Evangelical Support Group

Keep in mind that anytime He would hold us back it would always be for our benefit.Our free will gives us the power to complicate our future.

In order to understand my convoluted logic, let's examine your beliefs apriori.

You don't believe that GOD exists, or the Judeo-Christian one, at any rate.

You believe that Jesus was a mythically created historical character.

You don't believe that there is a spiritual conflict between good and evil, apart from in our minds.

Having now asserted that humans already know the difference between good and bad behavior and actions, you conclude that the message alone is important and, like jar, say only that we are expected to feed, clothe, and shelter everyone

​

No wonder you think I send a confusing message. You think that free will means that we figure it all out for ourselves, assume that humans are basically good (without the need of an alien overlord, as you so glibly claim) and that no God is required, even if
one existed.

​

I, on the other hand, think that God is basically the Judeo-Christian one, made personal and understanding through Jesus. I believe that humans will never make it without God's interference and that we will learn this the hard way if we continue on your secular path.

Kindly explain the difference between a made-up God in 2022 versus a made-up God penned by any number of Biblical writers. You can't have it both ways. If they made God up, how is it any different than me making Him up??(apart from you preferring their version of God, expounded upon in scripture)

Such hubris! That humans *ought* to know better than to make up a God! You will be proven wrong very shortly...likely within a year, when our entire system begins to unravel and the world is faced with everything that Matthew warned us against.

wars and rumors of wars. (only these wars will grow increasingly worse, as humans seek to exterminate their own from the global population in order for their particular people and culture to survive)

​

the love of many growing cold. (and this means that many Christians themselves will pick survival over sacrifice in order to attempt to preserve their lineage. The Bible also warns against this when it says "What good does it do a man to gain the world and lose his own soul"?

​

ringo writes:

​

The Biblical writers didn't have science to guide them. You ought to.

"Science" is not some shamanistic ancient ritual to consult in order to form cognizant philosophical worldviews. The peanut gallery will inevitably see it that way, however. When our cush materialistic reality falls apart, you guys will blame the far right and link it with Christianity as the major global problem that, as xongsmith says, needs to become extinct. Rather, the ultra-liberals will pine for a world of universal love, acceptance, and inclusiveness which will end up being a phony counterfeit to the original ideal expressed through Jesus Christ.

​

You're the one who wants to have it both ways. You piggyback on the Bible when it suits you and deny it when it doesn't suit you.

​

I, on the other hand, am pretty consistent:
1. The Bible says what it says.
2. Much of what it says is wrong.

|
Again, ringo thinks that rational critically thinking secular minds have it right. Which you don't. Without acceptance of and obedience to Jesus, you will fail...along with the antichrist spirit of the secular age.

​

ringo writes:

​

They made up a nasty God who punished them for stepping out of line.

Why on earth would any people make up a nasty God? It was the people themselves who were nasty...into idol worship, temple prostitution sex (as a tantric spirituality), and incest.

​

You make up a white-washed God who only asks you to do what you already want to do.

Nonsense. I worship a God who is personal and approachable...not some static character in an ancient book!

​

And if YOU are going to ever mention scripture at all, you need to learn to accept it as it is.

I don't have to *learn* anything from you. It is you who reject God and twist the meanings of an ancient book to line up with your socialist human ideal.

Oh ok. So in other wods, you are implying that any and all modern humans should know better. Its not enough that you personally chose not to believe in an ancient messenger as relevant but only in His message which resonated with your modern liberalism. Got it. Im not pro Trump, despite ringos attempts to link me with and label me as a Trump. I am also not a liberal for several reasons. I am a conservative moderate who is against the public-at-large being responsible for the huge national debt which our country carries. The liberals seem to think that they are entitled to spend whatever is necessary to help everyone...even though not everyone will end up paying it back. You people do not understand the disciplined reality of money in general. You seem to think that if the majority can agree to keep using "it" as if it is limitless, then we all ought to want to help pay the bill. Not I. The government will never find all of my money, nor will they get their hands on any of it...except perhaps through sales tax. Not even the threat of digital money (and hence digital tracking) catch me off guard. I will not be sucked into an inclusive lovey dovey agenda.Yes, I owe the ancient messenger all that I have. I'm just explaining to you that He is NOT the same as the government. Thus, it will be all of you who are stuck with the bill...even when the populists are in power and want to spend your precious social money to help enrich the businesses rather than the poor unwashed masses.Xongsmith thinks that all Republicans (and conservative Christians) are evil and should be exterminated. The problem with you people is that when you are in power, everyone's money and taxes become yours to do what you want with. There will be a revolt, however. Even now, wealthy families are buying gold and moving it to offshore vaults. They see what's coming and they want nothing to do with your Green New Bill.Some more info:

quote:

---

What is the offshore system?

​

The offshore financial system offers privacy, which can provide an opportunity to hide assets from authorities, creditors and other claimants, as well as from public scrutiny.

​

Why is it called offshore finance?

​

This system is known as offshore finance because the countries that popularized this method of sheltering wealth were often in island or coastal locations, but today “offshore” signifies anywhere that is not a customer’s country of residence.

​

Is this legal?

​

Offshore providers are typically established according to the laws of the country where they are located. But some clients have used offshore services in ways that are not legal.

---

I might add that I would never do anything illegal, and am not a wealthy man. I simply protest a digital currency system where every bit of money and financial transactions can be traced by the government.

After you mentioned that, and recalling how I once read Dan Barkers book, I sought to google the deconversion in order to get a fresh review of the perspective.
Instead, I found this: Dan Barkers "deconversion"The response was enlightening and shows me that two sides to every story exist...be it through the new atheists or through Christian apologists. I recommend you scan the reply.

