Why I quit Christianity

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Good point gilgal,

I don't understand RAM either.

With RAM quitting Christianity and saying things against the words of God and His people, I don't know what to make of this forum. Is this a Christian forum or a Non-Christian forum? And the Biblewheel also..Christian or non-Christian...credible or incredible? I am not sure if RAM's conversion from Christianity is affecting his readers negatively in this forum and the Biblewheel. I am saying this out of brotherly concern. That's why I am rebuking RAM and Rose.


May God's Blessings be with us, Amen.

The forum has always been open to believers and unbelievers. Nothing has changed in that regard. The only difference is that the administrator (that's me) is no longer Christian. No big deal there. Indeed, it may be that this will attract more folks with open minds so that the Christians, like yourself, can give them you excellent explanations about why they should believe the Bible.

Furthermore, my rejection of the faith gives you a great opportunity to show how foolish anyone would be to do what I have done. You can do this by showing errors in my reasoning. I really hope you will start doing this sometime soon, because so far you have been making really weak arguments that only confirm the fact that I made the right choice.

As for the Bible Wheel, my deconversion greatly amplifies it's credibility because I am brutally honest about the Bible and have no reason to try to use the Bible Wheel to prove Christianity. Think about this - Christians constantly twist words and deny facts to protect God and the Bible from the truth. I'm not doing that! I'm willing to speak truth about the Bible, and the Bible Wheel. Therefore, if the evidence for the Bible Wheel stands even after I reject the traditional Christian interpretation, it's credibility is greatly increased.

But your "concern" is a joke. You never believed the Bible Wheel was legitimate when I was a Christian, so you obviously are not concerned about it now. And for your information, neither am I! It is what it is, and it stands on facts and truth now as it always has. That's the mystery. It remains valid, and it is the greatest Biblical discovery in the history of the world. I just don't know what it really means ... but I'm going to do my best to find out!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

This seems to be 'traditional' Christianity. So what...... no one person can be 'traditional' in all things. You are most certainly not 'traditional'.... and I believe that is a good thing. Some would say 'Heretic'... but I say, one who stands ouside of Orthodoxy'.... (what ever the hell 'orthodoxy' may be).

1) the 'orthodox' teaching of hell is obsurd.... hell is no more (if there ever was one in modern mans minds eye)

2) I question god commands to 'kill' all of the men, women, and children of people in Canaan. How do you 'convert' people that you have killed... you cann't, something is very fishy about the inturp.

3) I don't think that I have ever had a 'prayer' answered in the way that I wanted it answered, but many times I look back in my life and 'wonder'.... was that...? naaawww.....

He there Brother Les,

Very interesting answer. Thanks! So if it's "OK" not to believe in "traditionalist Christianity" is it also OK to no believe in any of it? Do you think it matters if a person is Christian or not?

As for you numbered points:

1) We agree! And that's one reason why I reject "traditionalist Christianity"

2) I don't see any way out via re-interpretation. The text is too plain, and there are too many examples.

3) I understand. And that's why I always state my position very carefully by saying that "God does not, as a general rule, answer prayers." And this means that all the statements in the Bible that emphatically promise that God answers prayers and that exhort us to rely on him for our earthly welfare are false.

Great chatting,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Wrong, the correct interpretation is "LOVE ME OR I WILL PUNISH YOU IF YOU DON'T REPENT (Not Torture Forever)". God always give us a chance for forgiveness by repentance, if not why Jesus always called the Jews to repent?....Read the Bible!

Wow - I had no idea that you rejected the doctrine of hell. Fascinating. Have you explained this to your pastor? I'm sure he'd be rather interested to know that you reject the orthodox Christian faith.

So your words "Eternally grateful to the Lord" lasted only 4 years! If this is not a lie, what is it? Eternal means eternal and not a few years. You have lost your first love and I am saying with brotherly concern.

Obviously, it was a mistake, not a lie. A lie is defined as stating something that you know is false. I didn't know it was false at the time I wrote it. I thought I would always be grateful, and that's what I said. The fact that I was wrong does not mean I lied. You really need to learn English better.

