A Conversation with Ruby [Archive]

Christian

13th February 2004, 01:20 PM

Ruby

Here a sample of your comments:

Originally posted by Ruby on 01-30-2004 in The psychology of Hell

Fear, fear fear. That seems to be the biggest motivaton behind so much in Christianity...although so many Christians can't see it. So many who have doubts, but still cling to Christianity, would never admit that they hold on due to a deep seated fear that "Hell" might still be for real.
_____________________________________________

I have been angered by the hardheartedness and mercilessness of those who, as you said, "take some perverse glee in describing the torments of the damned". Rapture ready forum....and other Christian forums have their fair share of those who get their jollies talking about how torturous they think "hell" is. The more hideous and agonizing they make it sound, the more they seem to get off on it.................even though some will say how desperately they don't want anyone to end up in "hell". Even if they say that, I still get the feeling that on some level they can't wait for people to be sent there.

Originally posted by Ruby on 01-15-2004 in Are Christians Persecuted? A Replication Poll

So, I get pretty ticked off when Christians start running on about being persecuted. However, I know it's just a sort of brainwashed view. I had it once too. I would not...could not face the facts. I had to believe that we had it rough...even though I knew we had it great....if that makes any sense!!!

Originally posted by Ruby on 11-19-2003 in Motivation for morals

When I was a Christian, I was motivated by fear to be moral...this turned into legalism. Most Christians went around feeling superior if they abstained from more "worldly" things than other Christians. For some, it was considered immoral to drink alcohol. For others, to wear make-up was immoral. So many Christians spent far too much time worrying and sweating over little things to even face the fact that they were being immoral in the big things...where it really counted. I found many christians to be harsh and condemning of others...and the biggest backstabbing gossips. The spread of false and malicious stories was rampant. There were abuses of every sort...including sexual.

Christians have not cornered the market on morals!!

Now, as an agnostic, I choose to be moral...without fear or pressure....without legalism...without pretense. I don't expect or wait to be rewarded for doing a good deed...as christians always do.....I just do good deeds, period...expecting nothing.

I feel better about myself due to this.
___________________________________________

Poor Catholics get picked on so bad by a lot of Christian....especially 1st United Pencostal christians. I think they'd just like to burn them all at the stake. It's so horrid how they talk about them

Originally posted by Ruby on Most irritating theological argument ever

The guy's only "good" argument for the legitimacy of the bible was that it is "powerful" . He says the Holy spirit moves you as you read it. You "feel" something. Personally, I "feel" more reading a novel or watching a comedy or horror movie. I am much more moved by listening to Vivaldi or Puccini.

Anyway, I guess that is one of the most ridiculous arguments I hear a lot from Christians.

Originally posted by Ruby on 09-02-2003 in Contradictions needed!

It does help that I've had years of bible study. In the lists of contradictions, I know so many that can be explained away by fundamentalist christian. I know the aruments and pat answers. Some are pitiful...some are logical......few are logical.

Ruby wrote:
I was not aware that I have "Constantly" talked down about Christians. I will stand corrected if that is the case. Perhaps I have made a reputation on JREF for cutting down Christians without even realizing it.

Constantly is a subjective term I used loosely, nevertheless, you have done it sufficiently enough to accept challenges and observations.

That you successfully vilified me, does not stop me from asserting that my statements have gone unchallenged by you. And I believe that because of your comments, I have the right to make them without being perceived as an attacker (the villain)objectivity is hard to find. This crowd is as any, biased].

You have missrepresented my position. (this is another fact I point out.

And I believe you are wrong. You can't take a position and the complain if someone calls you on it.

Here our exchange in the blinding power of fear:

Ruby
Yes, it sure is. What you described above was one of the very type of things that caused me to rethink my belief system. I knew, that as a parent, if I had foreknowledge of my little girl being molested, raped, or killed, I would prevent it from happening.

"God" is supposed to have this foreknowledge....omiscience, but he lets tons of little girls and boys get raped and murdered every day all over the world. How could I believe such a god as this existed? "A loving parent" is how the christian church presents god...his love is supposed to be perfect!!! "He loves us more than we love our own children"....I heard that so many times. I bought it for awhile...but then it just did not add up..it did not play out at all.

Me:
You are entitle to your opinion, of course. But, in this specific instance, you are showing a poor understanding of the Christian dogma.

Ruby:
I lived with Christian dogma for about 13 years.......most of that was as a Charismatic Christian. I used to debate.....apologetics......on a Christian forum that I ran........so I know Christian dogma very well!!!

Me:
Well, I think you don't. Furthermore, I don't think you stopped being a Christian for intellectual reasons.

From your posts, I see very little intellectual reasoning and a lot of emotional elements.

The refutation for the "the suffering in world" by non-believers is very basic and straight forward. That you come out and say this is one of the reasons you had to rethink your belief system is intellectual lazyness or a cop-out answer.

Ruby:
Thanks for your kind words and very astute conclusion about my post. (major sarcasm!)

Why are you already resorting to insults with me?

I really don't care if you choose not to believe me, I know what the truth is, but it was intellectual reasons that began my ascent, into unbelief as a Christian....but these things were seeds..little doubts.....but along the way, a lot of emotional things happened too. When I left the church it was for a combination of emotional and intellectual reasons. I don't think I have ever denied that the church hurt me emotionally.

My departure from church began a big search and study to grasp all the logic, reason, science, and other proof that exists to disprove Christianity.......most of this happened on here....actually, I came on here when I was still a Christian.

Granted, I am not a great intellectual like most on this forum.....but most do not throw it in my face as you have just done. That just seems like typical Christian ego to me!! Thanks for the reminder!

Ruby:
It has so impacted and changed my life being on here. But I am no good for debates.....especially when people keep making sarcastic comments about my intelligence or rather my lack of it.

Me:
Ruby wrote:
Why are you already resorting to insults with me?

Please don't play the victim. I have been factual about my observations to you. If you find this insulting, it is the nature of a forum where debate is common.

