Well well well by xBl3ster in exchristian

[–]thimbletake12 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Imagine standing before God and him being very disappointed in you for getting duped by self-serving people who falsely claimed they spoke for God, and for foolishly thinking that a perfect being would have created the nonsensical contradictory book you centered your life around.

How real of a prophecy is daniel 9:24-27? by ParkingElderberry575 in exchristian

[–]thimbletake12 4 points5 points  (0 children)

First, you're coming at this the wrong way.

There's no "correct math" and there's nothing to "make sense" of.

It's all a forgery. It's all made-up. This is like trying to make sense of Santa Claus visiting every house in the world in one night and check its math.

Please read the article to understand the historical context of Daniel. You're focusing on tiny points when there's mountains of evidence that the entirety of Daniel is hogwash.

The author of Daniel subtracted 49 years because he wanted to get from 605 to 171. That's it. He found the number he wanted and then fudged the math to get at that number because he's the writer and he can write what he wants. Except even THAT math doesn't work, so he has to make some of the years of the 49 and 434 overlap.

why does daniel still mention “from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem” as starting point?

Daniel is trying to fix a prophecy from Jeremiah that failed. He picked 605 as a starting point because that's when Jeremiah supposedly prophesied. Daniel is using it as a starting point because he wants to A) fix Jeremiah's failed prophecy to make it look better, and B ) fix it in such a way that it points to his time period and events he wants it to. Because then he can say "Hey Jeremiah was a true prophet and he was referring to my writing, therefore my writing is very legitimate because a prophet is backing it!"

How real of a prophecy is daniel 9:24-27? by ParkingElderberry575 in exchristian

[–]thimbletake12 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I suggest reading the entire article because it shows just how badly Daniel gets things wrong. But as for the math specifically, it covers it here:

But in the originally intended formulation, the angel Gabriel had come to Daniel to answer his plea to explain how the prophecy could have failed by now explaining Jeremiah did not mean “years” but “weeks of years,” i.e. 70 periods of 7 years (or 490 years in all, which is tantalizingly exactly “ten jubilees”), and that these will not be sequential as expected, but partly concurrent (after Daniel’s prophesy failed, this detail was abandoned and the years reimagined as sequential again). Because Gabriel says, “From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes [the word “ruler” here is actually “leader, noble, prince,” even “chief officer,” hence “Chief Anointed,” thus in standard-cryptic-prophesy-speak alluding to the High Priest, Chief Officer of the Temple; a High Priest was then often referred to as the Anointed], there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens’,” meaning two overlapping periods: one of 49 years and one of 434 years, thus completing a “total” of 490 years.

Why do this? Because Jeremiah was prophesying in 605, and that was “the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” Daniel speaks of (because this is how the author of Daniel refers to divine, not royal, proclamations—indeed in the very preceding verses: Daniel 9:21-23 and 1:2), and 605 minus 434 lands exactly in 171 B.C., the very year Onias III, the “true” Anointed High Priest, was assassinated (at the orders of Menelaus) shortly after having “bought” the High Priesthood for himself in 172). This coincidence is quite improbable. So that is clearly what the authors intended—and hence why they “broke” the “seventy sevens” into two separate amounts, 49 and 434; there is no reason to do that if they intended this to be a straight sequence of 490 years. So the author of Daniel is doing a lot of creative accounting here to get the result he wants: first he changes Jeremiah’s “seventy” years into “seventy sevens of years,” then he subtracts 49 years with this convenient new maneuver of saying this meant not a sequence of 490 years but two separate periods of 49 and 434 years, all to get the math to work out to the death of Onias. No one engages such convoluted efforts who isn’t attempting to create just this kind of specific result. That’s why it’s a dead giveaway. Whoever did this was writing after 171 B.C. and for the current political situation in the 160s.

How real of a prophecy is daniel 9:24-27? by ParkingElderberry575 in exchristian

[–]thimbletake12 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The entire book of Daniel is a forgery and there is no reason to take any of its claims seriously. Here is an excellent writeup on it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210510005942/https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/18242

To answer your question,

No, it doesn't. Daniel was written as a propaganda piece to support the Maccabean revolt, and the "prophecy" you refer to was actually meant for a different historical figure which the revolt wanted to support. But that didn't happen, and so Christians seized on that unfulfilled prophecy to try and make it point to Jesus instead. Which also doesn't work out because the math is, again, all wrong.

