This shouldn't even be on my blog, as it's meant as a reply to someone else's blog, but as it far exceeds what is allowed to be posted in the "comments," I'm posting here in reply to what someone decided to say to me publicly. I have not once named any of my ex-friends by name and said anything about them publicly, but this person rolls a little differently. This is the link to which it's a reply: http://themeltdowncontinues.blogspot.com/2014/07/tara-chapman-writes-to-memy-answer.html#comment-form
Interesting. You know, if it hadn't been for my husband, I'd have never seen your answer, because I don't read your blog. I've refused to read any of the other things that he's read, because it's your own problem that you stroke your pride by naming me out and talking about me, and for those who are moral and intelligent wouldn't just take your word for it.
I don't intend to bring myself down to your level by publicly naming you and saying all the things I could say. I will, however, say enough to answer these questions, since you obviously want them publicized. Don't want to disappoint.
Being forty years my senior is no reason to think so highly of yourself. Most of my friends are a decade or two older than I and often come to me for advice. Even in the bible there are stories that teach age doesn't mean everything. Think of Jeremiah being "but a child," David saying he was wiser than all his teachers because of Yahweh's/Jehovah's law, and Jesus himself at twelve astounding the religious teachers at the temple.
I stopped reading your site a long time ago. That has mostly been the case since your nonsensical hell article three years or so ago, teaching that the devils would be tormented forever (sounds satanic to me, so I kept a relationship with "God" as if he wasn't satanic and would desire to torture anyone for eternity), and yet you twisted some verses to then say that the fire wouldn't do anything to them but that they'd wander around forever after the fire burned out. Firstly Jesus clearly said that the fire was prepared for "Satan and his angels." If it were to do nothing to them, then it would be pointless. Secondly, you formed a doctrine using verses out of Jude that doesn't have anything to do with any angels. Verse 13's "wandering stars" doesn't mean angels. The entire thing since verse 4 is talking of men. Verses 12 and 13 use metaphors. The men are wandering stars. The remaining "to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever" doesn't mean someone is going to wander in the darkness forever. If the "stars" in that verse mean angels, then it's on you to define who are the raging waves and who are the trees whose fruit withers, etc. All of these things are metaphors using things in nature for the men the entire thing since verse four is about. Just because you believed it didn't mean I did. Not only do the verses not say all those things, but my morals caused me to revolt at the thought of anyone of love wanting to torture anyone forever. Either the bible teaches the fire burns all, or all are somehow tortured forever, depending on which other verses you go by in the bible. I remember you chose to dwell on the Revelation verse. The book of Revelation almost didn't even make it into the bible canon.
Or with non-biblical issues, just two quick examples: How old does one need to be to know it's not a blueberry he is eating? You boasted publicly on your blog that there are healthful things to eat like chocolate blueberries, right after a Feast of Tabernacles you spent with us when you purchased chocolate-covered blueberry-flavored (natural and artificial) corn syrup balls. Most people would know, I think, whether they're biting an actual blueberry or a sugary and gritty corn syrup candy, without looking at the ingredients. At better you had never eaten a blueberry in your seventy years and were simply ignorant, or at worse you were lying to make your audience believe you ate real blueberries. Another example is a time you posted on your blog a comment on an article talking about how you should make sure you eat a fat (like an olive oil salad dressing, for example) with greens. Your comment was that people should not worry about eating any fat, just as long as they ate the greens. But it's a scientific fact that vitamin A (in which dark, leafy greens are rich) is fat-soluble, meaning you are not going to absorb it without the assistance of fat. Most vitamins are water-soluble, but things like vitamins A and D are fat-soluble. I didn't say anything to you about those things at those times, because frankly I tired of correcting you of things over the years, and that is the main reason why I unsubscribed from your blog the first time, because it was better that I not even put it before my eyes. You like to believe whatever you want, anyway, and often ignore evidence, so it was a stressful waste of my time. A third example, which was in the last blog post I was emailed before I unsubbed again, you were talking of Israel in a positive light and the Palestinians as "fanatics." There you go again publicly boasting a bias without proper evidence of things. You commented that the "fanatics" shouldn't think they could fight Israel. Well, maybe it is so, but if you were run out of your home, you might fight for it, too. If the Israelis were killing your children, you might fight, too. If you'd look up the facts, Israel has killed far more Palestinian citizens and far, far more Palestinian children, and some of the Israeli children that have died were from "friendly" fire. A lot of the Palestinians are also Christians. I saw a documentary three or four years ago that was very eye-opening. Different ones were interviewed there, and it was no surprise that the Jews interviewed were full of pride (because they think they are god's "chosen people") and hateful. The Palestinians were friendly and just wanted to live in peace. (That's not to say there are bad Palestinians and good Jews, because of course there are.) Then there were these Christians from the U.S. who had moved over there to do work for the Jews, because they felt it their Christian duty to help prepare the land for Christ's return and that the Jews were the chosen people. And you know what the Jew who was asked his opinion said? He was more than happy that people foolishly offered to do their work for them. It was sick the way he acted about it. You know, there could have been peace over there a long time ago if Israel would just agree to divide the land. It's their sick religion that keeps the fighting going. Same for the Muslims. And for the Christians.
