I have never understood that term "reformed Christian". What parts of Christianity were reformed to make it work for you?

Feel free to PM me if you wish

 I went from Apathetic (didn't care or think it mattered)  to  agnostic  to  Christian.

The person to whom I most credit my conversion is Dr. Timothy J. Keller, founding pastor or Redeemer Presbyterian Church of New York City, simply because he didn't appeal to people on "It's in the Bible, it must be true!" bases, but rather used simple, clear, well-thought-out logic. He often stated my own oppositions to Christianity in a way that was better than I would have phrased it, and then illustrated where the cracks in the oppositions were.

But plenty of people have heard him and not been converted, which is why I believe the Bible when it talks about God having to be the one who converts people slowly towards belief in Him. (but that's an entirely different can of worms)

I am an atheist Jesus story fan and don't reject the g-o-d word, as it is merely a science word for "everything unknown". I run a busy music studio house. I've done alot of "converting", especially of ho hum "moderates", who now are not afraid to say they are atheists or certianly not christian nor religious. I have "converted" fundy's into moderates.

  I use the style of Alan Watts and similar .... My pen name alone is a big help and clue. My friends mostly get it and chuckle. Nice to be "saved", and that is ATHEIST! Xainity is so polluted with the likes of talented Paul, and idol worship. The NT is a mess.

I might say, "You and everyone is the christ too .... I am an atheist for jesus, and god, the force by different definitions. The bible NT is mostly a poor representation of this jesus "buddha" philosophy with a simple message of ONE, in them superstitious times. I share your awe, g-awe-d , but lets be 21st century about it. Why invent idols, that is wrong.... Yeah, I feel the awe, sure, call it g-awe-d, but let's not invent fantasy ideas and call them truth nor believe any dogma"...... etc.

Re-post:

As cool Alan Watts wrote: "The religion of Jesus was that he knew he was a son of God, and the phrase "son of " means "of the nature of," so that a son of God is an individual who realizes that he is, and always has been, one with God. "I and the Father are one." .......... and,  "Let this mind be in you." that is to say, let the same kind of [rational] consciousness be in you that was in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ knew he was God." [ you and all are christ too ]

"Wake up" [said a buddha] and find out eventually who you also really are [ god ]. In our culture of course, they'll say you're crazy or you're blasphemous, and they'll either put you in jail or in the nut house (which is the same thing). But if you wake up in India and tell your friends and relations, "My goodness, I've just discovered that I'm God," they'll laugh and say, "Oh, congratulations, at last you found out." ~ Alan Watts

   My many RRS posts are directed mostly at the believers, and it's a way of sharing with my fellow atheists my method of de-converting the hocus pocus clans.

Love (understand) the enemy .... "save" a god of abe slave. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, are human inventions to overcome. My atheistic Jesus buddha tried. No Master, all is ONE. 

 

A simple definition of reformed Christian is someone who holds to the heritage of the protestant reformation of the 16/17th centuries.  They are in many different denominations thought excluded from  a few. For example, you won't find any in the Catholic church (The Reformation was againt the Catholic church) and you won't find any in methodist churchs(the Methodist churches were a response to the reformed churches).  It's complex and hard to describe.  Reformed people tend to talk a lot about the 5 solas and calvinism but it extends way past that.  http://www.apocalipsis.org/reformed.htm  though frankly reading most web sites in favor of reformed christianity won't help an ahtiest because they already assume you are a christian.

Personally, I think it's the most intellectual version of Christianity (yes yes I know mock and laugh).  Reformed people tend to spend a lot of time reading books by dead people and writing long theological books. 

Basically we  sit around drinking and smoking and discussing theology.

 

Yep.

Christian->atheist->Deist

 

I was raised Christian, and to be honest I hated it. I pretty much thought God was watching my every move, I wouldn't even swear, in fact I thought God was out to get me. The funny thing is, nobody in my family was overtly religious, and I never paid attention in church, so I have no idea where that came from. Anyway, I'm pretty awkward around other people and the fact people thought I was weird didn't help either so basically the only people I spent time with were religious people. It was like the only time I was actually accepted when I was around them.