I stand by my assertion as factual. You are suggesting name-calling and such. Far from it.

I really don't care if you choose not to believe me, I know what the truth is, but it was intellectual reasons that began my descent, into unbelief as a Christian....but these things were seeds..little doubts.....but along the way, a lot of emotional things happened too. When I left the church it was for a combination of emotional and intellectual reasons. I don't think I have ever denied that the church hurt me emotionally.

Well, I'm flat out saying you haven't done it for intellectual reasons. If you are in this new path of rationality and truth. Then you should be objective and prove me wrong.

My departure from church began a big search and study to grasp all the logic, reason, science, and other proof that exists to disprove Christianity.......most of this happened on here....actually, I came on here when I was still a Christian.

I have read many of your posts and in them you show very little intellectual work regarding logic, reason, science and other. This is a fact that I'm pointing out to you.

I have a personal interest in disputing your "conversion" because you are an example that the leap from Christian to atheism is not intellectual. And when you write about Christians, you put them down. I once had to call you on a particularly offensive comment.

If I say you are not being intellectual honest in this matter, instead of playing the victim, you should analize that. You should ponder it. It is your duty now that you are not bound by church dogma.

Now, in this arena, you must refute arguments on their merit, because in this arena anyone can question your beliefs. I question your beliefs. I want to know why you believe you have free will (as you have stated in this thread)

Granted, I am not a great intellectual like most on this forum.....but most do not throw it in my face as you have just done.

Again, you play the victim. If I say you are being intellectually lazy on this subject, accept it or refute it. It is an objective observation. Please don't translate that to mean you are less able intellectually.

You are in this new arena, the arena where you have to show your intellectual work. How you have come to conclusion and why. I have seen very little of this. Even now.

You are not neutral, you speak tons of bad thing about Christians. It is my right and duty to chanllenge your reasoning, your arguments.

That just seems like typical Christian ego to me!! Thanks for the reminder!

And in this particular instance you show exactly what I'm talking about.

Me:

Ruby wrote:
Why are you already resorting to insults with me?

Please don't play the victim. I have been factual about my observations to you. If you find this insulting, it is the nature of a forum where debate is common.

I stand by my assertion as factual. You are suggesting name-calling and such. Far from it.

I really don't care if you choose not to believe me, I know what the truth is, but it was intellectual reasons that began my descent, into unbelief as a Christian....but these things were seeds..little doubts.....but along the way, a lot of emotional things happened too. When I left the church it was for a combination of emotional and intellectual reasons. I don't think I have ever denied that the church hurt me emotionally.

Well, I'm flat out saying you haven't done it for intellectual reasons. If you are in this new path of rationality and truth. Then you should be objective and prove me wrong.

My departure from church began a big search and study to grasp all the logic, reason, science, and other proof that exists to disprove Christianity.......most of this happened on here....actually, I came on here when I was still a Christian.

I have read many of your posts and in them you show very little intellectual work regarding logic, reason, science and other. This is a fact that I'm pointing out to you.

I have a personal interest in disputing your "conversion" because you are an example that the leap from Christian to atheism is not intellectual. And when you write about Christians, you put them down. I once had to call you on a particularly offensive comment.

If I say you are not being intellectual honest in this matter, instead of playing the victim, you should analize that. You should ponder it. It is your duty now that you are not bound by church dogma.

Now, in this arena, you must refute arguments on their merit, because in this arena anyone can question your beliefs. I question your beliefs. I want to know why you believe you have free will (as you have stated in this thread)

Granted, I am not a great intellectual like most on this forum.....but most do not throw it in my face as you have just done.

Again, you play the victim. If I say you are being intellectually lazy on this subject, accept it or refute it. It is an objective observation. Please don't translate that to mean you are less able intellectually.

You are in this new arena, the arena where you have to show your intellectual work. How you have come to conclusion and why. I have seen very little of this. Even now.

You are not neutral, you speak tons of bad thing about Christians. It is my right and duty to chanllenge your reasoning, your arguments.

That just seems like typical Christian ego to me!! Thanks for the reminder!

Ruby:

Dang, I hate it when I say I'm taking a break and then I read a post like this and feel compelled to reply!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Christian
Ruby wrote:
Why are you already resorting to insults with me?

Please don't play the victim. I have been factual about my observations to you. If you find this insulting, it is the nature of a forum where debate is common.

First you insult me, and now you are turning it around to put the blame back on me by accusing me of playing the "victim". Nice work!

That keeps your conscious free of having hurt my feelings. Very clever indeed.
quote:

I stand by my assertion as factual. You are suggesting name-calling and such. Far from it.

I don't think I'm off my head.....at least one person backed me up on this.

To me, what you have said, sounds like a total put down on my intelligence when it comes to my posts on here. I find it harsh.

Some people have the ability to be harsh and be absolutely blind to it. I find it fascinating to meet someone like that. The only other person I recall who was like that on here was Dark Cobra/Lord Kenneth.....but admittedly, he was even worse towards me.

quote:

I really don't care if you choose not to believe me, I know what the truth is, but it was intellectual reasons that began my ascent, into unbelief as a Christian....but these things were seeds..little doubts.....but along the way, a lot of emotional things happened too. When I left the church it was for a combination of emotional and intellectual reasons. I don't think I have ever denied that the church hurt me emotionally.

Well, I'm flat out saying you haven't done it for intellectual reasons. If you are in this new path of rationality and truth. Then you should be objective and prove me wrong.

For the most part, I don't feel that I owe you anything. Call it a cop-out or whatever you want. It is a fact that I have some cognitive problems.....due to an illness......and I am not as good at debates and being as intellectually sharp minded as I used to be in the past. It is also a fact, that, on the whole, I am not as intelligent as most of the people on JREF. Sometimes, this is daunting to me.....to come on here and read posts and have to sit and think hard to understand what is being said.
quote:

My departure from church began a big search and study to grasp all the logic, reason, science, and other proof that exists to disprove Christianity.......most of this happened on here....actually, I came on here when I was still a Christian.