Keep in mind that the other side of this story came from dwise1. I have always respected David for his lengthy and concise posts, filled with anecdotes from his own personal life and his frustration at dealing with dishonest creationists. He puts a face on atheism/agnosticism that compels me to pay attention. It's like I could be friends with him despite our disagreements.ringo is different. He never agrees with any of my arguments and forces me to examine my own beliefs with a touch of humor. I doubt that he and I would be "best buddies" as he claims that he and Jesus would be if Jesus existed. If we lived in the same town, we likely would end up arguing until we couldn't stand each other...like two chess opponents meeting at the park for endless matches. I must say that he is far ahead in the series...to his credit he never leaves a post unanswered and yet he loves to defend his own deconversion and hint that I'm less of an altruistic Christian than he is an empathetic nonbeliever. Theo, however, is just plain annoying and often condescending. jar was that way also. It addressed the issue that dwise1 initially brought up.
I will admit that I am not unbiased in regard to this argument, though I claim that none of you are either. You want to hear deconversion stories. It reinforces your own decisions to drop the belief.

There is one side to every deconversion story. There is also another side to conversion stories and to apologetic defenses. That is what I meant.I read an interesting article from another source. The Deconversion Stories That Go Unnoticed The author brings up some good points.

quote:

---

What is striking to me though is that for every high-profile professed Christian that turns his back on the faith, there are 100s overseas that make the same stated professions, walk away from the faith….and it goes largely unnoticed. Christians revel in the statistics of the number of baptisms and churches planted per year overseas, but for true accuracy there should be a third and fourth category: 3. Those who turned back to their original beliefs, and 4. Churches that didn’t make it past five years. While those figures would make for poor Twitter content it would give us a more accurate picture of what exactly is happening overseas and maybe bring some much-needed scrutiny to what the Protestant missions world is doing.(...)There is an unhealthy speed in declaring someone a Christian, baptizing them, and adding them to the church. Second-century church father Justin, or as he is more commonly known today, Justin the Martyr, would press that the effectiveness of the Christian witness was only as good as how Christians themselves lived. Only those who had a proven record of living out the Christian faith were to be admitted for baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and church membership.[1] In fact, it was common in the early church to have those who professed belief to undergo discipleship and evaluation for three years before admitting them for baptism![2]The emphasis wasn’t on time “but the character only is what shall be judged”.[3] If the character wasn’t changed in a way that was evident, it was better to wait on baptism than rush it. By hurrying baptism two really bad outcomes become potential realities: an unbeliever is given false confidence that he is made right with God and unbelievers now make up part of the church. The concern wasn’t that unbelievers attend, that’s a good thing, the concern is that they are now seen as believers by other church members and the community.

---

Based on the criteria of this particular author, I myself would be a poster child for a nonbeliever rather than a believer. ringo has emphasized this point repeatedly, though I think his standards for what a Christian *should be* are far too strict. In comparing today's modern "Christians" with the widow with two mites, the early believers, and certain Christian communities isolated from the rest of society, the modern believer simply does not stand up.

I was referring to the sheep and goats judgement.

The peanut gallery has done exactly what I predicted it would do. It has conflated Republican/Conservative ideals with evangelical Christianity. And vilified both.
So let's examine Conservative ideals and see what precisely is so wrong with them. Ten Conservative Principles

quote:

---

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

​

Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. (...)When successful revolutionaries have effaced old customs, derided old conventions, and broken the continuity of social institutions—why, presently they discover the necessity of establishing fresh customs, conventions, and continuity; but that process is painful and slow, and the new social order that eventually emerges may be much inferior to the old order that radicals overthrew in their zeal for the Earthly Paradise.

​

Conservatives are champions of custom, convention, and continuity because they prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know.

​

Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time. Therefore conservatives very often emphasize the importance of prescription—that is, of things established by immemorial usage, so that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary. There exist rights of which the chief sanction is their antiquity— including rights to property, often. (seems like liberals want a giant social stew in which all money is everyone's money. )

​

Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.

​

Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.

​

Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.

​

Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.

​

Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.

​

Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.

​

Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.

---

Thats only from one website. I could dig deeper and find a general consensus for what Conservatives purport to believe. Why are they evil?

Nonsense. Why the peanut gallery chooses to vilify conservatism is way beyond me.

Liberals are greedy for power and control. They want everybody to fall in line, under the guise of social altruism.

After reading about him, I found that I honestly couldn't criticize him. He had a great career and wrote some thought-provoking books. I initially reacted to his comment on Republicans and greed but found that I myself took the quote out of context.I withdraw my argument.

And yet let's cut to the chase. Liberals want to control conservative property and finance. It is never gonna happen. Nor should it. Beyond necessary taxation, no reparations, welfare, or social equality programs should ever be forced on an electorate that never elected you.This is one of the main reasons for a clear division in US politics.It may have taken freedom and conscience a long time to change our minds and hearts, but even the bible advocates a cheerful and willing giver as opposed to a mandatory one.You may argue that Ananias and Saphire had no choice, but anyone who knows God, the Holy Spirit knows that He does not simply go around slaying people for being disobedient.jar always told me to throw God away. Maybe he had a point. And even though you always deny deny deny that you are advocating for a government to institute mandatory taxes, reparations, and social changes for the good of everyone, you really do support such a system.

Well I finally did it. I pushed the right buttons to get an honest reply out of you. There really IS a liberal agenda. YOU really ARE authoritarian s. You justify the mandatory control because after all it NEEDS to be done. Why did you have to try and sell me a nice nice agenda when the facts show that you guys make it your secular version of a religion? I may have been born at night but not LAST night! And you won't win the next election. And so it begins. Each side claims that the other side is the villains. We have liberalism as a secular authoritarian "ideal" to counter what you see as fake and hateful conservatives who use a made up Jesus. I really need to start a new topic on this.