How do we know your statements are truth?

The same way you know anything is true. Unfortunately, you seem particularly challenged in that area. This is a very common malady amongst Christians because they are taught falsehoods all day long, like the earth is only 6000 years old, or evolution is false, or Adam and Eve were the first humans, and on and on it goes. Then they are taught "apologetics" which is little more than a course in how to twist words to avoid truth. It's very sad.

I am not attacking anyone personally but attacking their words and belief which are anti-God. I detest people who say things against God.

I have never said a word "against God." Everything I have said is about the things the Bible says about God. I've explained this many times, but you don't understand. Why do you persist in such obvious error?

If I have said something that is false, you should expose my error, not invent crazy ideas like some imaginary "devil" has "blinded" me in some non-specified way. Your arguments are pathetic.

Are you saying that people who believe in God and Satan are crazy? Wow!...That means almost the whole population of the world and only a few handful are sane. That's insane! I guess Jesus was insane too for He believed in the imaginary devil.

No, I did not say that "people who believe in God and Satan are crazy." Please re-read my comment. You asserted that I have been "blinded" but you never stated exactly what OBSERVABLE FACTS OF REALITY I have failed to see. That's why I said your argument was pathetic. It contained no actual content. Nothing for me to understand or even think about. Just the silly and unsupported assertion that I have been "blinded by Satan." Can't you see why that's a lousy argument?

You got it backwards. The person in the parable is not the "seed." The person is the "soil" and the "seed" is the Word of God.

Read the passage properly! The seed is people:
20 The seed falling on rocky ground refers to someone who hears the word and at once receives it with joy.

Again, you need to work on your English. The verse states:

Matthew 13:20 "But he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy;

He who received the seed is not the seed. The seed is defined in the parallel passage in Luke:

Luke 8:11 "Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.

The soil represents the person, and the seed represents the Word of God.

And as soil receives seed, so a person receives the Word of God.

Like I said, you got it backwards.

Hell is not a "deterrent." It is an eternal evil. Any being that would create a hell where souls suffer eternal conscious torment would be a DEVIL. This is obvious to any person with a living heart who actually loves others. The fact that you support the doctrine of hell indicates either that you don't really know what you are saying, or that your heart is as dead and cold as a stone.

Jesus warned people about Hell and advice people to fear God, so was Jesus a Devil also? That's absurd of the highest degree:
Matthew 10:28
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Now wait a minute! First you deny hell, and now you say Jesus taught it??? Please make up you mind. Are you saying that hell is temporary? Can people get out of hell if they repent? What exactly are you teaching?

That's right, and all those religions were made up by people right? Or what, are you saying you believe in Hinudism and Islam? And Atheism too? Your mind is very confused.

Look at the Big picture, it doesn't matter which religion you believed. Important thing is that one should try to be righteous and repent of your sin and chances are that one will be forgiven. Righteous souls is what God is after.

Great! You think Islam and Atheism are just fine. All I need to do is try to repent from any wrongdoing and be a "good person." Man, that's easy. So now you are rejecting another aspect of orthodox Christianity. You don't believe in eternal hell, and you don't think people need to believe in Jesus to be saved. This is great! It seems you are no more Christian than I am.

That's not what the Bible says. All have sinned. There is none righteous. Only Christ is righteous, and he came to save sinners, not the righteous. You have absolutely no understanding of the religion you claim to believe. How then do you differ from an unbeliever? And this brings up the primary absurdity of Christianity. You are supposedly saved by "believing" in Jesus. What if your beliefs are wrong? Suppose you were preached to by some Mormon who believes that Jesus was the brother of Lucifer? Or what about Jehovah Witnesses who deny Jesus is God. How much "truth" do you need to "get right" before God let's you in?

Haven't you read the Bible?... Seek ye first the kingdom of God and HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS and all these things (aspirations) will be given unto you. Jesus came to seek the sinners to repent so that they can be saved!:
Luke 5:32
I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.'

