Lying For Jesus Award

It's funny you know... You're dependant on air, water, food, gravity, time, space, matter, energy, logic, etc...And you were dependant on you mother and father (and likely still are at your age). But here we are, in the presense of a God!Oh automomous one, may I worship you?You are utterly dependant. As am I.

No, Christianity cannot possibly be the source of truth, truthfulness, and morality. The Bible proves it. Christianity fails the Matthew 7:20 test:

quote:

---

7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's
clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes
of thorns, or figs of thistles?
7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a
corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can]
a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn
down, and cast into the fire.
7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

---

Christianity is observed to promote and teach the practice of "lying for the Lord".
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit (Matt 7:18)
Therefore, Christianity is a corrupt tree.
QEDThese verses are supposed to be Jesus telling us how to spot the false prophets, by their fruits.In 7:19, Jesus instructs his followers what needs to be be done with corrupt trees. If you are a follower of Jesus and of his teachings, then you need to turn to, mister.Now, it could be argued that it is not Christianity itself that is the corrupt tree, but rather the false teachings of "creation science". Yet again, Matt 7:19 directs real Christians what they need to do, yet Christianity instead shelters and promotes those false teachings. So again by Christianity's fruits, we know it to be false. Of course I didn't; that is exactly what I told you. Why are you claiming that I had said something other than what I did?At around age 11, I came to the conclusion that the Bible was contrary to fact, but the manner in which I had come to that conclusion was flawed. Since then, I have seen nothing to recommend Christianity and the contrary-to-fact claims of "creation science", along with the blatant lying and deceiving that accompany it, reinforce the conclusion that Christianity is the wrong choice. Ah, the old "if you deny God then morality no longer applies and you can do whatever you want" claim. Sorry, that is a false teaching regarding morality. It also misguides Christian teens and young adults with bubbling hormones to "become atheists" so that they can give those hormones free reign. Case in point is a local "creation science" activist, Bill Morgan, who falsely claims to have been an atheist -- he admits that during that period he prayed to God every night, something that an atheist would not do. He describes his "deconversion" as the classic case of using his beliefs that evolution disproves God (which it does not) as his excuse to deny the existence of God so that he could sin away happily and carefree. He was only deluding himself (and now his audiences), as have many others.I had already left because I honestly could not see how I could believe the incredible stuff I was reading in the Bible. If I could not believe what I was supposed to believe as a Christian, then it would not be right to remain. I had learned my morality growing up, not as a package belonging to the church, so when I left I took my morality with me and continued to apply it. Case in point: throughout high school and into college I was just as sex-obscessed as any other guy. In college, on two separate occassions two different married women made sexual advances to me, women to whom I likewise felt very attracted. But because they were married, it would not have been right, so I turned them both down, politely, of course.Now, how does that fit in with your "you wanted to keep your sins"? A Christian atheist, who had left his morality behind as he had been taught by his church, would undoubtedly have jumped right in with hardly a second thought.In other words, Rob, you're projecting.

Upon further personal reflection, I'll let my Altar-Ego speak for me. Edited by AdminPhat, : spellingEdited by AdminPhat, : reconsideration

I reopened this thread after further consideration of what it is/was you were trying to say. If you mean to approach the topic in a humorous way, such as Mr. Blackwells worst dressed list,it would be better to have a format set up such as this:Quotation The name of the award winner could be attached.
Comment This is where I stress politeness. For example, if you nominated a fictitious member such as Fundie-mental for the Lying For Jesus Award you would have to show the reason that the lie was a lie, you would have to keep the whole thing humorous yet respectful...both of Fundie-mental and of Jesus...and you would have to provide a counter-example of how Jesus would behave differently.Perhaps the thread could be re-titled. My suggestions off the top of my head at the moment would be Faux pas Of The Month. I would prefer to be respectful of Mr. Jesus since He is listening! I did not understand the thread at first and thought that you were merely angry at another member for Lying and then laying low. I thought that you were mad at them, but I am beginning to understand that you use humor to redirect your frustrations! My apologies, Oh Taz of Tazmania! Edited by Phat, : clarificationEdited by Phat, : No reason given.

We believe that we are utterly dependent...yet we do not need to inform others that they too are dependent. Persuasion is achieved by actions rather than words. A Faux Pas is literally a false step. Have you ever made a false step while carrying the football for J.C. ? If so, your words would be immortalized given a mention in the Thread.I laugh as I type this, for AdminPhats blow-up would itself qualify as a Lie for Jesus. (Jesus tapped me on the shoulder and had me repent, however. Actually I was mad at the fact that someones faith was being openly challenged. Perhaps there is a way that we could have a Faux Pas thread as long as we didn't use words like idiotic or blatant misrepresentation. We would have to keep such a thread humorous.

Declaring that Jesus is Dead is a perfect example of a Faux Pas. When approaching a topic titled "Lying For Jesus" it is probably better to presuppose that Jesus is alive for the purposes of discussion. If you personally do not believe that He is alive, you would be better off not responding to a thread such as this.I am assuming, of course, that Taz believes that there is a Jesus and that telling the truth for Him would be the counter-example of lying for Him.