And no, you haven't honestly investigated the evidence against the bible, nor have you read the bible with a fresh perspective, or you would have come to the same realization I have…unless you're dishonest. That's the only way, after seeing enough evidence and meditating on the immorality of the contents of the bible with the brainwashing set aside, to decide to stick with it.
The people who are deceived are the ones who have clung to one of the many revealed religions and/or their holy books. Even if the bible was the truth (which it's not), it would be immoral to serve a satanic god that is an absentee dad and is pathetic enough to leave his job to men who can't agree, leading to the vast number of religious beliefs we see today. Not two people on this earth agree 100%, and that is why the groups keep growing. Also, the knowledge of good and evil is a good thing. It's what helps us make judgments. Otherwise how would we know if what someone told us was good or not? How would we know that the authority figure wasn't telling us to do evil? A lot of the things Yahweh supposedly instructed Israel to do were evil. Since I know the difference between good and evil, I know that a lot of those things were very evil. I also knew in my heart since I wrote the ten commandments book that defending genocide and slavery were wrong. The bible god was wrong. That's because a Bronze Age tribe adopted that god, the god of war, so that they could slaughter, rape, torture, and burn. That god COMMANDED genocide and rape and burning. That god COMMANDED child sacrifices to lay the foundation of the rebuilt Jericho. That god COMMANDED thirty-two captured virgins to be offered as a heave offering. And on and on I could go. Now, as people's morals evolved, you can see later on in the bible that the prophets imagine good things, and all of a sudden the god takes on a a more moral character. Then there were some in the first century who decided to reverse engineer the old testament to start a new religion.
Isn't that fancy how you didn't give your readers a background to what I meant when I said I knew how you'd respond so that then you could twist my words to mean something they did not. Either you knew better (by the sounds of it) and decided to lie again, or it's just one more example of how you are clueless about something you read or watch. When I said I knew how you'd respond, I meant that I knew you and one other "friend" would reject me and not want to be friends with me anymore, simply because of a belief. The reason how I knew is because I get a read on a person's heart and character after so many years, so I had come to know what kind of person you are. You are not one of forgiveness, patience, humility, honesty, and other good qualities. You do not live by what I termed the "spiritual covenant," but rather you live by the idea of the "carnal covenant." You believe it takes fear to get someone to obey. It's because each person views religion by his or her own character. I have come to that realization. I would have never done something like that to one of my friends, but then I judge friendships by character and behavior, not by belief, and I'm very forgiving and patient, so I am willing to go through a lot of junk with someone before I give them up. My questions had kept mounting more and more over the years, but really it was a mixture of the UCG experience and you that let me be more open to really questioning the validity of the bible being the word of God altogether. I was learning more and more about you, as you were revealing your true self, and it sickened me. It could not be of god. Not the god in which I believed. My god didn't make me that way, the way you and other "ministers" in the churches are. But then there is a certain cartoon that is very eye-opening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j8ZMMuu7MU That says it all. That explains why my god was so loving, forgiving, and kind. It's because that's who I am. It explains how others who claim to love and serve the same god I did are so unforgiving, hateful, revengeful can be that way. This explains why people in ANY religion can be any way. Of course, there are some good people who then are ruined by religion. Thankfully in my case, just as I got out of public school without losing my love of learning, so I got out of religion without losing my morals and kindness.
