I make sense of the natural beauty of life on this planet. Just to observe it, to interact with it and to appreciate it, for me, begs an answer to the question of how did it all come to be. I'm surprised by how emotional this topic is turning out to be. I can't explain why, so I'm calling it a night and will see what the morning brings.

How do you let go of the theory of divine intelligence after always believing it was a strong argument for God being the Creator of everything? I’ve started by recently listening to two videos. In the first, Seth Andrews interviews the authors of “Evolving out of Eden: Christian Responses to Evolution” - Robert Price and Edwin A. Suominen. They get into deconstructing the works of “science-savvy theologians” who have come up with ways to combine Genesis and Genetics such as “Evolutionary Creation.” Their conclusion is that such theories don’t hold up under scientific scrutiny. In the second one, Seth Andrews interviews Abby Hafer about her book “The Not-So-Intelligent Designer: Why Evolution Explains the Human Body and Intelligent Design Does Not.” In the video, she gives a number of examples of faulty designs, one of the first being about testicles being outside of the human body while certain other animals have them inside, safe and protected. Faulty designs point to a faulty designer which would remove a perfect God from the equation. I know WordWolf has a thread in the Doctrinal: Exploring the Bible sub-forum called “What Happened in Genesis 1?” This thread is in the Atheism sub-forum for the reason I gave above. I’ll start reading “Evolving out of Eden” on Kindle tomorrow and then begin sharing some ideas as I go along. Any posts on the topic would be helpful as well.

You know there is a new Disney musical drama film being released in December about the life of Mufasa. I don't know if it will make those of us who were traumatized by his treacherous murder when he was pushed from the cliff and then trampled to death by the stampeding wildebeest as his adorable son who had just been saved from said stampede by his brave father watched him fall...feel any better, but it's worth a try, I guess. And thanks for changing the name!

Modcat5 killed Simba's father!!? But why??? On the other hand, considered them said.

...possible son or daughter. So effing true and so effing bad.

After starting the thread, I wanted to change the title to "letting go" instead of "losing" but wasn't sure if that was possible. I never used to have a problem with Matthew 22:37-39 - what could be wrong where love is concerned. However, the part I used to overlook or ignore before, now stands out - is it love when you are commanded to do so with there being negative consequences when you don't?

I used the word fundamentalist because it means believing the bible is the literal word of God and that it is inherently accurate. This was how vp wanted us to view the bible, but you're right in that he felt free to change it whenever it suited his fancy. I think because of the former, many were gullible to accept the latter.

The first gift from God (and the one all future gifts are dependent on) is salvation, but since there is a requirement attached (that you must make Jesus your Lord), it is not a free gift. If that requirement is not met, there is no salvation and one remains condemned to death/hell. The way God set everything up from the very beginning in Genesis 2 was conditional on obedience and the result of the first sign of non-compliance was death. What parent would set up such a system with their child?

Hi oldiesman, thank you for your answer. The action I was referring in my question though is whether it is okay with God for believers to choose which scriptures to believe and which to discard. Phil 2:12 does not speak to this. It speaks about how obedience is required when working out ones salvation because God will be working in them, at the same time, to be willing to do his good pleasure. Phil 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 13For it is God which works in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. (The phrase "fear and trembling" is used in two more verses and obedience is mentioned in them as well. They are 2 Cor 7: 15 and Eph 6:5.)

I'm asking sincerely if there were times you struggled with an answer you believed you received after saying this prayer. Have there ever been feelings of guilt, doubt, confusion or fear as a result of listening for answers?

The lukewarm bit and needing to be a zealot are also found in what Jesus said in the gospels about following him. Some may say Jesus was speaking in hyperbole but when you put them all together, I think his consistent message of “all or nothing” is quite clear. And while Christians may choose to not take these verses literally, maybe because they require too much of followers, there are many who in their love for God have decided to believe them as they are written. And unfortunately, many narcissists have begun ministries/cults to attract these types of believers and go on to abuse them every which way. Most posters on GSC could say "been there, experienced that." As an atheist, I see religion (by way of the bible) as a means of controlling people. Atheists are often automatically accused of wanting to be one so they can to be free to sin. However, to make that kind of generalization is being very close minded and ignorant of the way they do live their lives. (P.S. Being a Christian does not guarantee any have stopped living in "sin".) ~~~~~~~~~ Here are the verses I mentioned above. In the gospels: - To the young man who had kept the commandments since his youth, Jesus said he also needed to sell everything he had and give it to the poor. - Jesus said, “And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life - To a man who asked to bury his father before he committed to following him, Jesus said, “Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.” - To a man who wanted to say good bye to his family before he committed to following him, Jesus said, “No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.” - (Think of Abraham being willing to literally sacrifice his son when you read this quote.) Jesus said, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. He that loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that takes not his cross, and follows after me, is not worthy of me. He that finds his life shall lose it: and he that loses his life for my sake shall find it. - When being told his mother and brethren wanted to speak with him (seemingly out of concern for him), Jesus said, “Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? [And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said,] “Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.” - Before ascending to heaven, Jesus saidto his apostles, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.”