What the heck is a Christian atheist?

Thread moved here from the Suggestions and Questions forum.

Since when do other christians represent me?

Being a member of the group "Christians", the behavior of other Christians represents you.Whether you like it or not, non-Christians form their opinions of Christianity from the behavior of people who claim the title Christian. Frankly, for the most part, what is seen as Christianity is appalling.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

"Imagine a giant raccoon passed gas and perhaps the resulting gas might have created the vast variety of life we see on Earth. And if you don’t accept the giant raccoon flatulence theory for the origin of life, you must be a fundamentalist Christian nut who believes the Earth is flat. That’s basically how the argument for evolution goes."--- Ann CoulterWell I knew it was something like that.“I’m happy to report that I was in constant correspondence with Ann regarding her chapters on Darwinism ”indeed, I take all responsibility for any errors in those chapters.”--- William Dembski

A "Christian atheist" would be someone whose ideas of religion and of atheism and of what an atheist would be like and do, were taught to him/her by the Christian community. In other words, they hold Christian beliefs about religion and atheism and, in this particular case, morality. I believe that most Christian atheists were raised as Christians and then deconverted for any of several reasons; eg, betrayal (or the perception thereof) by their religion or religious leaders, discovery that what they were taught is not true (which is one manner in which "creation science" is a very major contributor to the spread of atheism), the Christian teaching that if certain things are found to be true or not true then your only choice is to become an atheist, adolescents employing the "no God, no responsibilities; do whatever you want" loophole that they'd been raised on, they just outgrew Christianity and moved on. Many from the first three reasons tend to produce "angry atheists" who fighting back at the religion that had lied to them or betrayed them. Those of the fourth group tend to be too busy lost in hedonism to think much about religion. The fifth group tends to be better adjusted and not as beligerent towards Christianity. The first four groups would tend to still hold the Christian beliefs they had been raised on, while the last group would be much more likely to change their beliefs or to take a more mature view of their former beliefs. BTW, many of the atheists' testimonials that I have seen and heard cite the first two reasons.To the point I was making, the first four groups would tend to hold the Christian view of morality, one which ties morality directly to God and which teaches that it has no purpose nor even any existence without God. The fifth group instead would reject such a belief and take a view of morality that is independent of belief in the supernatural. A Christian atheist would be very likely to follow the Christian teaching requiring him to leave morality behind when he left. Hence the situation I described, in which a Christian atheist would be much more likely to take advantage of the situation, especially an opportunistic fourth-group sham-atheist.Of course, there are also the ex-Christians who leave because they convert to a different belief system. But then they are not atheists, are they? Except maybe the Buddhists. But then there's the Christian attitude that names any non-Christian an "atheist", by some kind of definition that makes anyone not believing in the Christian idea of God as being an atheist, even if they are theists (they just believe in the wrong god).

I have to say that I am adamantly opposed to any such topic. I feel that singling out forum members in such a venue would be both in extremely bad taste AND violate both the spirit and intent of this forum. I'm afraid my Admin alter-ego would perforce be obligated to close any such thread. In addition, the temptation to suspend any member posting such a thread would be more than I could probably resist. Get the picture?However, I think if you were to propose something along the lines of "Lying for God and Darwin" (sort of a "Creationists/Darwinists Say the Funniest Things") wherein members could cull statements, etc from elsewhere on the web (essays, forum posts, news articles, etc), provide a link and possibly a brief paragraph explaining the absurdity, it could be both interesting and potentially hilarious. Then we could even vote on the "Most Absurd Statement of the Month" or something every month. I don't envision a debate thread. However, I can envision the nominations spawning interesting topics.

Thank you.

If there was one thing I could change about you jar, it would be that attitude. Even when I wasn't a "Chriatian" I did not hold those who were Christian to be responsible for all Christians. Thats called predjudice.I saw a black man robbing a store on TV the other day, do all black men rob stores?I know a homosexual with HIV, do all homo's have HIV?If I thought that, I would be called ever nasty name in the book that a liberal could think of. If a liberal, or anyone else wants to think that all Christians behave the same, just because they are "Christian"
then they deserve to be called all those names too, right? Well then, maybe they should start following there own, moral standards, and stop being predjudice. They should grow up, and start living in the 21st century, and relize that it is immpossible to hold others who nothing to do with you, accountable for your beliefs, and actions. What is seen in 80% of the world is appalling, Christian or not. I won't blame Christianity, I blame individuals.Personally, I am sick of the word Christian. I don't believe that anyone is actual Christian, except Christ. At best, we are all just disciples, ones that screw up... a lot.I think we should have a lying for liberalism of the month award as well.(j/k) But either way, calling anyone a liar is nothing more than an opinion, and totally counter productive to intelligent conversation. I think that anyone who wishes to resort to name calling, and then starts a thread about it, shouldn't even be allowed to debate here.