christian student with questions

253 posts / 0 new
Last post
mickron88's picture
see isobel?

see isobel?

even other people observed your behavior here.

you're really not here for an interview nor for your study purposes.
is this what god is telling you? to tell a lie? to be dishonest? to pick you're debate topic?if you don't have no rebuttal you just bend and say "i'm not here to debate or argue"?

do you feel honest doing this lass?

isobel's picture
look, all im doing is my

look, all im doing is my project here. the purpose is not to argue, that isnt to say that i wont argue at all in the thread. in the INTERVIEWS, i completely refrain from argument. i am nearly done with the interview part of the project, so i will probably stop showing up on the thread so much. i also dont appreciate the level of hostility i have received when i havnt done anything to u. just know that i am not going to respond to hostility and pointless rude comments. i have had pleasant experiences and unpleasant experiences with people on here. thank you to the those who respected me, and to those who did not, i hope u find a more constuctive way to take care of ur frustrations.

Sheldon's picture
Well know more when she

We'll know more when she actually comes up with a substantive reply or answer, instead of rhetoric, cliches, and bare assertions.

Prima facie though, I'd say your post seems to have nailed it again.

CyberLN's picture
Perhaps folks like her go to

Perhaps folks like her go to Apologetics classes precisely because they have no substantive answers of their own. Could it be some are trying to shore up wobbling belief...a grasp at straws?

algebe's picture
@Isobel: why would i care

@Isobel: why would i care about grammar on here?

Grammar, spelling, and punctuation, etc., are vital for good communication. More importantly, they provide a framework for disciplined thought. When that framework is absent, your thinking becomes suspect.

Your question is actually quite insulting. Do you think that poor grammar and non-existent punctuation are good enough for a bunch of non-believers?

isobel's picture
"Do you think that poor

"Do you think that poor grammar and non-existent punctuation are good enough for a bunch of non-believers?"
yes; its good enough for believers too. im not treating u differently than any other random people i dont know on the internet

Nyarlathotep's picture
Punctuation matters, consider

Punctuation matters, consider:

  • Let's eat, grandpa!
  • Let's eat grandpa!
isobel's picture
i didnt say it doesnt matter

i didnt say it doesnt matter at all, it just doesnt matter much in this setting. im sure, even if i said some thing like "lets eat grandpa", u would be smart enough to understand the intent according to context.

CyberLN's picture
Well, since you are a “random

Well, since you are a “random person i dont know on the internet”. Then it’s hard to tell if you would eat your grandfather or not.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Doubly so given the posters

CyberLN - Then it’s hard to tell if you would eat your grandfather or not.

Doubly so given the user's affiliation with an Iron Age cult that has a history of ritualized consumption of human flesh and blood. heh

algebe's picture
Got any recipes?

Got any recipes?

Tin-Man's picture
@Algebe Re: "Got any

@Algebe Re: "Got any recipes?"

Well, I heard we taste like chicken. So I guess a standard box of Shake-n-Bake would probably work just fine.

CyberLN's picture
Go look up “long pig”.

Go look up “long pig”.

Tin-Man's picture
@Cyber Re: Long pig

@Cyber Re: Long pig

Damn. Gives a whole new meaning to the term, "Squeal like a pig!" LMAO

algebe's picture
@CyberLN: Go look up “long

@CyberLN: Go look up “long pig”.

That's what they call human meat in the South Pacific.

When I first arrived in New Zealand in 1965, they were playing a song on the radio called "Puha and Pakeha", which was basically a Maori recipe for eating Europeans.

Tin-Man's picture
Re: My fourth PM interview

Re: My fourth PM interview question from Isobel.

Alrighty then. Finally settled in for the evening. So, how do I define "atheism" and "Christianity"?

Well, technically, I don't. The good folks at Webster and various other dictionary publishers actually define those terms. And I am willing to bet most of them have IQ's that far exceed mine. I simply use the definitions they provide.

However, if you were to ask me how I relate to those two terms on a personal level - well now - that's a different matter. Simply put, I do not believe in any gods. Nothing complicated about it. And if "atheist/atheism" is the recognized term used to categorize me, then so be it. Makes no difference to me whatsoever.