The decision to no longer be a fundamentalist like twi taught us to be has opened up the choice like yours to look to the bible for inspiration not consistency or accuracy. (Does saying this mean you think parts of the bible are not consistent or accurate?) And instead of needing to take literally that “all scripture is God inspired and is profitable,” you can see the bible as being a blend of man (writing by inspiration while seeing through a glass darkly) and God. Christians having different criteria for what they decide to believe and what they decide to disregard. It's a pick-and-choose way of defining God in their lives. That’s why I previously called this process as “Build a God” after the idea of “Build a Bear.” Christians are free to do this but my question is “Does God say it is okay to do this anywhere in his word?” So far for me, becoming an atheist meant that there's not enough of the bible that: - teaches a god who always loves unconditionally and whose gifts are totally free - is authentic without man-made changes, additions and deletions - is not based on ancient myths and philosophers - does not teach absolute obedience to a god or his son in order to avoid punishment (which is not the same as consequences) and hell - consistently reliable when it comes to putting my trust in what it says. I know there are other places to receive inspiration without the bible and all the baggage attached to it.

I appreciate a reply to my post cman, but I was hoping you'd share your thoughts on the source of sin thingy I mentioned. Was it because you didn't have any or you weren't interested in sharing them?

Hi, Socks. Thank you for your post and your well wishes. I’ve always liked your twirling, dancing character. I want to understand the gist of what you are saying, so I hope you don’t mind that I condensed it down to some main points. Feel free to correct any misunderstandings I may have arrived at. Concerning your beliefs, personal events and experiences have enabled you to form your view of God, your life, your purpose and who you are. The bible also helps you with this but not necessarily in the sense of needing to commit to a prescribed set of beliefs. In addition to these, a long history of "miraculous" events have shown you a growing and very wide horizon in which there is a godly presence and what you call "forces of nature" far greater and widespread than I can imagine. One specific miraculous event became a defining moment in what you believe. There were outside forces involved which benefited your life in a special or particular way. Over the years you have come to know that your “faith” is your own as it is founded on things you have found to be true and reliable, two of which are Jesus Christ and a redemptive purpose in your life. Finally, you want to find the sources and instruction which will better make known to you a present reality of which we are all a part – a reality that helps us to best fulfill its purpose for our lives. Here are some questions I have. Are the forces of nature related to or because of God’s active presence in your life or are the two separate from each other? Do you believe it's always been God or the forces of nature (or both) behind the miraculous events over the years? Do you think Jesus Christ has proven to be true and reliable because you have remained aware of his redemptive work in your life? Is the reality you speak of a kind of benevolent relationship you have with someone or something? What I seem to be seeing is a physical and spiritual life that is free of any authoritative forces or demands but instead is the result of a genuine thankfulness and a willingness to keep God and Jesus Christ in your life which in turn has allowed you live an authentic and progressive life. I'm interested in knowing about any challenges you've had along the way with your faith and how they were resolved if you are inclined to share them. Thanks again Socks.

I get it - "the wages of sin is death" idea from Romans 6 which takes you back to the whole Adam and Eve story in Genesis 3. For those who think this was an allegory or a fictional story posing as history to teach us something (a myth), what part of it teaches how sin really entered the world that we are born with it and therefore deserving of death?

Another POV: On Julia Sweeney's 'Letting Go of God' video, she talked about her brother's death from cancer - how long it took him to die a slow, painful death. Then she shared what someone had said to her about Jesus' suffering and crucifixion in comparison and the comment was "Jesus had a bad weekend." Add to this the idea that he was only dead for 3 days and 3 nights and then God got his son back again. I've never thought of the passive-aggressive point you made above before. John 3:16 also makes this tug-on-the-heartstring point. John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Yet, where are the books? You would think if this was actually true, there would be more historical records other than just the gospels? Yes/no?