I have read many of your posts and in them you show very little intellectual work regarding logic, reason, science and other. This is a fact that I'm pointing out to you.

Yes, this is a fact. I avoid most deep discussions on science and philosophical reasoning. It is way over my head. That does not mean there are not intellectual reasons why I left Christianity. It just means that the level of intelligence these discussions reach is over my head. It also means that I have hard time communicating what is in my brain.

Now, if I could persuade my husband to come on here.......he is much more an intellectual than I am. In fact, he is way way above me in intelligence being an engineering geek type.....but he could explain very well what it was that we struggled with intellectually as christians, and what led us away from Christianity. Anyhow, he is way too busy to do that.
quote:

I have a personal interest in disputing your "conversion" because you are an example that the leap from Christian to atheism is not intellectual.

I only de-converted from Christianity last year. I don't exactly recall the month this happened in, but I think it was around August. I became an "agnostic" as soon as I left Christianity as I did not know any other label to use at the time, and I had a lot to sort out, and a lot to study.

I have never called myself an Atheist. Just recently, in this thread, I did make a comment about not believing God exists, I think.........but that's the first time I've said such a thing. I've been a Deist and a Secular Humanist for a few months now. I'm not so sure I believe there is a God, period, anymore......some days, I think there has to have been a creator, and other days I think no way, so I can't keep saying I'm a Deist. I am a Secular Humanist......and this is something that was actually drawing me away from Christianity, but I did not know it had a name.....and it took months before I discovered all about it. I have not explored that belief system to it's fullest, but it's already been life changing.

I don't consider myself an Atheist. I don't know a thing about being an atheist or the atheist defense. So, you have chosen the wrong subject to use as an example of a Christian making the leap from Christianty to Atheism not being an intellectual one.
quote:

quote:
And when you write about Christians, you put them down. I once had to call you on a particularly offensive comment.

LOL. Are referring to this thread? http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/show...20&pagenumber=1

I started that thread and had made this statement in it Ruby wrote:
I AM SO F%%KING sick of fundamental Christians!!!!!

You replied Do you have the same level of tolerance for atheists?

To which I replied Sorry to offend you. I should have rephrased that statement to say "I am so F&&king sick of most fundamental Christians!!".

I realize that there are some nice fundamental Christians out there, but I feel sure that most of them would give me a bashing for the things I am believing in....or not believing in.

Most atheist's I have met online have been kind and understanding. I feel at home on JREF. Do you think if I posted on a fundamentalist Christian forum that I would get the same treatment? Not likely!! I'd be accused of being used of the devil or being possessed or deluded by the "dark side". I'd have scripture after scripture shoved down my throat and I'd be warned that I was on the highway to hell.

I am not willing to open myself up to more "spiritual"/emotional abuse.

Do you realize that I was still a Christian when I made all those statements? I had been deeply wounded by my church...my Pastor and some friends................the Pastor betrayed my husband's trust. It was all a mess. It caused about a third of the church to leave. I was very hurt. I was venting on here....a safe place to do so................except not safe from you....since you are throwing it back at me.

I really don't make a habit of slamming Christians. I do admit to losing my temper at times and getting upset at those Christians who are cruel and legalistic....but I have some friends and relatives who are Christians and I love them dearly and respect them as they respect and love me too.

Besides, if I am hurt or upset by a Christian, I have every right to come on here and vent about it.

quote:

If I say you are not being intellectual honest in this matter, instead of playing the victim, you should analize that. You should ponder it. It is your duty now that you are not bound by church dogma.

Whatever you say. I don't feel duty bound to you. But just to let you know, I have pondered so much in the past six months. I have dicussed so much with my husband and we have both done lots of research. I am very tired right now.
quote:

Now, in this arena, you must refute arguments on their merit, because in this arena anyone can question your beliefs. I question your beliefs. I want to know why you believe you have free will (as you have stated in this thread)

Because as a Christian, I had rules to live by based on bible interpretations according to what denomination I was in, church authority to answer to, criticism and expectations to follow me, condemnation to carry and live under, facades and appearances to keep up, never being able to take or give credit to yourself or others without including "God", or totally exluding yourself and/or others and giving it all to "God". I never felt that I had Freewill under these conditions. Now, with all that gone, I do.
quote:

Granted, I am not a great intellectual like most on this forum.....but most do not throw it in my face as you have just done.
Again, you play the victim. If I say you are being intellectually lazy on this subject, accept it or refute it. It is an objective observation. Please don't translate that to mean you are less able intellectually.

In a sense, I am intellectually lazy. You will call this a cop-out or playing the victim.......but I am very tired now due to fibromyalgia. It's a painful illness that also effects cognitve abilties. I haven't got what it takes to debate things on a highly intellectual level. It seems nuts to debate whether or not I am intellectually lazy or not anyway......and not what this thread is about.

quote:

You are in this new arena, the arena where you have to show your intellectual work. How you have come to conclusion and why. I have seen very little of this. Even now.

You are not my God, or my King or my Judge. I do not have to show you anything. This thread has not been about showing one's intellectual work. The topic is "The Blinding Power of Fear". The first post was not over my head....so I posted as I have been caught up in fear myself. Why do you have to turn this into some great big intellectual debate with me that has nothing to do with the thread topic, but all to do with me. Go pick on someone you own size!!

The rest is already on record.

Some Friggin Guy

13th February 2004, 02:00 PM

Christian,

I don't want to step into a debate here, and I certainly can't speak for Ruby, but I can talk about my view on something you said and back it up with my own experience.

You mention that you think Ruby did not make her desicion for intellectual reasons. To that, I can only respond "yeah? And?"

The fact is, not everyone leaves the church for intellectual reasons. I am willing to bet that no one actually joins the church for intellectual reasons.

Whether she made her choice intellectually or not, she is still getting used to her situation, as she has stated herself.