As for Christianity, to me personally that term applies to anybody who follows the Christian bible and believes in/worships "the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." Now, considering there are several thousand Christian sects throughout the world (each one thinking THEY are the only true believers/followers of The Almighty God), then that term "Christianity" obviously covers a great deal of territory. The highlight of the general "foundation" for most all of them, however, would be as such (in my opinion).....

God created the universe/Earth/Man. God is perfect, but created Man (in His own image) who was apparently flawed/imperfect, as Man always screwed up and pissed off God, causing God to use various means to dispose of those who pissed him off. (Oh, did I mention God is also All-forgiving and All-benevolent?) Anyway, finally one day God decided the best solution for his being able to forgive Man was to send himself to Earth as a "perfect" human, so that he could sacrifice himself, to himself, to forgive and save Man from future Godly wraths. However, the "sacrifice" was really only temporary, because after lounging about in the tomb for only three days, He arose from being "dead" and went back up into heaven to sit beside himself and watch over us until the day he returns to take his faithful followers back up into the sky with him. Amen.

Granted, there may be a bit of variation here and there depending on the particular beliefs of individual Christian sects, but that is pretty much the gist of the whole thing. Perfectly logical, right?

Sheldon's picture
"how do I define "atheism"

"how do I define "atheism" and "Christianity"?

Well, technically, I don't. The good folks at Webster and various other dictionary publishers actually define those terms. "

Now that for me brilliantly sums up the idiocy behind religious apologists trying to redefine words. I'm an atheist because the definition reflects my position, not the other way around-making the definition fit my position.

I'm an atheist because my position matches the common usage or dictionary definition of that word. I didn't pick a word to describe myself then define it afterwards to match my position. I don't have any motive to change how atheist or atheism is defined as if it were defined in a different way then I'd likely not be an atheist. Just as I *must be an agnostic on claims that are unfalsifiable, and I can therefore know nothing about the claim, and I'm not sure how others view this but I'm never going to believe a claim we can know nothing about.

***So I am an atheist about, all deities I've ever heard of, and an agnostic about all unfalsifiable claims.***

It's a game of semantics many theists and religious apologists play. They try and misrepresent other people's lack of belief as a contrary claim, so they can dishonestly try and demand proof for the non-existence of something they believe is real, but can demonstrate no objective evidence for themselves.

In the same way creationists never tackle the fact they haven't any objective evidence for their belief, preferring to dishonestly attack the scientific fact of species evolution through natural selection, and the scientific theory that both explains and evidences it, with mendacious propaganda.

*Nothing explains creationist myths or objectively evidences it.

The fact they claim to "experience god" is no more compelling than the fact that some sailors claim to have seen mermaids, or that some people claim to have been abducted by aliens. A claim is not evidence, and personal experience by definition is not objective.

Tin-Man's picture
@Isobel Re: "....u would

@Isobel Re: "....u would be smart enough to understand the intent according to context."

Sooooo.... You're saying that punctuation does not matter because anybody should be smart enough to determine what was really meant by a sentence based on its context? But what if a person is NOT smart enough to make the proper determination? Hmmm.... *thinker's pose*....Wonder if there is a book of some sort out there that has spurred thousands of different interpretations based on various different translations and its context? Geeee..... Could there be such a book?..... *scratching chin*.... Seems like I have heard of one before, but - dagnabbit - I just cannot think of the name of it..... *thinking*..... HA! Got it! I do believe it is called the bible. Oh, speaking of which, I was wondering, by chance, if you happen to be aware that many of the ancient manuscripts that were used to write the bible were written in languages that did not use punctuation. Juuuuuuust sayin'..........

Tin-Man's picture
PM Interview question #5 from

PM Interview question #5 from Isobel: (It's kind of a long one. Sorry.)

Okie-dokie. Another long day, but getting settled in at last. Time to shake the cobwebs out of my brain and answer another interview question. *cue the blaring of kingly trumpets sounding in the distance*.....

So, we have finally come around to the ol' morality question, huh? Well, like I said, that poor dead horse has been beaten to an unrecognizable pulp many times on many threads already, but - what the hay - one more good smack can't hurt. (Pssst.... anybody catch the "hay" pun? ya know, horse... hay? get it? *waggling eyebrows*)

My personal foundation for morals..... Hmmm.... Well, in the interest of trying a somewhat new approach to this question, allow me to start by telling you just a few things I believe are wrong and that I Do Not condone. After that, I will try to relay to you how I guide my own life. Cool?.... Okay, I think bullet points would be easiest for this part (no particular order, by the way)....

