Strange days, these days.

Up is down, left is right, and uncertainty abounds.

This has been an extremely long, gradual shift. Christianity was, for a very long time, a refuge. About ten years ago I left the church, but still held onto, and even defended much of that ideology. I argued with people online, and yes, here on OKP. I even did my lil stretch of digging into "creation science". Still, through all those years, I had tons of questions that simply did not have sufficient answers. I leaned on a few of the usual fallacies, up to and including good ol' Pasquel's wager: what if I'm wrong, but never really had anything satisfactory to justify my belief. So it's been a long, slow and gradual turn.

I went back a few times, mainly because of my wife, and I made a few attempts to renew that commitment.

We went back last year, but at that point it was 100% arbitrary; I went for her, and for my daughter, who, in another story entirely, had been indoctrinated at her day care for about two and a half to three years before I knew what was going on, and has fully embraced the idea of god and jesus dying for her. But I knew I was in a fully arbitrary mode where neither my heart nor my mind was invested in the slightest.

So fast forward through this marital situation. I thought, hey, let me get back to the foundations of this Christianity thing, and perhaps I can rediscover that faith, perhaps gain some new revelation, and started looking up youtube videos to listen to at work to give me some foundation upon which to justify my faith, because I figured now would be a good time to get that back.

Then I stumbled upon clips that did the opposite, completely dismantling every argument I'd ever used, ever dogma I ever held, while simultaneously providing historical context, science, and basic principles of reason to complete this turn. Over the last, say, two months, any religious belief I once held is completely gone. No 'I'm spiritual, not religious" nonsense either. I now hold the position that there is simply insufficient evidence to justify belief in any deity, to any degree. That isn't to discount evidence that could arise in the future or anything... but I am actually well settled in this.

I'm obviously abridging a ton of details on this journey. It's a new skin though, and I genuinely feel as though I'm viewing the world through a different lense. I do feel some sort of loss of that security blanket, but I also, strangely, feel somewhat more empowered to take control of my life.

Though I am settled in my conclusion, I am now in a period of deprogramming an awful lot of remnants. That should be an interesting process.

yep

And I'm only going there because of your statement.

If there's no sound evidence to prove christ was anything more then, at the barest of minimums, most likely an amalgam of several Jewish teachers of the time, let alone a ressurection or any extrabiblical evidence of any of the supposed miracles that wiuld have lent credence to the whole "son of god" claim, which, mind you, is in and of itself historically proven to be taken from other, eaier religious stories....

That means the entire proposition of being "born again" is meaningless. It's just a concept, nothing more.

yep

I didn't make this post to antagonize believers, but I'm also not going to allow you or anyone else to run with these fallacies on skme passive aggressive shit.p

Until you can prove the claims of the existence, and divinity, of the character of jesus, you have absolutely no foundation for the concept of being "birn again" as anything but a concept.

If you're going to play this game, then you need to first substantiate the claims of your religion. Otherwise, please keep it moving.

yourself a christian when you weren't born again

How christy of you to take this tacky ass tact.

A real, true blue, born again Christian would be praying for me to see the light, not trying to bam up my post.

Great job!

yep

You're not show anything consistent with any of the fabled fruits of the spirit.

You're showing the true colors, not to mention the ignorance, intellectual dishonesty, and canned, dogmatic puppetry inherent in many believers.

But definitely not "light".

>If there's no sound evidence to prove christ was anything more
>then, at the barest of minimums, most likely an amalgam of
>several Jewish teachers of the time

There's an entire field of scholarship out there on the historical figure of Jesus, a field that doesn't require any dogmatic requirements, that insists there is plenty of evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person whose life was congruent in a number of important ways with the Gospel accounts. Shit, even John Crossan thinks Jesus *existed* and that guy doesn't care what anybody thinks.

I don't know you, so I don't have any dog in the fight with respect to your religious commitment. But you're not representing scholarship in this field accurately.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

>>If there's no sound evidence to prove christ was anything
>more
>>then, at the barest of minimums, most likely an amalgam of
>>several Jewish teachers of the time
>
>There's an entire field of scholarship out there on the
>historical figure of Jesus, a field that doesn't require any
>dogmatic requirements

Yes, I'm aware.

>That insists there is plenty of
>evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person whose life
>was congruent in a number of important ways with the Gospel
>accounts. Shit, even John Crossan thinks Jesus *existed* and
>that guy doesn't care what anybody thinks.

Insistence amd assertion is not evidence.


>I don't know you, so I don't have any dog in the fight with
>respect to your religious commitment. But you're not
>representing scholarship in this field accurately.

First, I'm not representing scholarship of the field. Second, I cited the lack of sound evidence. I did not say there was no evidence, I said there was no sound evidence....and that's accurate. It's very much up for debate as to whether the character, as expressed in the bible, existed in real life.