Where in the Bible did it says, "There is none righteous. Only Christ is righteous"? You have confused righteousness with perfection. There is none perfect except God. There were righteous people:

And you asked me if I have read the Bible? Dude! I'm embarrassed for you.

Romans 3:9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. 10 As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; 11 There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. 12 They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one." 13 "Their throat is an open tomb; With their tongues they have practiced deceit"; "The poison of asps is under their lips"; 14 "Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness." 15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 Destruction and misery are in their ways; 17 And the way of peace they have not known." 18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes." 19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 ¶ But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

But on the other hand, I can understand your confusion, because the Bible contradicts itself on this topic. There are many verses that say certain people are righteous, and there are verses that say no one is righteous. So you can take your pick. Myself, I see this as an obvious contradiction that proves the Bible has errors. And it is part of a much larger problem, because the idea that people become "righteous" by merely believing in Jesus destroys the meaning of the word. And it also contradicts that verses that say a righteous person is someone who does righteousness, not someone who merely believes in Jesus.

I do understand the moral abominations attributed to God that you faced in the Bible, but one does not declare someone guilty unless proven beyond reasonable doubt. If I have a gun in my hand and a dead body beside me does not mean I am the murderer. There are many things which God did which is currently beyond human understanding. We know that His ways and thoughts are higher than us and one day we will know the rightful reason for His "abominable" acts. But what I do know that God has the right to give life and take life; He has the right to create and right to destroy as deemed fit:

The idea that God's "ways and thoughts are higher" does not mean that they are "lower." And that's the problem. The command to murder every man, women, and child is not "higher" by any possible standard or any future mystical insight. Your argument shows how Christianity corrupts the mind. You are incapable of seeing truth no matter how plain and obvious it is. How utterly pathetic. You make me think of this famous quote by Steven Weinberg:

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Your cultish mindset is what killed the Jews under Hitler. It is no different. The same logic applies to all CULTS that take over the believers' minds and make them into obedient mindless robots. You think you are obeying God, but in reality you are obeying the ideas of men who rule your religion. But you can't see this because you have chosen to shut down your mind and "believe" anything you think is "in the Bible" without any critical thought at all. Unfortunately, you can't see the great irony - HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU ARE UNDERSTANDING THE BIBLE CORRECTLY? You can't know this, because you have shut off your mind and chosen to be an obedient mindless robot.

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. And how about you, HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU ARE UNDERSTANDING THE BIBLE CORRECTLY? You have already shut your mind to the passage,"Thou shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God"....what is there to say about understanding the Bible correctly?

You did not understand my point. I am not the one advocating BLIND BELIEF IN THE BIBLE. That's what you are doing. You are saying we are supposed to just "believe" whatever it says, unless it says something obviously ridiculous or evil, in which case we are supposed to "believe" it doesn't really mean those things and that they will be revealed in the afterlife as something actually "good." Don't you get it? My question "HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU ARE UNDERSTANDING THE BIBLE CORRECTLY" was supposed to make you realize that you are playing a double-standard with the Bible. You believe what it says only when it agrees with what you want it to say. If it says something you don't like or don't believe, then you say "God will explain it after I die." With that kind of logic, a Muslim could "believe" everything in the Koran, like when it says that Jesus is not the son of God. You destroy your mind when you protect the Bible from the truth this way.

And I just noticed the great irony. You say I am blind when in fact you are the one who has chosen to BLINDLY believe the Bible.

I wish I could help you see the irony. If you don't think for yourself, then you are being controlled by other men who run your religion. You are not obeying "God" but men. You have no choice - you must think for yourself and judge what is true or false in the Bible, or you will be a mindless robot controlled by the ideas of other people.

Thank you and I too wish I could help you see the irony. I am saying from the brotherly love point of view. You mean you can judge what is true and false in the Bible and know what passages written in the Bible were from uninspired men? Wow, you must have received divine revelations, my special friend.

Again, you missed my point. Your answer indicates that you are not even aware that you need to think for yourself! That's scary!