* I do not believe in condemning billions of people who have yet to ever be born for the transgression of two individuals who were incredibly naïve and ruefully tricked into causing the transgression in the first place

*I do not condone forcing a female rape victim to marry the piece of shit who raped her.

*I do not condone stoning a female to death if she is discovered not to be a virgin on her wedding night.

*I do not condone slavery.

*I do not condone the practice of animal sacrificing. I ESPECIALLY do not condone the practice of human sacrificing.

*I do not believe in condemning/punishing persons who prefer to be in a same-sex relationship.

*I do not condone the bashing of babies' heads against rocks.

*I do not believe in killing your own son or daughter because some voice from the sky told you to do so.

*I do not believe in stoning your child to death just because the child may have been a little disrespectful or did not immediately obey you. (Okay, granted, it may be tempting sometimes, but just DON"T DO IT.)

*Here's a good one: I do not believe in allowing a faithful believer to be severely abused over a period of several years (during which time his innocent family was allowed to be unjustly murdered), just to win a bet, even though you are supposedly omniscient and should already know the outcome before the bet was ever made in the first place.

*Always a favorite: I do not believe in having a few young boys savagely mauled to death by rabid bears simply because they teased some dude about his bald head.

Aaaaaand the list goes on and on. Those are basically just the highlights, though, of things I fairly well detest. So, the question still remains of, "How do I go about aligning my moral compass?" Well, for starters, I do not follow the guidelines of any book or instruction manual that promotes or encourages any of the items I listed above. I mean - let's face it - if I were to base my moral standards and code of conduct on a set of regulations that allowed such behavior, I would obviously be a mass-murdering, psychopathic, sadistic, sociopathic rapist. The best part, however, is that in most cases (in a couple of particular books) I would even be REWARDED for such behavior/actions. Yes, yes, yes... The rewards ARE sometimes tempting, I admit. Still, temptations aside, I imagine even raping and killing would probably become boring after awhile. As it turns out, I really just prefer a much more simple life, anyway.

You ever heard of the Golden Rule? (Rhetorical question.) It has been around waaaaay longer than Christianity, and it is something I learned at a very young age even before I ever knew what Christianity was. Basically, I simply try to do good to and by others whenever I am given a chance to do so. It is really just that simple. Not complicated at all. Does that mean I have always been a good boy? Heh-heh-heh.... Not even close. Without going into any detail, I have done bad things in my life that I regret. But I own up to those mistakes, and I try to make reparations for them whenever possible. For those I am unable to make amends for, I live with it, and I make it a point to avoid making those same mistakes in the future. That's it. Nothing "magical" or mysterious about it. I do good in life without the promise of reward and without the fear of punishment. I do good because it is the right things to do. And if I do bad, it is MY responsibility. I am the one to blame. It is certainly not because of some unseen "evil entity" controlling my actions or my mind.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ TM

@ TM

"PM Interview question #5 from Isobel: (It's kind of a long one. Sorry.)"

Eloquent yet still succinct. Love your stuff bro. Excellent.

Sky Pilot's picture
Interview question for Isobel

Interview question for Isobel:

This is a chicken/egg question.

Did man come before woman or did they come together?

Tin-Man's picture
Isobel got back in touch with

Isobel got back in touch with me on PM a day or two ago to let me know she is wrapping up her project. (Thought that was rather nice of her to do so.) She had one more "bonus question" for me, and asked if I had ever heard of Doug Wilson and she wanted to know my opinion of him. Well, I have never heard of him, but I told her I would watch a few of his videos and get back with her about it. So, I watched a few interview videos and a couple of him doing a church service. Here is my reply....