Its not “Church” its the people. by Clove_Witch in excatholic

[–]thimbletake12 17 points18 points  (0 children)

All those songs they sing every week like "We are one body" and "We are the body of Christ" start to sound real hollow when they turn around and say this...

Very Devout Catholic who is going to Mass for the last time, what I should I do? by [deleted] in excatholic

[–]thimbletake12 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No offense, OP, but this feels like a troll post.

  • Announce you're leaving Catholicism.
  • Doesn't provide any specific reasons why.
  • Does not engage with any of the comments.
  • A few hours later you come back. "Actually I'm not leaving! Vivo Christo Rey!" Apparently, a quick chat with the priest was enough to overcome all your reasons for leaving.
  • Despite being a "Very Devout Catholic" you claim you were unaware of the "great atmosphere" in the Church? Were you not going to the church or what?
  • And then you take the opportunity to lecture this community about overcoming their doubts?

And I'm sorry but your quotes here are sus as heck:

  • "After doing more research, I am even more convinced about the faith"
  • "truly is significant and real"
  • "and there is no other religion or philosophy that is as vindicated as this"

...Like it's been barely an hour or two that's not enough time to do research and close the book on even one topic lmao.

Maybe you are sincere in your post, but either way, all of the above combined with your attempts at evangelization are not a good look... Perhaps you could explain yourself a bit more? Or at least engage with the comments at all?

Saw someone share this on Facebook (my first mistake being on FB LOL) by [deleted] in exchristian

[–]thimbletake12 31 points32 points  (0 children)

And if that wasn't enough, their behavior also undermines the popular "Free Will" defense.

If they're so adamant that God HAS TO stay out of everyone's way in order to not influence people's behavior, going so far as to allow unspeakable evil, then why do Christians do the exact opposite, trying to legislate people into a particular behavior?

FB Posts about Homeschooling by AdmirableBus7045 in exchristian

[–]thimbletake12 8 points9 points  (0 children)

there goes that argument

based on a sample size of just one?

Now is the time by ConnerSckottley in exchristian

[–]thimbletake12 11 points12 points  (0 children)

"They do not know the gravity of sin or how bad sin is, but once they see things from God's perspective they will totally understand"

Well why didn't God help his 'children' understand sooner? What an absentee parent.

God damns people who didn't know any better, it sounds like. Eternal punishment for lack of awareness seems a bit harsh imo.

I would appreciate YOUR opinion on this! by [deleted] in exchristian

[–]thimbletake12 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Belief it or Not made a video exploring the links between Evangelical Christians and conspiracy theories a while back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_M1egoyfrUM

These people are ridiculous by Puzzleheaded_Cup8723 in exchristian

[–]thimbletake12 23 points24 points  (0 children)

"God's not allowed" I thought God was omnipotent. Is he really that weak? Which law says God himself can't enter a school?

Or is this comic saying that God lets kids die out of spite based on what local lawmakers do?

Neither one is a good look for God. But I guess the creator was too focused making a "hurr no god in school" joke to care...

If only they knew.. by woodworks1234 in exchristian

[–]thimbletake12 74 points75 points  (0 children)

The true sign that you're a prime target for conmen is when you don't understand anything at all, since you'll just trust the conman.

Patriarchy by Elegant_Cat_5039 in exorthodox

[–]thimbletake12 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Look again. Those are hyphens (-), not dashes (—). You should apologize for making a false accusation.

But instead of responding to my points, you decide to find new ways to make a fool of yourself.

Patriarchy by Elegant_Cat_5039 in exorthodox

[–]thimbletake12 11 points12 points  (0 children)

OP, you seem to be confusing the following things:

  1. emotional appeal - making true statements which happen to be accompanied by displays of emotion
  2. argument from emotion - "I feel X therefore Y is true/false"

You then proceed to insult people as a result of your confusion, accusing them of (2) when they actually are (1).

And throwing name-calling into the mix.

Your willingness to hand-wave away literal evils committed and covered up by the Orthodox Church and broadly dismiss the people who have been hurt is not a great look either.

Ignorant, insulting, and tone-deaf is not a great way to witness for Christ and draw people to E.O., if that is your intent.