And it does not take "divine revelations" to know that the Bible is wrong when it says that there is a solid dome "firmament" holding up the "waters that are above." And it doesn't take "divine revelations" to know that the Bible is wrong when it says that God created the sun and moon on the fourth day of creation. Etc., etc., etc..

If I "suppose" that I had the powers of God as you suggest, I can tell you I would be nothing like the God portrayed in the Bible. For example, it is absolutely inconceivable that I would punish my children in hell forever for the "crime" of disobeying me, or worse, for not "believing" in me when I have never shown myself to them or answered any of their letters. The moment you suggest human analogies for God, you expose him as a tyrant. No human would be respected who demanded worship! What a crazy ego trip.

If I have powers of God, I will allow my children to be punished for Heinous crime they committed until the day that they truly repented And then raised them up and forgive them. That's the righteous thing o do. No parents would allow their children to be punished forever in hell and even for minor crimes as you suggested. To even think of it is totally absurd.

Great! So you are a UNIVERSALIST! Everyone gets saved. No one needs to believe in Jesus. Like I said, you don't seem to be any more Christian than me.

And you haven't dealt with the fact that if God is anything like a real "parent" then he is an "absent parent" who has abandoned his children. Think about that for a while.

There are many prayers that were already answered even before you knew them. Is Rose your wife a result of chance or God's blessings? Is the property and land that you have a result of chance or God's Blessings? Of course, there are unanswered prayers which for whatever reason were not answered, but we always trust that whatever He decides is always for the best of our interest. Even if your prayers are not answered, don't be despair for there is a reward in heaven for your trust, belief and prayers to Him.

Man, don't you have any understanding about anything? My neighbor is a Muslim, and he lives in a mansion and has millions of dollars. Does that prove Allah is the true God? I can't believe I have to explain these things to you. I feel like I'm talking to a child. But you don't care. You refuse to learn. Truth means nothing to you. You would have seen all the errors in your post if you cared about truth.

I don't care even if Bill Gates is living next to you. What I do care is that we should not store our treasures on earth where moth and rust can destroy but store our treasures in heaven. We cannot serve both God and mammon. Must I have to tell you all these?

Your answer is a total non-sequitur. You said that my prosperity should be understood as a blessing from God and proof that he exists and answers prayers. So I asked if the Muslim's prosperity should be understood as a blessing from Allah, and proof of Allah. But you didn't understand, and you changed to the topic to "can't serve God and mammon." You forgot that YOU were the one who said "property and land" was a blessing from God! Your mind is totally confused. You need to think more about what you are reading and writing. My arguments cannot be refuted with such sloppy thinking.

Sorry, but that is simply not true. Everyone knows that God does not, as a general rule, answer prayers. If we rely on God for our welfare in this life, we will die. The proof is painfully obvious. Take 100 atheists and 100 Christians with the plague. Let the Christians pray, and give the athesist antibiotics. Who lives? Who dies? Case closed.

Yes, we should pray and trust God but we should also be prudent and do not put God to the test. God helps those who helps themselves....don't expect God to totally spoon-feed you. Isn't this what Jesus said, "Those who are well do not requires a physician". And don't put too much faith in antibiotics, it is the body that fights against infections; the antibiotics only help. If the germs have become resistant to antibiotics, all the mentioned 100 atheists and Christians would have died anyway with the plague... prayer or not. And the Christians who died may be resurrected for their faith and trust in God, whereas for the atheist....I don't know. I rather live and die believing there is a God than to say,"There is no God" and die only to realize that God exists.

Trust God with all your heart and soul, Amen.

The Bible does not say that "God helps those who helps themselves." And I am not saying that we should "expect God to totally spoon-feed us." I am saying that there is absolutely no reason to "rely on God" for anything because God does not, as a general rule, answer prayers. He was perfectly willing to let MILLIONS of people die who were saved by antibiotics. The fact that the germs evolve a resistance is utterly irrelevant, and I have seen you bring up that ridiculous point before. This indicates a gross lack of logic in your thinking. You should be embarrassed and ashamed. And you should admit this point or everyone reading will see that you YOU STUBBORNLY PERSIST IN KNOWN ERROR! Is this how you "serve God?"

