Why do Christians and Jews become non-believers in their God?

Prove any of that is true. Quoting someone else and other people's opinion proves nothing. To the extent it has any value, it disproves your claim as it states there are many different reasons.

 

I am not quoting other people opinions. I am giving you a link to data, i.e., a survey.

A survey of people opinions provides data regarding people's opinions. Are you claiming these people surveyed lied about their own opinion?

And
many respondents who mention “science” as the reason they do not believe in religious teachings, including one who said “I’m a scientist now, and I don’t believe in miracles.” Others reference “common sense,” “logic” or a “lack of evidence” – or simply say they do not believe in God.

 

A survey isn't proof. The survey disproves your claim. You have no evidence the survey is real.

 

If God doesn't exist, then those who believe he does, who talk to him in prayer, who bow down to him, etc, are talking and bowing down to their imagination. By definition that is delusional. And that may sound like a judgment, but it isnt. It is mere logic. It is also logic, and not judgment, that if God does exist then those who dont believe he does are ignorant.

 

It is more likely the survey is real than a supernatural magic man living in the sky.

 

Sad case of denial you are. You say you are no longer catholic, yet you have a cat as your avatar. If you are to recover from your addiction to cats, you need to give this up. Be real with yourself.

 

This claim from people who fancy themselves true believers makes me wonder how they can think they know they are, since others used to believe the same and stopped.

 

Argument from evil only makes sense if you presume God to be benevolent, and I see no reason why that should be presumed.

 

It boils down to a relationship with God. Does a person depend on God, pray to God and trust God? Or is all that even a thought? A person isn't a believer simply by being brought to church by their parents. A choice is made.

 

That's why I mentioned it as a good argument against Christianity, but not against theism in general.

 

So, God is a republican ? That’s your opinion.

 

It's not my claim, it's God's.

You will have to take it up with him.

 

I've met many atheists who used to depend on, pray to and trust God... or what they thought was God, but then later decided wasn't real.

As near as I can tell, your God IS you; a reflection of your own subconscious. Maybe a God does exist, but neither of us can know that for sure. And there have been plenty of now atheists who thought as you do, that they were true believers. So how can you know for sure that you are a true believer and not one of them?

 

There's no contradiction. Those tribes never lived in Egypt, although they did sojourn there briefly. That the other three tribes are likely to have lived within the borders of Egypt refutes the Exodus, which refutes the word of your god-thing.

And, you missed the point entirely, because you're not well educated, which puts you on a par with the idiot J authors.

Abram (Abraham in Canaanite) and Serai (Sarah in Canaanite) were Akkadians from Ur, like their father Terah who was a priest for the deity known as Ninurta in the Sumerian language and El Shaddai in the Akkadian language. Thus, it comes as no surprise that they would go to Haran, since Haran was the principle city of Ninurta/El Shaddai who was known in the Hurrian language as Teshub.

When Abram and his half-sister Serai when to Canaan, they did not abandon their Akkaidan culture. That culture, like that of Sumer has an order of precedence, or rank:

1) the preferred half-sister wife
2) all other half-sister wives by rank
3) the preferred wife
4) all other wives by rank
5) the preferred concubine
6) all other concubines by rank

Joseph was 12th born, yet he got the birth-right. Why?

I just told you why. Jacob had no half-sister to marry. Although he married Leah first, it was Rachel who was the preferred wife and since Joseph was the first-born of the preferred wife Rachel, he gets the birth right.

That means Joseph gets over half of Jacob's land and his brothers who are sons of wives or the highest ranking concubine get to fight over the rest.

Except Joseph forgoes his birth-right and passes it to the younger son Ephraim. Why? I just explained that to you. Ephraim's mother was either the preferred wife or only wife and Manasseh's mother was not.

After Jacob dies, they go back to Canaan and they stay there and never go back to Egypt.

Except Reuben, Simeon and Levi probably stayed in Egypt. Why? I just explained that. For Reuben, Simeon and Levi to share-crop on the land of their younger half-brothers would be a total embarrassment. I mean, who wants to work for your younger brother? But, if they stayed in Egypt, and assuming Joseph was a real person with some political power, Joseph could set them up with land and herds, and Joseph may have appointed Levi as a priest at one of the temples -- but not a temple of the Yahweh-thing.

The Exodus Trilogy is a propaganda document known as "national unity" propaganda. Many countries have them, even the US. Plymouth and the Pilgrims who would burn you at the stake for celebrating your birthday get the nod even though Jamestown was up and running long before Plymouth.

Why does Plymouth and the Mayflower get all the love? Because Plymouth is in the North and Jamestown is in the South. Who won the Civil War? Well, there you go.