The way I see it, coming from my own experiences, she has a right to be angry at christians. It'll pass, but it will show up sometimes. Since I live in the buckle of the bible belt and get treated like a second-class citizen by any of my neighbours who find out I am not a christian, and an out-right pariah byt the few who have found out I practice a Zen-Buddhist lifestyle, I can understand her anger.

evildave

13th February 2004, 02:18 PM

And conversely, just because someone does believe in god does not make that person a bad person, right?
Very true.

However, people demonstrate themselves to be "bad people" by their deeds in this life, irregardless of whether they believe that whatever they do is "forgiven" by their gods, or not.

When someone behaves badly, the "bad people" label gets applied. When it recurs, it tends to become generalized to classes of people. This over-generalizing is generally very, very bad behavior. It's intellectually lazy, and appeals to the basest of human nature.

Lots of very bad words are applicable. Prejudice, bigotry and worse. Bigoted people are generally bad people.

Now then, there are certain people who have a core belief that anyone who is not exactly like them in their philosophy are "bad" people. Even worse, in their own hearts they condemn to death, and/or some form of "eternal" suffering afterwards, and think that this is "perfect justice".

Words like "bigoted" fit perfectly in this case.

This does not mean that all Christians are this way, or that this trait does not exist in other sample groups. The only ones that actively seek me out to be rude and obnoxious, also happen to be "Christian", by their own words.

Of course, all good people can behave very, very badly in certain situations.

When I have a private conversation with someone about my beliefs, who eavesdrops from another table, even another room, and storms in and confronts me like I have just slandered their mother? Self-identified "Christians". Every time.

When I am sleeping in on the weekend, who comes to my door demanding I be just like them? Self-identified "Christians". Every time.

When I am waiting in a public place, minding my own business, who corners me and demands I be just like them? Self-identified "Christians". Every time.

When someone discovers I'm not just like them, who is it that has a litany of condescending remarks prepared, such as "I will pray for you!", and "You're such a nice person. Too bad you're going to Hell."? Want to take a guess? Self-identified "Christians". Every time.

Small samples, personal anecdotes, etc.

All I can do is forgive them on the spot. What? Did you think forgivenness is a uniquely "Christian" thing to do?

Whenever this topic comes up, do you know what else I hear? These rude self-identified "Christians" are not "real Christians". Funny thing. The rude ones usually make a point of saying the same thing about the nice ones. Am I to elect myself judge as to who is a "Real Christian", and who is not?

Should I simply expect more of Christians, or less? If I expect more, I will be judging them as inferior to my standards, and if I expect less, I will tend to be over-generalizing them as "bad" people.

Safest to forgive them and not worry about their little personality quirks.

RandFan,Jr.

13th February 2004, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by evildave
Now then, there are certain people who have a core belief that anyone who is not exactly like them in their philosophy are "bad" people. Even worse, in their own hearts they condemn to death, and/or some form of "eternal" suffering afterwards, and think that this is "perfect justice". I watched "Inherit the Wind (1999) (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/6305600988/qid=1076712700/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-9830635-0888969?v=glance&s=video)" yesterday. I recomend it to anyone. A good object lesson of what you are describing.

I have often come to the defense of "Christians". I should point out that even when I was a believer I was not accepted by most who called themselves Christian. When I moved into my current home in 1991 and I was still somewhat active in my church, my children were not allowed to play with the some neighboorhood children because they where Christian and my children were Mormon.

I have never judged "all" Christians by the acts of "some" Christians or even perhaps the majority. All people should be judged on the basis of their own acts and intentions.

Thanks Dave

rachaella

13th February 2004, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
Christian,

You mention that you think Ruby did not make her desicion for intellectual reasons. To that, I can only respond "yeah? And?"

The fact is, not everyone leaves the church for intellectual reasons. I am willing to bet that no one actually joins the church for intellectual reasons.

I just wanted to echo this point. I think that religion inherently has an emotional component. I think many decisions to join a religious, become more religious, or even abandon religious beliefs can be accompanied by events that trigger strong emotional responses (aka, a death of a loved one, a large-scale terrorist attack, etc.). Ruby had some very unpleasant experiences with her church and these emotions led her to question long-held beliefs. Sometimes it takes a person's intellect a little time to catch up with their emotions. Sometimes this leads to realizing the decision made out of emotions was the correct one, sometimes not. Whether or not she made the decision based on intellectual reasons does not diminish the fact that there are intellectual reasons to leave the church, ones that over the past 6 months (and sometime before) she has most likely realized.

a_unique_person

13th February 2004, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by Christian
Ruby

Here a sample of your comments:

Ruby wrote:
I was not aware that I have "Constantly" talked down about Christians. I will stand corrected if that is the case. Perhaps I have made a reputation on JREF for cutting down Christians without even realizing it.

Constantly is a subjective term I used loosely, nevertheless, you have done it sufficiently enough to accept challenges and observations.

That you successfully vilified me, does not stop me from asserting that my statements have gone unchallenged by you. And I believe that because of your comments, I have the right to make them without being perceived as an attacker (the villain)objectivity is hard to find. This crowd is as any, biased].

You have missrepresented my position. (this is another fact I point out.

And I believe you are wrong. You can't take a position and the complain if someone calls you on it.

Here our exchange in the blinding power of fear:
The rest is already on record.

I can back Ruby on this 100%. Fear is a major motivator. It was used on me at a very young age, and is a disgraceful abuse of young children. Those xians who use it should be ashamed of themselves.

I see no need to apologise for attacking xianity on this.

If you think that Ruby is being over the top with here attacks on the use of fear by xians, then maybe she just resents being manipulated so cynically. I was. With time, she will probably get over it.

Yahweh

14th February 2004, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by Christian
This thread is created from a Christian to a former Christian.

Ruby has agreed to join in and talk about her path to atheism.

Ruby, what was the main reason of your "Conversion"?
Well, the question isnt asked toward me, but I'll take a short amount of time to chime in my sentiments:

I was never a Christian though I used to believe lots of crazy things. Then I started to educate myself, I learned more and more and more and more.