I really think it is important that you begin to seek truth Cheow. You don't have to agree with me, but you do need to begin to agree with reality.

All the best.

[joel]

Richard,
I see no problem related to you quitting Christianity......if what that means is basically you are separating yourself from the religion of Christianity.

The more important issue, in my view, is have you rejected Christ?

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard,
I see no problem related to you quitting Christianity......if what that means is basically you are separating yourself from the religion of Christianity.

The more important issue, in my view, is have you rejected Christ?

Joel

Hi Joel,

That seems to be a fairly common sentiment since there is no single religion known as "Christianity." And that's why the idea of "rejecting Christ" makes no sense. There are as many different "Christs" as there are Christianities. Which one am I supposed to accept? And which ones am I supposed to reject? The various "Christs" defined by the various Christianities involve ideas that evolved over the last 2000 years. A very large percentage of early Christians were Arians who believed Christ was a creature, not the Creator. Men argued amongst themselves about how the religion should be defined, and many of the arguments that "won" and became "orthodox" were absurd and should be rejected. So why should I believe one side over the other? Think about it! Look at how no one can agree what the Bible really teaches, even when everyone agrees it is the very Word of God. This forum has been instrumental in helping me free my mind from the morass of humanly crafted religious doctrines because I have experienced the fact that there is no single religion called "Christianity" and the Bible itself does not teach a single set of coherent truths about Jesus.

All the best,

Richard

[throwback]

Talk about finding a kindred spirit! RAM, it seems that we are walking down similar paths (you may be bit further down), but we are on the same trail nonetheless.
What I have been trying to do over the years is be objective when it comes to matters of faith and matters of truth. What I have learned is that the 2 do not coincide nearly as much as those of us who are people of faith would like to believe. Something that I admittedly am fighting but still am becoming more and more convinced of is the acceptance that the Bible does in fact have its flaws and warts and may not be what religion claims it to be, and that is the Word of God.
If the Bible is in fact flawed, what are we to make of it? I have always heard preachers proclaim that it's an all or nothing deal, but I have a difficult time buying into that because when one looks into it what ones sees is that it does contain some truth that is in fact amazing, like the prophecies pertaining to King Cyrus, Antichus IV, and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. At the same time, there are what appear to be errors in certain narratives like Luke where it depicts the birth of Jesus as occurring during a census when Quirinius was govenor of Syria. That would been Jesus was born around 6 CE as opposed to being born during the lifetime of Heron the Great. In addition in Acts, Luke quote Stephen in the 7th chapter and the things Stephen is quoted as saying do not line up with what is told in the OT scriptures Stephen is discussing.
As it stands at the moment, I must say that I want to believe that the Bible is the Word of God, BUT were I to make such a claim I would have to ignore somethings I just cannot. So being honest with myself based of course on what I understand I must say that I believe the scriptures to be the writings of men that MAY and likely do contain a message or messages that God wants delivered to us. In a nutshell it would seem that the writers wrote what they believed to be true. Some are said to be inspired writers while others (like all the writings of the NT with the exception of Revelation) to not seem to make such a claim for themselves.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Talk about finding a kindred spirit! RAM, it seems that we are walking down similar paths (you may be bit further down), but we are on the same trail nonetheless.
What I have been trying to do over the years is be objective when it comes to matters of faith and matters of truth. What I have learned is that the 2 do not coincide nearly as much as those of us who are people of faith would like to believe. Something that I admittedly am fighting but still am becoming more and more convinced of is the acceptance that the Bible does in fact have its flaws and warts and may not be what religion claims it to be, and that is the Word of God.
If the Bible is in fact flawed, what are we to make of it? I have always heard preachers proclaim that it's an all or nothing deal, but I have a difficult time buying into that because when one looks into it what ones sees is that it does contain some truth that is in fact amazing, like the prophecies pertaining to King Cyrus, Antichus IV, and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. At the same time, there are what appear to be errors in certain narratives like Luke where it depicts the birth of Jesus as occurring during a census when Quirinius was govenor of Syria. That would been Jesus was born around 6 CE as opposed to being born during the lifetime of Heron the Great. In addition in Acts, Luke quote Stephen in the 7th chapter and the things Stephen is quoted as saying do not line up with what is told in the OT scriptures Stephen is discussing.
As it stands at the moment, I must say that I want to believe that the Bible is the Word of God, BUT were I to make such a claim I would have to ignore somethings I just cannot. So being honest with myself based of course on what I understand I must say that I believe the scriptures to be the writings of men that MAY and likely do contain a message or messages that God wants delivered to us. In a nutshell it would seem that the writers wrote what they believed to be true. Some are said to be inspired writers while others (like all the writings of the NT with the exception of Revelation) to not seem to make such a claim for themselves.