Again: i said there was no sound evidence, but let me clwrify: there's no conclusive evidence that this person was real. To say there is conclusive evidence is just a flat out lie.

Further, significant portions of the jesus of the bible are direct lifts of stories that factually predated the character.

And again... that's the bare minimum you need to prove, to say nothing of him dying and ressurecting for the expressed purpose of atonement for our supposed sins.

And if you want to press in on the concept of being "born again", you have to prove these things conclusively, and what we do have does not remotely approach that standard. It doesn't even come close.

If there were conclusive evidence, not only of his existence, but of his supposed miracles, his death being specifically to atone for our sins, or his supposed ressurection, guess what?

Faith wouldn't be necessary, because faith is only required for things that lack sufficient evidence.

The phrase "oh boy" is best reserved for the monumentally insurmountable task of proving something so riddled with holes the truest miracle of all is that it managed to catch on to begin with.

I am comfortable representing the field of scholarship here, and you're pretty far outside the mainstream on it.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

Is there a wealth of contemporary, secular writers who corraborated this person?

Further, for the sake of argument, granting the very minimal criteria of establishing his existence has been met, there are a significant number of hurdles left to clear to get to the whole son of god thing.

>I am comfortable representing the field of scholarship here,
>and you're pretty far outside the mainstream on it.

I don't care about whether or not my perspective aligns with the "mainstream". If that were my motive, I'd still believe, now wouldn't I?

And even if, for the sake of argument, the historicity of jesus were conclusive, what extrabiblical evidence is there for all the other claims?

But I digress, since conclusive evidence does not exist.

.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

trust me

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

You've lived life almost as long as I have.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

that's how Jesus Christ deals with the "ain'ts"

just cause someone is baptized and takes communion doesn't mean they are christian.. that's the easy part IMO.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

you have heard testimonies of how they have gone through whatever ups and downs, back and forth, that goes on.

and many of other born agains who are also good people who found what works for them.

only real difference between an aint shit born again, and a "non saved" ain't shit person, is the non-saved one isn't going around judging everyone, and hiding their ain't shitnesss behind jesus and being saved.

who the fuck has the authority to tell someone they are or aren't a christian or going to heaven?

You have to be a real dickhead to think you have that type of power

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

with their hypocracy and somehow being...welll lets be honest, evil, lol. Them niggas is as self serving as fuck.

So I guess its cool they get to claim the whole concept of Christ while regular ass baptists/lutherans etc..rock, lol.

but another preachers kid wasn't.

I'm like.. "nigga, yo check just bounced, stfu and get me my money"

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

a person needing to be born again, then that is what has to happen.

Then whatever dogma he spews regarding said belief is worth less than dog shit.

If your had so little evidence behind it that you ultimately have to rely on faith, or, more aptly phrased, a "just go with it" mindset, then any pillar of that faith you try to cite is entirely meaningless.

yep

Because you have absolutely no foundation upon which to justify your belief.

Literally every argument there is in support of your religion has been laughably and easily debunked a thousand times over..... and you get so mad when you see someone manage to break free of your delusion that you forget to actually walk that walk in a manner worthy of the calling you erroneously think you've recieved.

Case One had a nicer tone, seemingly....


so.....


if you appreciate that tone, you could reply to what Case One asked you in reply #60:


"I, however, do have additional questions, but the only question that I really want to ask is, 'What happened to you that caused you to lose faith in all that you know and have experienced?'"


If you appreciated how Case One went about his business in this post, then I'm sure Case One would appreciate a reply to his reply #60 question.

Let's hear it.

Substantiate not just the existence, but the divinity of the mangled, conceptual ripped off zombie son of your petty, jealous, self-centered, homicidal, genocidal, egomanical deity.

Then resolve the myriad holes and inconsistencies in the book.

Then reconcile the reprehensible morality of the bool, along with the highly dubious historical accuracy of the whole sordid mess.

Then you can talk your born again nonsense.

But we both know the deal. We both know you're not acting upright in this situation. We both know you're not exhibiting an ounce of love, compassion, or concern. You're not showing a single trait consistent with a minister of your gospel.

You're as fugazi as it gets. It's not that I "prefer" Case's tone, it's that his tone is actually consistent with his professed faith...and yours is anything but😉

Reply #60 came almost ten replies before my replies from today.


First things first.


First is you replying to reply #60

All while dipping, ducking diving and dodging every inquiry into their shenanigans.

Way to keep the faith, champ

came so much earlier than my replies from today and yet you didn't answer the question in reply #60?


"I, however, do have additional questions, but the only question that I really want to ask is, 'What happened to you that caused you to lose faith in all that you know and have experienced?'"