The concept of God and all other aspects of supernaturalism became increasingly more incoherent, the stories of the bible are obviously allegorical and were of no use to me except in terms of being a moral tool (but seeing as I felt my morals were in perfect order, I have no uses for the bible outside of a reference tool for religious debate on internet messageboards), it became obvious that there is no way to defend a belief in god without eventually widdling down the debate to "you just never know" or "science cant prove everything" (I'm sorry, but I am unimpressed with those types of arguements), the simple fact is that all of the evidence and science we have today is quite indistinguishable from that of an universe absent of supernaturalism, naturalistic philosophies made complete sense but it comes to the point where they became undoubtedly true.

The things I believe are in perfect order, they are well thought out. There exists no gods.

RandFan,Jr.

14th February 2004, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by rachaella
I think many decisions to join a religious, become more religious, or even abandon religious beliefs can be accompanied by events that trigger strong emotional responses (aka, a death of a loved one, a large-scale terrorist attack, etc.). Missionaries are told to seek out people who have experienced a lifechanging event. When I was a missionary we used to ask members if they knew anyone who had gone through such an event.

I think many if not most individuals who are religious need such an event to get them to look at the evidence. It is imposible to prove that the moon exists to someone who refuses to look into the sky.

Marc

15th February 2004, 06:52 AM

Originally posted by RandFan,Jr.
Missionaries are told to seek out people who have experienced a lifechanging event. When I was a missionary we used to ask members if they knew anyone who had gone through such an event.

I think many if not most individuals who are religious need such an event to get them to look at the evidence. It is imposible to prove that the moon exists to someone who refuses to look into the sky.

In other words, find people who are at an emotionally vulnerable point in their lives and exploit it. Find people who are in need of comfort and offer it too them in the manner of having them join the offered belief system. Pretty common practice actually, if a bit unethical when you truly think about it.

espritch

15th February 2004, 09:47 AM

The things I believe are in perfect order, they are well thought out. There exists no gods.

Don't be daft! Of course there is. His name is Rex. He sleeps on my rug and eats choice tidbits from my table. He growls when he is displeased and wags his tail when he is happy. He often speaks to me. He commands me to do things that I do not understand - but he is Rex so I obey. He...wait, you said "there exists no gods". I thought you said "dogs" ...ummm....nevermind.

elliotfc

15th February 2004, 12:20 PM

The longer I live, the more apparent it is that people believe what they want to believe, and that includes everybody on this forum, and it includes myself.

If you want to find reasons to not believe, or to believe, or to have no opinion, or to believe in disbeliving, or to disbelieve in believing, you'll find them.

There are so many ideas out there and who knows if the best ones survive, are the most popular, stick around the longest, etc. In the end we are left with our perceptions and our evaluations of these ideas. These judgments are unique to our minds. This is all very personal. I hate to get judgmental about other people and what they believe. I make exceptions when people are uncharitable, spiteful, dishonest, and obviously unthoughtful and lazy.

Anyhow, I went through a period of a few years where I didn't believe in anything written in the Bible. I thought it was a book of fiction. I saw no reason to believe any of it, besides capitulating to authority. I only believed in skepticism and basically was skeptical of everything except outrageous and obscure theories. See, when I was young, people used to ask me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I would have given the correct answer (Charles Fort) but then I would have to explain a few things and that wasn't my thing back then.

-Elliot

RandFan,Jr.

15th February 2004, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by Marc
In other words, find people who are at an emotionally vulnerable point in their lives and exploit it. Find people who are in need of comfort and offer it too them in the manner of having them join the offered belief system. Pretty common practice actually, if a bit unethical when you truly think about it. Exploitive, unethical? Perhaps, but you are absolutely right about one thing, it is very common practice. Republicans and Democrats alike have made such activity both art and science. I suppose ethics and exploitation, depends on ones viewpoint.

Is using the emotions of minorities to join the civil rights cause exploitive and/or ethical? Are lawyers who specialize in disaster cases ambulance chasers or sincere individuals looking after the needs of the powerless.

Yes, this is another thread but I think it is food for thought. I'm not convinced it is de facto exploitation. When I was a missionary I truly believed that I was saving people. I did not make one red cent from proselytizing, on the contrary I spent $200.00 a month of my own money and gave up my own time.

Do the leaders know the church is false and are exploiting the missionaries and the converts? Difficult question to answer. There are allot of leaders and most are in denial of the evidence that they so obviously possess. I think many if not most are like Lady Henriette Felicité Tichborne (http://www.randi.org/jr/021502.html) who refused to accept the evidence that her son was dead.

Demonstrably exploitive and unethical? Arguable, at least IMHO.

RandFan,Jr.

15th February 2004, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by elliotfc
The longer I live, the more apparent it is that people believe what they want to believe, and that includes everybody on this forum, and it includes myself.There are some exceptions I think, I for one do not believe all that I want to. I want my "soul" to live beyond my own mortality. I want a loving god and a purpose for my existence beyond mere happenstance. Wanting something to be true won't make it so. It is important to me to find the truth and not just believe what I want to. That being said I am sure that I don't always live up to my own standard.

I understand your sentiment and I agree with it. I would say that most people's ego push them to belive what they do. I would say that MY ego makes it difficult for me to look at things objectively. However I am cognizant of it and I have committed to objectivity.

If you want to find reasons to not believe, or to believe, or to have no opinion, or to believe in disbelieving, or to disbelieve in believing, you'll find them. Absolutely, and there must be some evolutionary value to this very human of traits. It very likely helped propel the human race to where it is today.

There are so many ideas out there and who knows if the best ones survive, are the most popular, stick around the longest, etc. In the end we are left with our perceptions and our evaluations of these ideas. These judgments are unique to our minds. This is all very personal. I hate to get judgmental about other people and what they believe. I make exceptions when people are uncharitable, spiteful, dishonest, and obviously unthoughtful and lazy. Agreed, but we should seek intellectual honesty, critical thinking and admit our own egos and commit to objectively seeking the truth.