The J writer, like you, doesn't understand and he's writing 1,000+ years after-the-fact when the Hebrews are Canaanites in everything and so he jumps through hoops trying to explain things with silly stories like Reuben slept with his father's concubine and Simeon and Levi committed murder in the town of Shechem -- which the E writer says the Hebrews bought and not slaughtered for it.

Funny how your god-thing can't remember how the Hebrews got Shechem, just like your god-thing is confused about who saved Joseph from being murdered by his brothers (E says it was Reuben and naturally J says it was Judah).

The sad thing is you don't even understand what you read.

Take the story of "The Golden Calf." Why do you suppose the story says "calves" (plural) in spite of Aaron making only one?

Because that story was written by a Mosaic priest and not by the Yahweh-Jesus-Ghosty-thing.

That author was a very bitter angry old man. The Aaronid priests (those descended of Aaron) murdered all the Mosaic priests (those descended of X-Moses) in a midnight massacre at Shiloh...except for one who was away and escaped the slaughter. His descendant is the author. When the northern tribes split and formed the Kingdom of Israel. that man thought the Mosaic priesthood would be restored to its former glory and he would be named chief priest at the temple at Shiloh, except he got snubbed by Jeroboam. Jeroboam named non-Levites as priests and to add insult to injury, he set up two temples, one at Dan and one at Beth-El. Each temple had a bull carved out of olive wood and plated with gold, and ostensibly they were the throne platform for the Yahweh-thing.

So, he criticizes Jeroboam by calling it a calf instead of a bull, and then calves, plural, for the two winged bulls each at Dan and Beth-El.

Aaron is the instigator, since he allegedly makes the golden bull for people to worship, yet he suffers no punishment at all. That was a jab at the Aaronid priesthood.

He says that a guy (with an Egyptian name) says if you stand with Yahweh, then come to me and the Levites did so and then proceeded to indiscriminately murder a few 1,000 men, women and children for worshipping the golden bull, except Aaron who gets off Scot free.

The purpose of that passage is also to justify the Levites as the only true priests of the Yahweh-thing.

You'll notice that in the story of Snow White Miriam, Aaron is again the instigator, but only his sister Miriam is punished. Yahweh supposedly turns her into a leper and since the Yahweh-thing hates lepers (and bald men and men with crushed testicles) worse than Atheists, she can't go near the temple.

Anyway, the Hebrews always lived in Canaan and ever in Egypt, except possibly the tribes of Reuben, Simeon and Levi.

As archaeologists note, it is impossible to distinguish Canaanite culture from Hebrew culture.

And, as an x-tian archaeological fanatic Albright discovered, of the 16 cities claimed to have been destroyed during the Exodus, only 10 have been discovered.

Of those 10 cities, Jericho, Ai and Gibeon were not even occupied at the time of the Exodus and it doesn't matter which date you choose.

Of the remaining 7 cities, only 3 were destroyed and two of them were known for a fact to have been destroyed by "sea peoples" and not the Hebrews.

Of the remaining city, it is unclear whether it was destroyed by Canaanites or the Hebrews, although the evidence does slightly favor the Hebrews.

Face it chum, your bible isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

During the Jewish Civil War, there were 100s of christs running around, including Simon Christ the Idumean, John Christ bar Giora and others.

In Hebrew history, there have been 1,000s of christs, including Cyrus the Mede.

The Jesus-thing is morally and intellectually inferior to me, so naturally I would condemn him.

I said nothing about what the Jesus-thing said. I was referring to his actions and his locations, but thanks for moving the goal-posts just the same.

And, you're still wrong. If the gospels are truly the word of god, then words, actions and locations of the Jesus-thing, along with his companions should be 100% accurate.

Right?

Then you freely admit that the people who wrote and who translate the texts are in no way, shape or form connected to any god-thing.

Because, if they were, then they'd be able to accurately translate the texts.

 

It mattes in terms of historical accuracy.

It also matters in terms of Göbbeling.

The reason the King Joke Vision lies and says the incident occurred in a third separate distant location is to hide the fact that Mark and Mathew tell the story differently, which would raise questions about authenticity and accuracy and that is simply not permitted.

For centuries the translators of the King Joke Vision lied about a passage in one the Psalms, because they are not connected with any god-thing

The Codex Leningradis renders the passage as "If I forget you, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget."

The liars and Göbbels worshipers at the King Joke Vision rendered it, "If I forget you, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning."

Not only are the translators not connected to any god-thing, they don't even understand the language they're translating.

Semitic languages are connotial, meaning they are high-precision. A word has one meaning and only one meaning.