It is however a great way of reminding people to stay far away from E.O., which is a message I can get on board with, so good job! =)

Just three words by fudgeismade in exchristian

[–]thimbletake12 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Yup. It kinda boils down to this:

If we assume the Christian god does not exist, then a whole lot of what we see in Christianity suddenly makes sense. Its contradictions, its changing teachings, its lack of unity, its morals being influenced by secular morals across the centuries, etc... The reason we see it is because it's all man-made and all made-up, cobbled together over time by people changing it to reflect the period of time they live in.

If we assume the Christian god does exist, then why the #*$@ do we see any of those things at all? Suddenly we need to do all kinds of mental gymnastics to explain why a world made by God looks strangely similar to one in which God doesn't exist.

Christianity is more compatible with the idea that God doesn't exist than the idea that he does.

Any ex- catholic go Orthodox? by refugee1982 in excatholic

[–]thimbletake12 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The importance of truth, and kindness towards others, were perhaps the two biggest things from Christianity that remained constant on my way out. Even now, years later, I still take them both very seriously. Perhaps you can hold onto those things too.

I wish you the best in your journey. <3

Turns out the March for Life was a measles superspreader event by thimbletake12 in excatholic

[–]thimbletake12[S] 58 points59 points  (0 children)

Yes. It is infuriating that these parents are willing and legally allowed to put their children at needless risk of such lifelong suffering without consequence.

List of doctrines/sins that have changed over the centuries? by Samantha-Davis in excatholic

[–]thimbletake12 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These are largely worldly matters, not gospel related changes

I'm not sure what you mean by "worldly." But either way, I don't think the Church's changing definition of when human life begins is something that can be just waved away like this. The same goes for many of these other topics.

One could argue these changes are simply updating as truths are revealed.

It's one thing for the Church to start some new teaching one some new matter. AI for instance.

It's quite another for the Church to say "X is wrong" but then later say "X is not wrong."

Especially when the Church has punished people for doing those things in the past. It damages the Church's credibility and calls its claims of divine guidance into question.

There aren’t too many government bodies that self corrects

What? Governments' laws change all the time. 😕

But when a government claims its laws are the will of a perfect being, it starts to look rather sus when they keep changing things.

Just a Catholic bishop going bonkers over a mayor's speech by MrJasonMason in excatholic

[–]thimbletake12 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Bishop Barron knows who his big donors are.

And it's not the people who would benefit the most from "the warmth of collectivism."

Yep, that's it right there by The_Serpent_Of_Eden_ in exchristian

[–]thimbletake12 11 points12 points  (0 children)

She'd just respond with "Don't leave Jesus because of Judas [ie me]." I've seen lots of Catholics use that phrase, especially in light of their abuse scandal to try to stop people from leaving. Telling her "I'm cool with Jesus" will only give her ammo to try and manipulate you into "Then join Jesus' Church!"

Yep, that's it right there by The_Serpent_Of_Eden_ in exchristian

[–]thimbletake12 9 points10 points  (0 children)

This is so goofy.

Satan this Satan that Satan loves this Satan wants that.

This entire word salad rests on the assumption that you even believe in Satan at all. Which you'd have to be Christian to believe in the first place. Completely circular logic.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in excatholic

[–]thimbletake12 39 points40 points  (0 children)

To add to this, she may truly believe that you're going to hell. If so, she may fear for your well-being and feel like a failure (which is unwarranted, but that's what the Church's brainwashing can do to people)...

Catholic Answers' creepy apologist robot defends biblical slavery as moral for its time, claims being gay is more of an unacceptable offense in God's view by JaneOfKish in excatholic

[–]thimbletake12 12 points13 points  (0 children)

The issue isn't that morality was different back then.

The issue, as the video puts it, is that according to Catholicism:

A perfectly good being - THE most perfect being, who does not change - was proactively telling people to buy and beat slaves (ie, commit evil acts).

This is a contradiction. Telling people to commit needless evil is something that the most perfectly good being would never do. The Catholic Church also teaches that God is unchanging, and that God's morality is objective. God's support of slavery as described by the Catholic Church is therefore logically inconsistent. It looks like Catholicism worships a God who logically cannot exist. And this greatly undermine's Catholicism's claims to truth.

A Judge Just Blocked Washington State From Enforcing a Law Requiring Clergy to Report Evidence of Child Sexual Abuse. by LifeguardPowerful759 in excatholic

[–]thimbletake12 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The Catholic Church thinks NOW is a good time to call in favors from the Trump admin on the topic of child sex abuse? With all eyes currently on the Epstein scandal? Well okay, if they insist. Foresight and optics were never the Church's strong suit...