Good post Elliot

elliotfc

15th February 2004, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by RandFan,Jr.
There are some exceptions I think, I for one do not believe all that I want to. I want my "soul" to live beyond my own mortality. I want a loving god and a purpose for my existence beyond mere happenstance. Wanting something to be true won't make it so. It is important to me to find the truth and not just believe what I want to. That being said I am sure that I don't always live up to my own standard.

Nice one Rand.

I didn't exactly mean what I say, or, let me try again.

Take this ARod business. I want to believe that the Yankees aren't going to have ARod on their team next year. Of course I have to believe that, in fact, they will. This is a case where knowledge overrides my wanting (intellectual honesty that you mention).

I think what I was hinting at had more to do with philosophical belief and/or opinion stuff, as opposed to more factual data. The concept of soul, or afterlife, is a different kind of thing than who is playing third for the Yankees.

Have humans simply made up such ideas to satisfy themselves? Perhaps. I suspect not. I used to want to believe that humans made up these ideas. Now I want to believe that these things are more than imaginative coping mechanisms. I could go either way. I don't see any way of verifying one or the other, as I could verify whether or not it rained on my house today. This is what I was getting at when I said people believe what they want to believe.

-Elliot

Ruby

15th February 2004, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Christian
[b]Ruby

Hi,

I'm sorry I have not responded to your recent posts. I came down with the flu Saturday morning, and have been feeling very ill. I've had a slight improvement this evening, but still weak and sick. I hope to be feeling better tomorrow.

I will reply to your posts as soon as possible.

Thanks,

Ruby

RandFan,Jr.

15th February 2004, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by elliotfc

Nice one Rand.

I didn't exactly mean what I say, or, let me try again.

Take this ARod business. I want to believe that the Yankees aren't going to have ARod on their team next year. Of course I have to believe that, in fact, they will. This is a case where knowledge overrides my wanting (intellectual honesty that you mention).

I think what I was hinting at had more to do with philosophical belief and/or opinion stuff, as opposed to more factual data. The concept of soul, or afterlife, is a different kind of thing than who is playing third for the Yankees.

Have humans simply made up such ideas to satisfy themselves? Perhaps. I suspect not. I used to want to believe that humans made up these ideas. Now I want to believe that these things are more than imaginative coping mechanisms. I could go either way. I don't see any way of verifying one or the other, as I could verify whether or not it rained on my house today. This is what I was getting at when I said people believe what they want to believe.

-Elliot I understand, thanks for the response.

LFTKBS

15th February 2004, 06:29 PM

Christian: "Ooh! Ruby said bad things about Christianity! Ooh! My heart is breaking! Where are my Midol?"

Hey: get over it. Christianity is brutal and barbaric and based on fear and blackmail and bribery. Sucks to be you.

Additionally: so Ruby's deconversion from your cult isn't intellectually-based: so what? Not what I'd prefer, but better for her to realize why she left later than to never leave at all. Your god is the exact negation of reason, so pull that log outta ya eye, mote-face.

P.S. You are ugly.

Marc

16th February 2004, 06:23 AM

Originally posted by RandFan,Jr.
Is using the emotions of minorities to join the civil rights cause exploitive and/or ethical? Are lawyers who specialize in disaster cases ambulance chasers or sincere individuals looking after the needs of the powerless.

Yes, this is another thread but I think it is food for thought. I'm not convinced it is de facto exploitation. When I was a missionary I truly believed that I was saving people. I did not make one red cent from proselytizing, on the contrary I spent $200.00 a month of my own money and gave up my own time.

I think we have different views on the meaning of exploitation here. In this context I am using it as refering to using the emotional vulnerability of a person in a time of crisis to get them to take actions (join groups) that they would most likely not have any interest in any other time. It has nothing to do with if the exploiter is a fraud or truly believes in their cause, it is about taking advantage of anothers moment of weakness.

Suddenly

16th February 2004, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by LFTKBS
Christian: "Ooh! Ruby said bad things about Christianity! Ooh! My heart is breaking! Where are my Midol?"

Hey: get over it. Christianity is brutal and barbaric and based on fear and blackmail and bribery. Sucks to be you.

Additionally: so Ruby's deconversion from your cult isn't intellectually-based: so what? Not what I'd prefer, but better for her to realize why she left later than to never leave at all. Your god is the exact negation of reason, so pull that log outta ya eye, mote-face.

P.S. You are ugly.

This is roughly what I was thinking...

I went through the whole "deconversion" thing similar how others have described, nothing really unusual about it. I did spend a lot of my life worrying about things like "should I go to church" and "should I pray more" and other nonsense; having people imply that I am flawed by my not wanting to believe in things that come with personal cost but no evidence.

So, there was a weight lifted off of me when I discarded this God thing for the unneccessary. I can act the way I act towards other people without invoking some supernatural concept as requiring me to do so. There is another emotional reaction.

I'm a bit ticked off at the whole thing. All the time, thought and worry about not being religious, whether just being a good person was enough or do I have to truely believe in some sky daddy, the sadness I used to feel when I would realize I really wasn't buying this stuff.

Then I think about how religion has been used to subjugate women, the idea that a good "Christian" woman knows her place, that it is used as an excuse for xenophobia, how it by design seeks out those that are at their weakest so that they can be brainwashed (feel the power of the lord, etc.), and I get a little more upset.

Then factor in the idea that, while I don't know Ruby, I have followed her saga as well as have some idea what she must feel as her path has been at least 20 times rougher than mine. Then I think about someone like this "christian" person trying to make a deal out of her expressing some disdain for those that tried to run her life through fantastic threats and fear, and I get really, really mad.

I don't usually get mad at particular Christians, just as I don't get mad at the actual telemarketer that calls me when I am waiting for an important call, I tend to forgive them "as they know not what they do" (heh heh). This doesn't mean I have no right to hang up the phone.