A kindred spirit indeed! Your post makes me

There are many reasons to take the Bible seriously, like the prophecies in Daniel 9 and the Olivet Discourse their fulfillment in 70 AD, the numinous symbolic power of the whole message (Alpha Omega, Dove, Cross, Christ, etc,) and for me, the Bible Wheel. Thus, there is much to recommend the Bible as "God's Book" in some sense, but the fundamentalist sense is altogether wrong. It most certainly is NOT "inerrant and infallible" and it contains many ideas that are not even defined within its pages but come from pagan mythology (like Tartarus/Hell) and others that are so wrong as to be absurd (like the sold dome "firmament" holding up the "waters that are above.") But fundamentalist Christians cannot accept the truth of the Bible, and that is the greatest of all ironies, because they are the ones who claim it is the "inerrant and infallible Word of God!" The irony makes my belly hurt!

[gilgal]

A kindred spirit indeed! Your post makes me :sunny:

There are many reasons to take the Bible seriously, like the prophecies in Daniel 9 and the Olivet Discourse their fulfillment in 70 AD, the numinous symbolic power of the whole message (Alpha Omega, Dove, Cross, Christ, etc,) and for me, the Bible Wheel. Thus, there is much to recommend the Bible as "God's Book" in some sense, but the fundamentalist sense is altogether wrong. It most certainly is NOT "inerrant and infallible" and it contains many ideas that are not even defined within its pages but come from pagan mythology (like Tartarus/Hell) and others that are so wrong as to be absurd (like the sold dome "firmament" holding up the "waters that are above.") But fundamentalist Christians cannot accept the truth of the Bible, and that is the greatest of all ironies, because they are the ones who claim it is the "inerrant and infallible Word of God!" The irony makes my belly hurt! :lmbo:

I find myself talking about some things of the bible more than other things such as the rapture and hell not that it doesn't exist but the timing or the reason of it's existence needs a study in-depth that I don't want to misquote.

I am curious of the word Tartarus. It is possible though that since Jesus and others came back from the dead during Jesus' resurrection and told about the existence of such a place.

One of the stories doubtful to be a parable because it mentions Lazarus by name is Luke 16, Lazarus and the rich man.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I am curious of the word Tartarus. It is possible though that since Jesus and others came back from the dead during Jesus' resurrection and told about the existence of such a place.

One of the stories doubtful to be a parable because it mentions Lazarus by name is Luke 16, Lazarus and the rich man.

The idea that knowledge of Tartarus came from Jesus or some other resurrected person doesn't make any sense to me because it existed in pagan Greek mythology for hundreds of years before Christ came. It was the place where the pagan god Zeus imprisoned the Titans.

As for the story of Lazarus - how does the mention of a name imply the story is not a parable?

[gilgal]

The idea that knowledge of Tartarus came from Jesus or some other resurrected person doesn't make any sense to me because it existed in pagan Greek mythology for hundreds of years before Christ came. It was the place where the pagan god Zeus imprisoned the Titans.

As for the story of Lazarus - how does the mention of a name imply the story is not a parable?

Then where did the Greeks get it? Do you think they just made it up themselves?