What surprises me the most about becoming an atheist is how insane biblical apologists now sound when giving answers to sincere questions about God and what the Bible says. I'll come back with examples later. Then again, some of you might have examples of your owns.

Is it wrong to compare the actions of an almighty heavenly father to how we as human parents would behave towards our own children? I think doing so is a reasonable thing to do, but others might say it's like comparing apples to oranges for god's ways are higher than ours. If god's ways can only be understood spiritually, perhaps those who want to believe they're spiritual will not want to question god's parenting skills so they rationalize them instead. Similarly, questioning god's wisdom in how he shows "unconditional love" to his children only makes us fools according to Paul. _____________________ Should we not judge a parent as being inhumane when they commands us to love them or face punishment, who sets us up to fail, who says we were born corrupt and unholy and therefore deserving of their wrath and who will meet our needs only when they decide we have enough trust in them?

Some might think I'm not on a journey any longer because I've already made up my mind that god does not exist. Sometimes, I ask myself if I've come to that conclusion, why do I continue to read and consider scripture? Do I have a confirmation bias now when I do so? In your first post on this thread, you cautioned me against allowing my faith to be undermined by whatever challenges my children or grandchildren are facing and you shared your reason for saying so. Although I did mention in my OP post that the doctrine of the rapture and great tribulation was another reason for questioning my faith, being hurt (and angry) at a god for not answering my prayers concerning my grandson's health did make me think I might be coming across to others as a spoiled brat who's having a temper tantrum or saying 'I hate you" to a parent because they didn't get what they want. I wondered a bit if I was myself. So self-doubt is an uncomfortable part in the process of moving away from one's faith. I know you've experienced this yourself, so I appreciate your post above.

What makes you think that an atheist did not do “in-depth analysis of scripture” (sometimes for years) or have a positive outlook when they did believe in God and in the bible? More than likely, some believed in many things then that you still believe today. As it often happens, people begin deconstructing their “beliefs” because of what their continued study begins to point out to them, inconsistencies being only one of them. I can’t speak for Penworks personally, but it seems to have been that way for her. And it definitely happened that way for Julia Sweeney according to her story. What you wrote above is what people did concerning vpw's and other twi's teachings, usually beginning to question while still being involved and even more so after leaving. You were okay with the process then. It’s only now when some apply the same process to God and the bible that you seem to take issue with it. Perhaps it's not the process you're objecting to but the results of it because with atheists, their results disagree with what you believe. Then, it becomes all about their egos. I'm pretty sure twi followers said the same thing about the people who posted here on the "About the Way" forum.

Since there doesn't seem to be a way of knowing what these probable inaccuracies were, how is anyone supposed to know what the original account, if there was one, even said? Is calling certain people delusional because of their conclusions about the bible not your own way of bringing "bias for the scriptures" to the analysis? I think the account of Jesus casting out that demon from a child is fictional for a number of reasons, one being that if there is no god, then there would also be no devil spirits. Another reason is given at the end of this post. I’ll repeat what I said before except to add "causing physical abuse" to Jesus' actions when he cast out the devil spirit in such a way that the demon “rent him sore (mangled, convulsed), and came out of him: and he was as one dead.” I’ll also repeat my reason for saying this - if Jesus had the authority over devil spirits, why did he not add the command to leave the child without causing harm when he said, “Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.” Jesus was obviously the one in control, yet he allowed the spirit to come out in such a violent way as to cause physical harm to the child. (Nothing to be concerned about though, we'll just overlook that part since Jesus then simply took him by the hand and lifted up the boy.) Now, compare this to another account in Mark 5. This demon named Legion (because there were many devil spirits present) was strong enough to repeatedly break the chains which bound the man. When Jesus granted Legion's request to be sent into the swine, this specifically strong demon just came out of the man after Jesus gave them leave. I guess it's "probable" that they were so thankful that Jesus agreed to the swine thing that they decided not to leave violently - but didn't feel the same way when entering the swine. IMO, these accounts were written by men in a way to emphasize the evil and power of demons to make the story more gripping with the additional benefit of likely putting fear of them in the reader.