 

Then came High School. It was a Catholic school, but I've never seen so many anti-Theistic atheists in one place. I would hear them trash talk religion so much I was afraid to bring up my beliefs. Then they course they focused on me for my Theism and other reasons. Remeber when I said I thought God was out to get me? Well, now I believed it, in fact I thought God just plain hated me, but then again I thought pretty much everyone hated me. I had like only one friend who was religious and he had religious friends so they helped my out. I guess this is why I don't bring up my Theism IRL anymore. If someone asks I just change the subject, if they press it further I tell them to suck a cock. I also suppose this is where my snarky/snide attitude came from.

 

 

Anyway, then it was off to university first as a Chemistry major. During the classes I got to thinking how everyone said that religion was a fairy tale or 'for dummies' etc...  I've always took an interest in science classes, but I guess university got me more in the mindset, since you take much more science in the classes.  And hence began my journey to atheism. I was thinking those kids were right and the fact my brother was an atheist and reinforced what the kids said.

 

 

Then, ironically enough, my brother lent me a copy of the God Delusion, I guess he still thought I was a Theist. So anyway, I started reading it, and it actually made me angry. I flipped through it reading and thought Dawkins was an obnoxious prick. Now I have no idea why, but I did, and I never got to reading it fully. So I rushed to the bookstore and started looking for Theist books. I found Haisch and Miller, started reading those. I then 'cross referenced' them with the God Delusion, that is read Miller's argument, then some of Dawkins'. And so I guess began my journey to Deism.

 

Now after being on this site for a while, as much as I hate to admit it, got me to realizing that maybe Dawkins isn't that much of a douche. I started feeling more comfortable reading atheist literature (I read 'Breaking the Spell' by Dennett...)

 

Now I read both Theist and atheist books. I have a paperback copy of God Delusion, and going to try to read more Dennett. I don't know why, but I like Dennett's writing style. I'm also going to read Polkinghorne. I have a system that for every Theist book I read, I read an atheist one, okay now I'm just rambling.

 

 

 

 

tl;dr version:

 

Christian->atheist->Deist, will read more books.

Cpt_pineapple

Thanks for writing that. I have always liked you, even when you have mocked me. You are special ... and most always fun.

 

LOL ....

There you go again, what what? 

 

When have I mocked you and how am I special?

 A few people have asked for an example of the type of logic that lead me towards belief in Christianity, sure - I'd love to contribute.

Now in order to do this right, and to be fair, I have to, unfortunately, address only one type or argument against God. There is a type of argument that isn't exactly what you would call an argument against the existence of God, but rather, let's call it the argument that, "You cannot know there is a God even if there is one."

I pick this one because, as a New Yorker, it's one I run into a lot. In fact, it's probably the one you run into the most. The argument usually goes something like this:

"I don't know if there is a God or not, but nobody can know - nobody can know. I do not believe that any one group or religion has the "Truth" if what you mean by "Truth" is the "Absolute Truth". I believe that different religions or world views may have a piece of the Truth, and some may have more than others - but nobody's got all the answers - nobody."

The argument then proceeds by using the illustration of the Elephant and the Blind Men, have you heard this illustration?

"Imagine five blind men who all come upon an elephant. Each one grabs the elephant at a different place. One grabs a tusk, one grabs a leg, one an ear, one the tail and one feels the stomach. The man grabbing the leg says, 'Elephants are round and thick.' The man grabbing the ear says, 'No no no, elephants are thin and flat.' The man grabbing the tusk says, 'You're both wrong, elephants are hard and pointy.', etc.

The illustration goes that each one of the blind men thinks they know the whole elephant, but in reality each one of the blind men can only sense part of the truth, but nobody can sense the whole truth,

"...and that is just like the religions of the world. Every religion has a little bit of 'wisdom', but the fact is, nobody has the whole truth, nobody can see the whole picture, nobody can say, 'I know God truly!'" finishes the agnostic/skeptic/atheist.

"Now here is the problem with this argument," according to Leslie Newbigin, a British Scholar, "The real point of the story is overlooked. The story is told from the point-of-view of someone who is not blind, but can see what the blind men are unable to grasp, that is - the full reality of the Elephant. And only the one who sees the whole elephant can know the blind men are blind."