For example, there are three different verbs that translate as "to take a life" but each has a different connotation. One verb clearly translates as murder, because the connotation is to take a life with premeditation, malice aforethought, for personal profit or gain.

It is readily distinguishable from the other verb which translates as "slay" connoting to take a life with authority, such as soldiers on the battlefield or some body or council justly executing a criminal.

The third verb connotes taking a life by accident, negligence or misadventure.

The Commandment is "You will not murder" and any other translation, such as "You will not/Thou shalt not kill" is wrong. Period.

There are give verbs that translate as "forget" but each has a different connotation.

So, in English, we'd say, "I forgot about my garden this year." You didn't forget about it, because you saw every time you looked out your kitchen window, but you did neglect it, and that is what that specific Semitic verb connotes.

We;d also say, "I forgot about my pizza in the oven and it burned." In Semitic, you'd use a different verb for forget to connote that you were negligent. But wouldn't you use the other Semitic verb form? No, because there's a difference between intentional neglect and unintentional neglect.

Another one of the five verb forms for "forget" connotes that you cannot remember something, meaning you really forgot.

The verb form we are interested in connotes withering or shriveling due to an absence of water.

What the text really says is, "If I forget you, Jerusalem, let my right hand wither."

And, how do we know? Because a French-Israeli archaeology team found an Ugaritic text that says the same thing and the Hebrews copied it, which is a neat trick considering Ugarit was destroyed, the inhabitants fled or carted off, and it was never inhabited again. That's proof the Exodus never happened.

Why can't the Hebrews translate their own texts?

In every society there is a low culture -- the gutter people -- and a high culture -- the intelligentsia.

What happened to Hebrew high culture? When Jerusalem was sacked, and the people carted off, the intelligentsia were executed, thrown in a dungeon or kept in the royal court (a keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer kinda thing).

There were no Hebrew schools teaching Hebrew, so the high culture collapsed. When the Hebrews finally left, they couldn't even translate their own texts.

If you had read the Great Isaiah Scroll from Qumran, you'd know that. The text has 100s of orthographic errors, plus 100s of spelling errors and the person who wrote it was obviously of low culture, because they substituted high culture words they couldn't understand with low culture gutter words (think Ebonics).

That's why it took so freaking long to translate the Great Isaiah Scroll (it was not a conspiracy). There are two schools of thought on that, one being it was a student scribe learning how to write and the other, which is more likely, is it simply shows how low Hebrew culture had devolved.

In any event, it demonstrably proves there is no god-thing and that none of the translators are connected to a god-thing or filled with the Spirit of the Holy Flatulence.

That's like the "silver lips" nonsense. For 2,500 years and for the 500 years the King Joke Vision has been around nobody realized that a Hebrew scribe incorrectly divided a word resulting in the translation being "silver lips."

Once again, it wasn't until an Ugaritic text was found that they learned the word was divided wrong and that it should actually read "like silver" instead of "silver lips."

So, now the Psalm that the Ugarits wrote that the Hebrews plagiarized makes sense.

Codex Leningradis, which is also known as the Stuttgart Bible, and Codex Aleppo, plus the actual Aramaic and Greek texts from the "witnesses."

You cannot study Genesis by reading the King Joke Vision, You have to read one of the two codices (and you can buy them on Amazon).

It did not. The Egyptians certainly exercised suzerainty over the region, but that does not mean Egypt exercised cultural influence.

The fact that Ugarit and other city-states/kingdoms paid an annual tribute -- pronounced "bribe" -- to Egypt does not make them Egyptian.

According to your theory, the US was simultaneously part of the French Empire and the Barbary Coast Empire, because the US paid $Millions in bribes to both to keep them from raiding and seizing US flagged merchant and naval ships.

The US paid tributes until the US defeated France in an undeclared naval war that lasted several years and the US Marines landed at Tripoli.

Then what's wrong with worshiping Hitler?

Explain why I should lower myself to worship morally and intellectually inferior gods.

 

You are so full of crap. Two people viewing the same event won't give the same accounts. It's like at a car accident with witnesses that come up with different accounts based on their positioning and what they were actually paying attention to. You also have no concept of the Spirit of God. So, your accusations are pointless because you cannot possibly understand or see what I see. Of course there are going to be mistakes made for various reasons when the bible has been translated and re-written so many times. The Bible is correct as long as it is translated correctly. However, you have shown nothing that would conclude there is something wrong with the King James Version. There are errors in it. But, a scholar cannot correct them without the Spirit of God within him. Only a prophet of God can. Prophet's are the messengers of God, not hi-flatulent scholars like yourself.