If Case One has qualities that are more in line with his faith than I do to what I profess, then why did you stop replying to Case One and eagerly start replying to me?


Wouldn't you have a more productive post if you had continued to reply to Case One, whose faith is in line with his tone, according to youi?

But since you're a dumb puppet entirely incapable of thinking for yourself, the obvious answer escapes you.

Case One because you didn't like the question to you in his last reply in this post, reply #60:



"I, however, do have additional questions, but the only question that I really want to ask is, 'What happened to you that caused you to lose faith in all that you know and have experienced?'"


Answering that question will do more for you than me going back and forth with you, so, in the name of helping you, I'll leave it to you to eventually (why the delay?) answer the question in reply #60:



"I, however, do have additional questions, but the only question that I really want to ask is, 'What happened to you that caused you to lose faith in all that you know and have experienced?'"

I'm giving you plenty of opportunity to show exactly what kind of Christian you are, particularly in contrast to every other professed believer in this post.

And I have to say, you're doing an excellent job showing the type of Christian you are.

Smooches 😘

"Get ready....for your blessing....."

Do you believe morality cannot exist without a relgious foundation? If so, why?

driven by a desire to be rewarded by a higher being in an afterlife (or in the here & now).

Morality isn't based on belief in a God...some folks equate the two in order to reach the conclusion that non-belief = lack of morality and that an athiest can't be a good person.

Some people use athiesm as an excuse to wild out.


"Get ready....for your blessing....."

Most athiests I've come across tend to also he humanists with generally progressive viewpoints.

Conversely, I routinely come across religious people who use their religion as a shield to justify views that do not tend to favor the overall well being of people.

Obviously there's a more nuanced discussion to be had there.

That said, to answer your question, I think I'm arguably more moral, having dispensed with any of the conflicts that arise in holding views that come in direct conflict with my religion.

I no longer need to twist or contort to justify my views. I don't need to default to a book that's rife with deplorable moral inconsistencies as my guide.

Instead, I am free to examine whether or not a given view helps or harms the well being of my fellow man, and I do not have to do semantic or ideological gymnastics to justify those views because they're juxtaposed with religious dogma.

>Most athiests I've come across tend to also he humanists with
>generally progressive viewpoints.
>
>Conversely, I routinely come across religious people who use
>their religion as a shield to justify views that do not tend
>to favor the overall well being of people.
>
>Obviously there's a more nuanced discussion to be had there.
>
>
>That said, to answer your question, I think I'm arguably more
>moral, having dispensed with any of the conflicts that arise
>in holding views that come in direct conflict with my
>religion.
>
>I no longer need to twist or contort to justify my views. I
>don't need to default to a book that's rife with deplorable
>moral inconsistencies as my guide.
>
>Instead, I am free to examine whether or not a given view
>helps or harms the well being of my fellow man, and I do not
>have to do semantic or ideological gymnastics to justify those
>views because they're juxtaposed with religious dogma.

Understood...
Basically I guess my question/statement was along the lines of what Legs had asked...if it was related to the marriage stuff or not. Thus my statement about folks using it as an excuse to wild out...or couching it in that....
Anyway...so many nuances indeed...

"Get ready....for your blessing....."

>Do you believe morality cannot exist without a relgious
>foundation? If so, why?

has or should have anything to do with a religious foundation. I believe that the two are completely separate things independent of each other altogether.

"Get ready....for your blessing....."

<--- Big Baller World Order

are you going full atheist - as in nothing is there, nothing in your life represents spirituality?

or

are you on a journey to find something that fits your world view?



I grew up in the church and I am athei-ish. I just started going to temple (buddhism) and thats pretty much it for spirituality - I'm not into the mysticism within buddhism but it fits my world view.

I don't believe in the biblical god but I think there is something...I'm really pantheist at the end of the day but there ain't no church for me and if there was I would not want to go.

strangely enough as godless as I am I am totally fine with my children growing up in the church if thats what they want to do.

***********************************************************
https://soundcloud.com/swageyph/yph-die-with-me

>are you going full atheist - as in nothing is there

Not sure what you mean by "nothing is there", but I assume you mean some sort ofnhigher power. If that's something close to the definition you're getting at, nah.

Not at all. I've seen no reasonable evidence for that.

nothing
>in your life represents spirituality?

I wouldn't say I subscribe to any ideology that would qualify as "spiritual", but then I don't really think spirituality exists as anything truly substantial.

>are you on a journey to find something that fits your world
>view?

Not at all. I simply do not see any sound, reasonable evidence for a diety of any kind. I don't seek any sort of grand truth or framework to fit a specific worldview.