My comment on knowing how you'd respond had absolutely nothing to do with any research you've done about anything. You were WAY off topic. Not a surprise, though.
Okay, your next comment didn't make a bit of sense, either. I asked you whether you had investigated the "Christian" holidays in order to come to the realization that they were pagan. I already knew you had indeed done that, because you've said it in the past. It was a rhetorical question to clue you into the fact that you need to also research where the Jewish holidays originally came from (they are not originally Israelite or Jewish, in other words) before you tell me that I'm wrong. When I asked whether you had anyone telling you that you were wrong then, I meant when you decided not to keep the pagan holidays anymore. If you NEVER had anyone tell you that you were wrong, then you're a pathetic Christian indeed, because pretty well everyone else has been judged for not keeping Christmas by those who do. But then again, since you always visited your dad at Christmas, anyway, (and judging by an article you wrote on the topic, I assume you at the Christmas feast), then I guess nothing much was different for you, so I can see why maybe no one persecuted you for it. Anyway, either you missed my point (as usual), or you are ignoring it. My point was that before you judge, you should do your own research. The holidays in Leviticus did NOT originate with Israel. They were borrowed and adapted.
Oh, when I said I knew some people were concerned for me, I meant the ones with good hearts who honestly believe they've still got the truth and believe I'm being deceived by a devil. No, I don't imagine you have any concern at all, although you sure haven't forgotten me. Ironic, isn't it, that you're the one I could ruin, but I'm not publicly stapling your name on any site and making post after post about you. Ironic how I'm supposedly the one who is evil, and yet you're the one who is trying to make yourself look better by lying about me and twisting my words to suit you. You might not have any loving concern for me, true, but you certainly are hung up on me, I do declare! You're just like the rest of the COG "ministers." Hateful and prideful and so very wrong and blind.
You might BELIEVE the new testament is inspired (what about the old, because the new means nothing if the old wasn't?), but that's because it sells, and so it keeps going. It doesn't mean that it is inspired. There are more differences in the numerous NT manuscripts than there are words in the NT! And there are many more added and changed things then you realize. You might know the stuff in John's letter about the trinity was added and that those verses in Mark were added, but it goes much deeper than that. Bart Ehrman, a new testament scholar (and others like him), have shared with the public all kinds of things that a person ought to know when reading the bible. He started out as an evangelical Christian himself, but he came to the point when he realized he could not honestly reconcile his faith with the evidence. Entire stories being added in later manuscripts, words being changed, divinity of the messiah added in, and more.
Ironic how you're the one who quoted about ever learning and not coming to the truth, yet you already think you've got the truth, so you're no longer searching. I learn at least one new thing every day. It just so happens that one of the recent things I learned was that the bible is not the word of any god.
Just think about it, anyway. Why would I be obligated to believe what anyone ELSE wrote saying that God talked to him? I would not be obligated and would be gullible for believing him, unless God talked to me. Since none of us has seen God, it would be ludicrous for any of us to believe someone else when he says he has seen him and talked to him and was given a word to write down. Even my children know well enough when one child goes to relay a message to another, for the latter to come to me to really see whether I said the thing.
The bible also has Jesus praying that all that would be believers of his word would be one with him and God so that the world would believe that he had sent him. Well, I must say that God has done a pathetic job of answering that prayer. The believers in Christ are far from being one. There are so many different beliefs. It's not from god.
Any sane person who has read the bible has had questions, lots of questions. The more a thinking person you are, the more questions you've got. When you realize it's all just man-made, the questions are all at once answered. There's no longer any confusion. The bible says that God is not the author of confusion, but that is indeed what the bible is. No two people agree on everything in it.