Do you see what he's saying? The only way that you could know that the blind men only sense part of the elephant, is if you think you're not blind.

"What this means, then, is that there is an appearance of humility in the protestation that 'The Truth is greater than any one of us can grasp,'. But if this is used to invalidate all claims to discern the truth, it is, in fact, an arrogant claim to the kind of knowledge, which is superior, that you've just said that no religion has," finishes Leslie Newbigin.

Follow that? To say, "I don't know if any religions are true," is an act of humility. To say, "None of the religions have the truth, no one can be sure there is a God." is actually to assume you have the kind of knowledge you've just said no other person and no other religion has.

 

Now I know that I have not just proven the existence of God to you, I know that. I want to only remind you before I go that I was asked to give a single example of the logic that lead me toward belief in God. This argument was one I used in the past, and the logic that followed it was the same logic that got me to rethink my premise. That's all.

There are others, though, if you're interested. Also, the link below will take you to a resource website for Tim Keller, he's pretty big in New York City among the skeptical crowd because, as I said before, he doesn't resort to the "It's in the Bible - therefore it's true." type of arguments, but rather thinks things through and doesn't carry any fire-and-brimstone in him, which most of my atheist friends tell me they appreciate even when they don't agree with him, so check some of it out if you get a chance:

http://www.stevekmccoy.com/reformissionary/2005/07/tim_keller_arti.html

 

I posted it because when you first came here, that pic did make more sense than you

And one man decides to make stuff up and decides to say “elephants are avocados ” here you have a baseless assumption all the man/religions are not made up or corrupted so what if I made up my own religion will you consider it as a peace of truth ? Do you consider the statement  “elephants are avocados” valid in your argument ?
 

 
 
Hmmm your argument strangely addresses a rebuttal not a concept. Well disproving a  counter argument doesn’t disprove the point or premises example :
 
***I believe the earth is round because the sky is blue. ***

Stating that the color of the sky have nothing to do with the form of the earth disproves this argument however doesn’t disprove the roundness of the earth (didn’t address evidence or predictions of round earth theory or any earth form  ).
It’s  bad logic to believe this. Besides you presented a error in your rebuttal question you assumed there must be a god it’s a hidden statement let me demonstrate :
 
***Have you stopped raping your mother ?***

 
Here I have hidden the statement “you rape your mother” in a question or :

 
***We all know you rape your mother however we may never know how you do this.***

 
The statement “you rape your mother regardless of the lack of evidence” is assumed  in this statement  .Please note I’m not stating that “you rape your mother” I have given this example because its easy to see the error in it.
 
Now because I’m a Gnostic atheist (I’m 101 % cretin that god is non existent and I have proven this) I would like to here more arguments that are logically consistent and don’t make appeals to emotions. I would like to give you a counter question because you could think about it or present it to your pastor. Its one of my questions that I include in my personal collection of god killers
 
(posted here http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15031 )

god actually disproves himself. Well the first point addressed why god would create humans in the first place however it proved to be something more destructive to gods existence.

 
Christians argue that god always existed and don’t have a beginning however lets think about this for one second if point 0 represents the moment when god started to created our universe what did he do before this ? Exist ? How long did god exist alone with no need for humans ? One millennium ? A googolplex of centuries  ? A  long period of time and he didn’t need humans.
 
However we need to realize that god existent a entire eternity  , and  then suddenly and magically  the eternity ended and this  is impossible , because if we regress in god-time he never did have a beginning the time that god existed before creation of us is infinite and can not end !
 
So is it going to be :
A) god did have a beginning

or

B)god never created us because it takes a entire eternity to arrive at the point 0.
 
 
On the side note god existed a insane amount of time without humans and never felt the need to create us (in a entire eternity) so why would god create us if he existed forever without us and didn’t have a problem ?
 
 
 
Like you can see every type of god (playing agnostic doesn’t help) disproves himself and makes a loving creator that haze no beginning impossible , in other words god disproves himself .
 
BTW: Welcome to the forum I would like to here your response
Best wishes carx.
 
PS: my path
 
catholic (this explains the theology fetish)->deist->atheist
 
or more correctly
 
Atheist (babies don’t have a god believe)-> catholic->deist->atheist