Hey there again, young lady. So, I did watch a few brief vids of Mr. Wilson. Nothing extensive, I admit, but I did try to sample a variety of his work. On the surface, he seems to be a pretty nice guy and is fairly well-spoken. In one interview I watched he gave an explanation of Old Testament laws vs. New Testament laws I found to be rather unique and interesting. And I can definitely see why people would listen to him and trust the things he says. He has a very "fatherly" manner about him, and he explains things in "plain English" rather than trying to sound sophisticated or scholarly. Also, one can tell he has a sternness about him, an inner strength, but not so much as to be intimidating...(unless he wanted it to be. lol). All in all, as a person he strikes me as a pretty good dude, in general. Could probably even have some pretty decent discussions with him, as a matter of fact. But...(Saw that coming, didn't you? *chuckle*)

I watched parts of a couple of interviews. One was focused on slavery, and the other on homosexuals. And, unfortunately, I have to deduct a few points from his overall "score" due to his lack of direct answers on a few key questions he was asked. His answers/explanations were very "round-about" and never fully answered the questions asked. Basically, he gave answers without ever really giving answers. You have to understand, I was a cop for over 20 years, and my day-to-day job dealt with interviewing people who most often did not want to answer my questions. As a result, I have seen/heard just about every single type of deflection and evasion that has ever been invented, and I got very good at detecting B.S. when somebody attempted to "deceive" me. And it is a skill I retain to this day. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying he was telling any lies when answering the questions. He was simply holding back and avoiding telling the WHOLE truth about what he truly thought/believed about a topic. Otherwise, I would say he is a good bit more "rational" than the average high-profile evangelical type figure representing Christianity nowadays. Hope that helps you a bit. Best of luck on your project.

Nyarlathotep's picture
RE:Doug Wilson

RE:Doug Wilson

Basically his notion is that slavery (in the United State's history) was a good thing for the slaves.

Tin-Man's picture
@Nyar Re: Doug Wilson and

@Nyar Re: Doug Wilson and slavery

Yeah, I sorta got that vibe from him. He didn't really seem as concerned about slavery in and of itself as much as he did about how it was ended. Go figure.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ TM

@ TM

I got the same from Isobel...this wilson eejit wants and has succeeded in taking a model of the English "Public" (Public schools in England are actually private schools, state schools are the free ones) School education from 1850 to 1955, i.e. strict discipline, lessons in Latin, Greek, the classics, classical logic, religious eductaion ( protestant only of course) and no dissent allowed. A few religious schools have taken his model and run with it....god help the kids.

Tin-Man's picture
@Old Man Re: Wilson

@Old Man Re: Wilson

Geee... Why am I not surprised? Glad to know my "Spidey Senses" are still working properly, at least. Like I said, I didn't watch too much of the guy, but I got a strange vibe from him. Now I know.

Shutokan's picture
Sorry Isobel, one correction

Sorry Isobel, one correction to start with, atheism is not a belief, that is just a meme used for many years. As an atheist, I assign zero value to any belief. Atheism, in my opinion, is merely a factual observation. To this day, there is zero evidence of any god or gods, zero evidence of any miracles ever happening. Sure, we don't know or have have all the answers, that is the beauty of science, always learning and accepting where facts lead. Obviously, beliefs are strong and cause great good and even greater evil, as a specie, we can't seem to shake this primitive fear of the unknown. Regardless of how strongly you or anyone believes is no vindication of reality. The church, for example, use to torture scientists, like when everyone was sure our planet was flat and some intelligent person had the audacity to question it after some clever observation. Today, religious corporations are a little more savvy and use memes and pseudo science to make their points. An example of this, creation museum in Kentucky, where ignorance can be promoted as science. The role of education has always been to increase knowledge and by default, reduce ignorance. Our education system needs strong leaders to oppose this wave of ignorance. I get a real kick out of the misuse of the word "theory" by the creationists, shows a real misunderstanding of the scientific definition of this term. This kick turns into dismay when you see creationism being taught in public school on the same footing as evolution, one promotes ignorance while the other adds to knowledge as more and more evidence comes to light.

Mikeykitty123's picture
So you are just saying

So you are just saying everything atheists say are fact and anyone who disagress are considered "ignorant".

mickron88's picture
"and anyone who disagress are

"and anyone who disagress are considered "ignorant"."
that notion came from you, not from us..

the thing is, were certain of things and you're not.

like, if you're confronted of rational question, you go down that slippery slope.
then you start to avoid questions. and evading the fact.
you're scared of being exposed of the facts that what you're believing is a lie...

(BE"LIE"VE) there's a lie on the word believe.

Mikeykitty123's picture
"Athiest" also has "ie". And

"Athiest" also has "ie". And also, facts and reality only hurt people and makes people sad and depressed. Something that you obviously do not understand because it is outside the idea of everything being material.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.