Yes, I'm the same person, and that's all that matters. I was the same before, during, and after, and so I'll remain. Now maybe someone like you feels like he's got to stay attached in order to stay in line. Indeed, some people, if not bridled by religion, will go off doing the most horrid things. But I don't know why people like that even think they're going to be "saved," anyway. What I got out of the bible was that you'd be judged by your heart, anyway. So no matter how much you are keeping some law out of fear of punishment, if wish in your heart you could do evil to a person or steal his or her property, you will die the "second death."
Oh, and perhaps I should remind you that the ninth commandment says not to bear false witness, and you've already done plenty of that against me.
Oh, there you go assuming again. So you commented on my comment about someone else I knew who had left religion, and you said that makes me feel better. YOU said it. I didn't. What I DID say was that I understand now. And yes, you're right. MANY people are coming to the truth now that the bible is a book of myths, just like the other myths, many that predate the bible but which the bible copied from.
Well, in my view, a person that ditches someone according to belief and not character and behavior is not "Godly" or "Christian," but then I guess that only proves I was never the same kind of "Christian" you were. I have no idea what goes on in such a person's head, but that kind of action only confirms to me that I did the right thing. If that's the kind of fruit "Christian" religion brings forth, I do not want to be a part of it. The good fruit I brought forth in my life was apparently not Christian in the sense that you count Christian. Usually a person's behavior will draw a person to his or her religion (or threat of death), because they think the person is so kind. I've seen your heart, and I don't want any part of your religion. I can see clearly that the religion as a whole has brought nothing but bad fruit over the millennia, whether it's Catholic, Protestant, Church of God sabbath-keeping, Jehovah's Witnesses, or otherwise. It's the few INDIVIDUALS here and there who are good and bring forth good fruit, and they would be that way regardless of whether they believed in the bible, or the Koran, the Book of Mormon, or no book at all. No, I never want to go by the name of Christian. You've shown me well enough how evil a person you can be, so it matters not whether you are Christian or Muslim or whatever. You are prideful and hateful, just like the other church of God ministers.
"I'm still here to be your friend, if you find me worth talking to." --My quote
ANSWER: I'm doing what I'm supposed to do when someone leaves the faith. God still loves you; I and ones like myself still love you; yet I must follow the instructions left to us by what I consider inspired through Paul and John and wherever found in the New Testament. --Your quote
Ah, what you're "supposed to do." Or what you think you are, anyway, depending on what set of verses you use. Pretty pathetic setup, if you ask me. Not sure how the writers of that thought that would ever bring someone back, as IF they'd want to have anything to do with such cruel people ever again. And you may "love" me in word, but you don't in deed, and that's what matters. Anyone can "say" anything. But it's the actions that truly reveal. It is not love to reject someone just because they don't believe something you do. You are failing to use your OWN judgement and your own capacity to TRULY LOVE, because you believe you're bound by some terrible command. That's pathetic. I certainly would have never done that, but I guess my love for others outshines the "god-inspired" verses you're going by. You know, a dear woman with whom I went to church at UCG emailed me, who hasn't seen me in months, since before this happened, and she had read my blog posts, and she has been nothing but kind to me. She's another intellectual, though. (I guess there's something to the intellectuals. They're just too kind and caring. Maybe it's brain advancement, not as close to a wild beast.) Maybe I should tell her the bible tells her not to talk to me. She's not being a good Christian. But I'll tell you one thing. It's a person like that who would be more likely to turn someone back, not someone who says hateful things and lies. You might want to question what kind of being truly inspired such garbage that you follow, since it's worthless. I don't know what kind of person in his or her right mind, after being abused, would want to turn back to the abusers. INSANITY!!! Are you mad?!?!
You said you've got a forty years head start on me. I already explained that before. That means very little. It means your life clock is ticking down. It shouldn't take seventy years for a person to know the difference between a corn syrup candy and a real blueberry. And there have been plenty of COG ministers all wrinkled and old whom I've debunked on various biblical matters. You're just using your age as another factor to boost your pride. I'm thankful I've come to this knowledge in my thirties. You may see yourself as having a forty-year head start, but I see you as already being in your seventies and still not realizing the bible is not God's word.