It also doesn't mean I have to be nice about Christianity as a whole; it is nothing but a cult propped up on 2,000 years of white trash dumbness and ignorance and no more valid at it's core than simple sun worship. It tells us sex is dirty and women are made to serve man, that we shouldn't worry about getting f*ck*d over in this life as we will be rewarded later and all these mean people will be punished as long as we believe in unknowable entities and realize that we are shameful sinners because we like to have a good time now and then...

How stupid that sounds now. I feel like an idiot for falling for this as long as I did. Which makes me even madder.

F*ck these people.

Christian

16th February 2004, 07:50 AM

As in many occasion before, the lack of objectivity shown with members in this group is evident.

The lack of ability to READ this information is also evident.

But, just for my sake and the record, I will offer a synopses.

This is paraphrasing (not what actually was said).

Ruby: I think Christians are crazy. They also involve themselves in worthless rituals, their beliefs are based on fear (not reason), they are sadists and delight in the idea that people will go to hell. They have been brainwashed, and are paranoid. They are immoral and the biggest backstabbing gossips. They spread false and malicious stories is rampant. They are abusers of every sort...including sexual.

They present no legitime arguments for their beliefs, and I characterize on of such (from Christians) to be the most ridiculuos I have ever heard. The Bible is full of factual contradictions, and most of the refutations by Christians are illogical.

Me: I state as a fact that you know very little of Christian dogma.

Ruby: I studied 13 years this stuff.

Me: Furthermore, you say a lot but not show very little evidence of intelectual work. In this subject you show that your decision are emotions based, that you are being intellectually lazy about it.

Ruby: You are insulting me, you are a bad person.

Me: I'm making factual observations to you. If I'm wrong show me your work. You say Christians are crazy, illogical, with beliefs based on fear and that is your critizism of them. I chanllenge your judgements, and what you to show me the intellectual work that brings you to those conclusions.

Ruby: You are not my god, you are not my king. You can't make do anything.

Me: That's is not what I'm saying. If you call other people illogical, these people have the right to challenge you reasoning. Of course you don't have to answer any of it. But then, your statements become worthless. And it could be perceived as hypocrisy.

Ruby: You are a villian, and others agree with me.

Others: Ruby is entitled to her opinion and she has the right to say whatever she wants about Christians. Besides, you are very ugly.

Me: I'm not arguing about her right to say those things (she has). I'm not even arguing about the right of her to villify me (she has).

I'M STATING THAT I HAVE THE RIGHT CHANLLENGE WHAT SHE SAYS AND TO ASK HER FOR THE INTELLECTUAL WORK BEHIND HERE STATEMENTS

She has the right to not to answer me.

AND I HAVE THE RIGHT TO CALL THAT HYPOCRISY

And she has the right to villify all over again.

Christian

16th February 2004, 07:55 AM

And just a reminder:

All forms of intolerance to a classified (specific group) is called bigotry.

One is guilty of bigotry when one talks negatively about the group instead of the individuals (exceptions are noted, Nazis, KKK, etc.)

LFTKBS

16th February 2004, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by Christian
And just a reminder:

All forms of intolerance to a classified (specific group) is called bigotry.

One is guilty of bigotry when one talks negatively about the group instead of the individuals (exceptions are noted, Nazis, KKK, etc.)

Oh, get of here, Whiney McWhineface. So because someone correctly points out that most Christians are sadists whose beliefs are predicated on fear, that person is a bigot? Meh. Am I a bigot because I correctly point out that Scientology is a cult?

Are you a bigot because you believe the set of {all non-Christians} is going to hell? It's a group! A group!

You can't defend yourself with reason, so you try to scare us with this "bigotry" garbage.

Christian

16th February 2004, 08:11 AM

Oh, get of here, Whiney McWhineface. So because someone correctly points out that most Christians are sadists whose beliefs are predicated on fear, that person is a bigot?

I see, you choose the battle that suits you. Yes, if you say most Christians are sadist whose beliefs are predicated on fear, you are a bigot.

Are you a bigot because you believe the set of {all non-Christians} is going to hell?

No, I'm not. Because I'm not labeling a group with negative characteristics.

You really have no idea why this type of bigotry is wrong.

You can't defend yourself with reason, so you try to scare us with this "bigotry" garbage.

You can be as angry as you like. I'm not going away.

Suddenly

16th February 2004, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by Christian
And just a reminder:

All forms of intolerance to a classified (specific group) is called bigotry.

Actually, according to Dictionary.com:

"\Big"ot*ry\, n. [Cf. F. bigoterie.] 1. The state of mind of a bigot; obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them."

Throw "Jesus" in there somewhere and we get a good definition of "Christianity"

Christianity: The state of mind of a Christian; obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions as to the divinity of Jesus, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them."

[/B]

One is guilty of bigotry when one talks negatively about the group instead of the individuals (exceptions are noted, Nazis, KKK, etc.) [/B]

Your reasoning is bizzare at best.

First, a universal statement: "All forms of intolerance to a classified (specific group) is called bigotry."

--- here, you try to paint all those not liking Christians in general as "bigots," which is a negative term. Then at some point you realize the contradiction in that logic and mention some exceptions.

So it seems your real position is: All forms of intolerance to a classified (specific group) except those groups I disagree with is called bigotry.

So try again in your attempt to be holier than thou...

Christian

16th February 2004, 08:37 AM

Suddenly wrote:
So try again in your attempt to be holier than thou...

You can say all you want.

Anybody that calls "most in X group are sadists is a bigot.

Go ahead and slice it, anyway you want. And while you people are at it. Avoid the main purpose of this thread.

Suddenly

16th February 2004, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by Christian
Suddenly wrote:
So try again in your attempt to be holier than thou...

You can say all you want.

Anybody that calls "most in X group are sadists is a bigot.

What if they are sadists? What if group "X" is a collection of S&M enthusiasts?

If they are sadists, then calling them sadists is nothing but a true statement. If they aren't sadists then it is not a true statement. If it is done for the purpose of hurting the named party then it is an "insult."