I do think the overall value of religious fairy tales yield diminishing returns, and the general harm they breed tends to far outweigh any value on the whole. I also think that, on the whole, the ability to genuinely say, and accept that "I don't know, but let's figure it out to the extent that our knowledge and resources will allow" is a significantly better and more beneficial approach then plugging in holes in our knowledge with a fairy tale.

I remember it like it was yesterday, but it was actually 18 years ago when I verbalized my feelings. Been good ever since.

kev

>I'm obviously abridging a ton of details on this journey. It's
>a new skin though, and I genuinely feel as though I'm viewing
>the world through a different lense. I do feel some sort of
>loss of that security blanket, but I also, strangely, feel
>somewhat more empowered to take control of my life.

So how are things with your family and the faith? You mentioned your daughter already being in the church, are you going to explain to her why you don't go to church anymore? Or just leave it for if she asks? How is your wife handling it?

I am glad you seem to have found something that is working for you and matches your worldview.

------

12 play and 12 planets are enlighten for all the Aliens to Party and free those on the Sex Planet-maxxx

XBL: trkc21
Twitter: @tyrcasey

>So how are things with your family and the faith? You
>mentioned your daughter already being in the church

To be clear, she's not currently attending. She- and my wife- only goes if I go, and it's been nearly a year since that happened. We've had a few stretches, but attendance was always extremely spotty. She believes because her daycare apparently includes Sunday school in the curriculum.

>going to explain to her why you don't go to church anymore? Or
>just leave it for if she asks? How is your wife handling it?

I'll eventually take her because she genuinely likes to go. My wife, though she professes belief doesn't go unless I go, but she's been aware of my feelings from jump. I've always had issues with everything from doctrine to overall church practices, to say nothing of questioning the existence of god itself, even before I met her. We started dating a couple years after I left the church so she's always known this. She's on some each their own steeze though.

>I am glad you seem to have found something that is working for
>you and matches your worldview.

Well... I'm not quite sure how to reply to that. Atheism doesn't "work" for me, as it isn't a belief system, contrary to the popular framing by clergy that it's a religion in it's own right.

I'd say being an athiest deals solely with a lack of belief in a god and nothing more, though that lack of allegiance does afford me the freedom to truly think and act for myself.

>It's a new skin though, and I genuinely feel as though I'm viewing
>the world through a different lense. I do feel some sort of
>loss of that security blanket, but I also, strangely, feel
>somewhat more empowered to take control of my life.

About it feeling both like a big loss in your life as well as the start of a new chapter. Because it's both. There's a rush of excitement that comes from figuring out who you are, but it doesn't make the losses from your "old" life (for lack of a better term) any less real.

>>I am glad you seem to have found something that is working
>for
>>you and matches your worldview.
>
>Well... I'm not quite sure how to reply to that. Atheism
>doesn't "work" for me, as it isn't a belief system, contrary
>to the popular framing by clergy that it's a religion in it's
>own right.
>
>I'd say being an athiest deals solely with a lack of belief in
>a god and nothing more, though that lack of allegiance does
>afford me the freedom to truly think and act for myself.

Yeah, didn't mean to imply you were strapping on a fedora and getting a Youtube channel about atheism. I'm pretty much in the same boat (call myself an atheist, don't actually believe in a deity, do not want to turn it into my own belief system.) I guess I meant congrats to you for figuring out this part of yourself, not everyone can get there.

------

12 play and 12 planets are enlighten for all the Aliens to Party and free those on the Sex Planet-maxxx

XBL: trkc21
Twitter: @tyrcasey

Congrats.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

As I said. This was a long, drawn out process. This was slow and incremental, and while the circumstances of my marriage are what lead me to try to rediscover that faith, the conclusion is entirely based on whether or not there is any evidence to justify belief in any god of any kind.

My marital situation was/is not an evidentiary factor.

sometimes folks hit a speed bump or get wronged by man and lose their faith

that's why I asked

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

Or a mind your business atheist?

_______________________________________

"Get ready....for your blessing....."

https://i.imgur.com/9I526yd.jpg

_______________________________________

One, whose path resembles mine, I shared to help encourage him because he's on that fence but leaning away.

So, to a degree, I think the knowledge that someone else was able to accept the lack of belief within themselves can be of great help to others struggling in a similar way.

But I'm not standing on street corners.

One of the factors that helped me accept this is the realization that athiesm is a simple lack of belief on a god. That'sit. There's nothing to proselytize about that.

However, if someone is trying to impose a worldview using their religion as a foundation, I may challenge that.

..

So, yes.

Despite the condescending, wholly antagonistic tact taken by homeboy up top, I'm not trying to start beef with believers in making this poat.

I grew up in the church, and that's where I met the vast majority of people in my life. The only people with which I've disassociated are those who take a similar tact to the obvious outlier within this post.