"And, how do we know? Because a French-Israeli archaeology team found an Ugaritic text that says the same thing and the Hebrews copied it, which is a neat trick considering Ugarit was destroyed, the inhabitants fled or carted off, and it was never inhabited again. That's proof the Exodus never happened."

I'll do it again to you. You said the Hebrews copied something that could not possibly exist since the Ugarit was destroyed. It's not a trick because it never happened. Therefore what did happen was the Exodus. You keep making that same mistake.

 

?

How did you get that from what I wrote?

 

Why would I trust you any more than I'd trust the Dalai Lama or Richard Dawkins or the local Wiccan? An unjustified suggestion to just trust you conjures images of used-car-salesmen and supposed Nigerian princes.

My point is not that my explanation is correct, my point is that by assuming that God's plan is a fundamental source of knowledge, you've failed to address the point that has become persuasive to the atheists.

The issue that brings people away from Christianity is that people notice that we are not justified in starting with "God's plan". For God's plan to matter, we must first establish that God exists, so therefore God's plan can't be the starting point.

Actually, the point I was commenting on was talking about "all belief", not just religion. So, my example isn't an analogy, it is a specific counter example.

Most of our beliefs follow the same rules as the onion example, and we understand what makes the epistemology sound in the onion example. The onion example isn't only about food, it is about almost every piece of verifiably good information we have. The fact that your religion logic falls outside of that means that it doesn't have any reason to actually be good.

I don't see that this addresses my point. If you are justified in starting with "God's plan" without justification, then Islam, Hinduism, Animism, etc. is no less justified in starting wherever they want to start. And since that leads to contradictions, starting with such an unjustified point is not reliable.

 

it's like children that grow up believing in Santa, they just learn the truth as they grow up

 

There is God. And, there are religions. I can't start with Islam, Hinduism... because they are false religions. I have to start with God and His Plan. There's but only one true Church. There are other religions and churches with some truths. But, not the authority to teach God's Plan. Only one church can teach all of his Plan, not parts.
Your onion story is an analogy. A parable. Whatever. The fact is, I can prove God and His Plan exist and is true. You may not want to find out because it won't include your secular methods of experimenting. It will be 100% God's Plan and His methods of experiments. It includes, faith, hope, charity (The pure love of Christ), prayer, meditation, studying God's words and patience with a real desire and with real intent, without a double mind. Can you do it?

 

There is no "One True Church". Any denomination of Christianity can make that declaration. And No religion is false if it is a tool for realization of God's presence. Salvation does not come through another human being preaching to you. Nobody has the AUTHORITY to speak for God. Not even an individual book can claim the one and ONLY authority.

I agree with your argument for meditation. Finding God comes from self realization through personal experience. And I have self realized and become aware that there are many paths to God. You may find it through a pastor's sermon or reading some scriptures. But I found my path through a lengthy process of thinking and study of different ideas.

I don't know much about God, but I have concluded that if we still our minds in meditation, we can become one with the Universal Will aka "God". When we are one with His will, we can have peace of mind, good things come our way and accomplish anything we set our minds to doing.

 

You have got to be kidding if you think that stuff written in the 11th Century is the original Bible. There were translations.

 

I agree with much of what you wrote, except for the "low culture" hypothesis. Christians use the heretic Greek version of the Tanach, the Septuagint, not the original Hebrew text. The translations were made from Greek, not from Hebrew.

There's no need to introduce an unknown, unproven premise, about the Hebrew intelligentsia. Don't forget that at the time there were already communities of Jews all over the Roman Empire, and whatever happened to the Judean intelligentsia didn't affect the intelligentsia in the Diaspora.

 

"They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they
had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going
showed that none of them belonged to us."___1 John 2:19

"My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.
I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish" John 10:27-28

JAG

 

Matthew 13:1-23

The Parable of the Sower
That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the lake.

Such large crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and
sat in it, while all the people stood on the shore.

Then he told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went
out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the
path, and the birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky places,
where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil
was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched,
and they withered because they had no root.

Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants.

Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred,
sixty or thirty times what was sown.9Whoever has ears, let them hear.”

The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the
people in parables?”

He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom
of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.

Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance.
Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.

This is why I speak to them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
“ ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.’

But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears
because they hear. For truly I tell you, many prophets and
righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it,
and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

“Listen then to what the parable of the sower means:

When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does
not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was
sown in their heart. This is the seed sown along the path.

The seed falling on rocky ground refers to someone who hears
the word and at once receives it with joy.But since they have no
root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes
because of the word, they quickly fall away The seed falling among
the thorns refers to someone who hears the word, but the worries of
this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, making it
unfruitful. But the seed falling on good soil refers to someone who
hears the word and understands it. This is the one who produces
a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.”


JAG