You said this is a heartache to you, but I wonder in what sense. If you truly had any love for me, you sure wouldn't be acting the way you're doing. I think it's personal to you. I think I ruined some delusion you had in your mind.
Oh! And my Love said something a few days ago, something about your saying that I must have given in, because it's too hard to live with an atheist. Another wrong assumption. It's very much the opposite. I've lived for many years with him that way (though he didn't have the knowledge he's now gathered the past two years; he just knew the bible lied to him when he prayed his son would live and didn't, even though the bible promises if you ask of anything in his name, it will be given), and he's been very respectful to me and has even more or less kept holidays with me, has let me lie to our children (though that has bothered him) in teaching them the bible myths as if they were true. We've gotten along very well. He even twice tried to live as a Christian again by reading the bible and praying, but neither time lasted long, as he just couldn't do it, knowing what he knew. So, I could have kept on living the way I had, and it would have continued to be easy. There were two, maybe three times, over the past year that our discussions (we've always enjoyed discussions) turned more into grill sessions toward me, it seemed, where I became overwhelmed, because I honestly did not have the answers. You would have fallen on your face. He has told me that I'm the ONLY one he has debated that had a chance of turning him. That's because I don't use circular arguments. I was actually ashamed of you when you were here the last time, and I was nursing the baby in my room, and you were talking to him and a friend, and you were basically saying that you knew the bible was the truth, because the bible says it's the truth. That's a circular argument. It was pathetic. Anyway, the EASY thing would have been to refuse to look into the other claims and keep going. I chose the DIFFICULT thing that has caused difficulties with persons such as yourself. So for you to imply that I'm weak and chose the easy way is a huge lie.
Ok, so what about those bible verses? I could apply all sorts of bible verses to you, because you lie or because you've been twice-divorced, or because you're prideful and think you've got more truth than anyone else. Maybe I should quote the proverbs to you about pride coming before a fall.
And DIALOGUE??? You just posted your answer to your email (which I would have NEVER seen had my husband not said anything; I told him I don't want to hear your junk) publicly on your blog. That's NOT a dialogue. The prefix di- means two. A in this case means between, and logue comes from the Greek logos meaning word. It means a conversation between two people, and the second person (yours truly) almost didn't even see it. If my husband would not have actually sent me a screenshot in my text, I would have refused to know about it at all. I suggest to you in the future if you want a true DIALOGUE, then you send it to me. Otherwise use a truthful word.
In ANY of my future Youtube videos or anything I write, I was perfectly planning on not revealing your identity when I refer to you (because I'm not like you), but it seems that you have no problem using my name and saying all manner of LIES about me. I don't think you want me to tell the TRUTH about you, at least not with your name attached. You might consider that. I would be able to easily draw your web traffic to a site that exposed the truth about you, which would undoubtedly catch a person's eye much better than your actual site. It would be EASY for me to get it ranked right up with your site in the search engines.
I would not have to lie about you (and wouldn't) to ruin you. All I would need to do is tell the truth. I can even use screenshots of actual emails, so there's no doubt in anyone's mind. I still have all my records. You're no different than any of the other COG ministers that you've bad-mouthed over all the years, and I've got the proof. Then EVERYONE ELSE can know the real you, just as I have gotten to know very well over the last several years.
And to think… You're likely writing all these lies and assumptions about me on the $1,200 iMac computer that my husband and I kindly gifted to you. Absolutely no respect for what I've done for you and how kindly I've treated you all these years. None of what I actually DID counts for anything up against the single transgression of not BELIEVING something you still do. You REALLY should go click on the Youtube link I included above. I'll actually make it easy and post it here again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j8ZMMuu7MU That says it all. Because I simply no longer believe in the supposed same god in which you believe, you take it as a rejection, because it's really you who are your god. That also explains why I wouldn't have treated you the same way, because the "me god" is a god of kind and forgiving nature who doesn't have to believe everything another person does to be friends with him, just so long as they don't harm people or property.