Posted: Jul 11, 2017 7:44 pm
by Skinny Puppy
crank wrote:
Skinny Puppy wrote:
crank wrote:For a christian, I'd go straight for the fundamentals of their dogmas, like what the fuck is this about dying for our sins, and atoned to who? And why, and for what? And what the fuck is original sin when Eden is a myth? These are utterly vacuous ideas and the twisted, pretzel logic they spew in defense is laughable. Plus, if he already died for our sins, when we weren't even born, why should we refrain from sinning now? ALL our sins have been pre-atoned for. It's baffling that anyone can buy this nonsense. I did somewhat for a long time, but mainly because I was too naive to question it seriously.

I have to tread carefully here because to give a complete and full explanation might contravene the FUA on preaching. Even though I’ve tossed Christianity aside, the FUA is clearly spelled out.

It doesn’t work that way. In a nutshell and to use an analogy.

If you win the lottery, but hold onto the ticket, you’ll never get your money. Yes all sins ‘can be’ forgiven (except for one), but it’s a gift that must be claimed. If you don’t claim it you simply don’t get it. If you do claim it, then no, you can’t go on sinning, at least not consistently and intentionally.

The key words above are ‘can be’.

How is breaking the FUA at risk? As to the issue at hand, what doesn't work what way? One of my points is the whole thing is completely without a rational thought involved. If our sins are atoned for, pre-atoned for, then they're already atoned for. I don't see the problem. I do see a problem with the idea that we can be born in sin. or that we should be required to atone to some asshole who made us broke to begin with. Etc etc, I wish I could channel Hitchens, he really expresses a lot of this superbly. Just because your idea of how it works leads you to say what you said, so what? Why is your version any better than mine, or someone else's? It's not like there's a god that could decide which is the correct version.

You’re asking me to explain what is at the very heart of Christianity. In fact, it’s the very reason that Christianity exists today. The entire NT (for the most part) was written with one purpose in mind. I can certainly explain it, that’s easy to do since I have 20+ years’ worth of being a born again Pentecostal (a fanatical one to say the least) follower.

To do it justice would require that I give a full explanation, (an abbreviated one wouldn’t begin to cover why so many people accept it) which would include quotes and references from the bible in order to validate what I was saying. Thinking it over leads me to believe that I would be pushing the boundary of the FUA regarding preaching, which I don’t want to do.

While many can write very effectively against Christianity, Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris, for example, having been there and done that does give one an insight into the mindset of Christians and how they think, why they can accept the bible as the ultimate truth and why it is so brutally hard to get them de-converted.

It took me roughly 2 years to finally break free; such is the power of being indoctrinated.

To assume that it’s nothing but nonsense is to assume incorrectly. There is a logical and well laid-out plan to it, although granted, some parts can be baffling and confusing (for Christians). We had a visiting pastor talk to us and he said:

I have questions, but I’m not questioning.”

That was a very powerful statement. So even for die-hard Christians all of the pieces don’t fit like a glove.

Just because your idea of how it works leads you to say what you said, so what? Why is your version any better than mine, or someone else's?

My version is based on having lived as a fundie for 2 decades. That doesn’t mean that I have all of the answers or that I walk on water, but it does mean that I can speak from first-hand experience. I, and others, have the advantage of having been on both sides of the fence.