Insulting people is not equal to bigotry, you stupid idiot (see!).

A statement that "Christians are sadists" when explaining why one is no longer a Christian is simply an opinion, based on personal observation. Personally, I find them to be more masochists than sadists, given their affinity for self-denial, but I do see elements of sadism in some of the more fundimentalist sects. Considering the context of a claim is important, so if such a mention came from one that has had more experience with Pentacostals than Presbyterians then it in context would be reasonable to me.

Trying to paint such a thing as bigotry is just stupid. It also marginalizes real bigotry and attempts to capitialize on the suffering of those actually harmed by narrow-mindedness.

Go ahead and slice it, anyway you want. And while you people are at it. Avoid the main purpose of this thread.

"You people?"

Engaging in a little negative classification are we?

elliotfc

16th February 2004, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by LFTKBS

Oh, get of here, Whiney McWhineface. So because someone correctly points out that most Christians are sadists whose beliefs are predicated on fear, that person is a bigot? Meh. Am I a bigot because I correctly point out that Scientology is a cult?

Are you a bigot because you believe the set of {all non-Christians} is going to hell? It's a group! A group!

You can't defend yourself with reason, so you try to scare us with this "bigotry" garbage.

How do you know so much about sadism and fear?

-Elliot

elliotfc

16th February 2004, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly

Actually, according to Dictionary.com:

"\Big"ot*ry\, n. [Cf. F. bigoterie.] 1. The state of mind of a bigot; obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them."

Throw "Jesus" in there somewhere and we get a good definition of "Christianity"

Christianity: The state of mind of a Christian; obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions as to the divinity of Jesus, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them."

So try again in your attempt to be holier than thou... [/B]

And you are obstinate and narrow-minded about people who think differently from you.

You've demonstrated your ability to preach how much better you are than Christians. Nice one.

-Elliot

Christian

16th February 2004, 09:31 AM

Suddendly wrote:
Insulting people is not equal to bigotry, you stupid idiot (see!).

You do show your true colors. You can't help it, can you? As I've said many times, that is all the power you have in here. And now, you have even less power, because this is the most you can say, anything more is a no no.

If they are sadists, then calling them sadists is nothing but a true statement. If they aren't sadists then it is not a true statement

Calling Christians sadists is bigotry.

A statement that "Christians are sadists" when explaining why one is no longer a Christian is simply an opinion, based on personal observation.

And I have the right to challenge that.

Personally, I find them to be more masochists than sadists, given their affinity for self-denial, but I do see elements of sadism in some of the more fundimentalist sects. Considering the context of a claim is important, so if such a mention came from one that has had more experience with Pentacostals than Presbyterians then it in context would be reasonable to me.

And this is bigotry. If you can't get why making blanket statement is dangerous, then that is you shortcoming. I'm glad you can only do harm in a forum, and not the real world.

I would be very afraid if you had more power or control.

Trying to paint such a thing as bigotry is just stupid. It also marginalizes real bigotry and attempts to capitialize on the suffering of those actually harmed by narrow-mindedness.

The defenders of liberties, I assure you, did not have your views. You can call me an idiot or stupid, and still that view is bigotry.

"You people?"

Yes, the plural for the people you say Christians are sadists in this thread.

Engaging in a little negative classification are we?

Absolutely, I can call them by name (if you can't see the difference, that is a big problem)

Ruby

16th February 2004, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by Christian
Beside, she agreed to come to this thread.

If I'm wrong, I see no evidence of it yet. I see plenty of evidence to the contrary.

I am still getting over the flu, but feel the need to start trying to respond to your posts. It's going to take awhile to respond to everything.............and I might not get to it all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
I find it ludicrous that are affairs are considered, but divorce is not.

Affairs are way worse than leaving a bad marriage. My husband better divorce me before he ever has an affair.

I can't believe their stinking peaves about Ruby's post.
Nutballs, all of them, and I admire you all for leaving this craziness behind when you left christianity behind.

I bet that's mostly what made them all so nuts in the first place. The guy's shame at his fantasies keep him from being sexually functional with a woman. I know lots of guys with warped fantasies, and it doesn't hold them back from sex with their wives.

Gads. Nuts nuts nuts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ruby's response to that:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ruby
Yep!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tricky, how about this for condescension:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ruby
Well, I figured I may as well go out like a bang. I've got them all praying for me now....it's pretty serious when they all start into praying for you!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The context of these quotes can be found here.............>http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29104&highlight=gads

The thread had to do with a poster on RR forum who was in a sexless marriage....never consumated...because the husband could only get off to fantasies about women in violent situations. The wife had said "my husband does masterbate, and is able to find release.. however, only when fantasizing about "wounded women"... women with bullet holes.. arrows... bruises.. blood... etc."

My response of "Yep" to Eos of Eons, is justified in my mind under the circumstances. That whole situation was nuts.......as well as sick and sad.

The wife admitted to having affairs....even though she was a Christian, and seemed to be looking for someone to tell her it was okay to have another affair. She felt divorce was the wrong thing to do. I went on the forum in hopes to help this lady as I felt some of the advice she had been given was awful. Naturally, my help was not taken kindly. I had the posters in the thread saying they would pray for me. It seems my advice upset them that much. It's true statement I made "it's pretty serious when they all start into praying for you!!!". I don't take it back for one second.

Dymanic

16th February 2004, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc

The longer I live, the more apparent it is that people believe what they want to believe...
Well, the longer I live, the more apparent it is to me that this notion is completely bogus. The assumption that belief is a choice is indeed central to Christianity. If you believe, you get eternal life -- if you don't, you get the lake of fire.

But belief -- about anything -- is not something that can be toggled on or off like a switch. It is graded over a range of values from complete confidence to complete lack of confidence. For the most part, those degrees of confidence are composites of outputs from numerous low-level processes which are not subject to conscious control (whatever that is).
If you want to find reasons to not believe, or to believe, or to have no opinion, or to believe in disbeliving, or to disbelieve in believing, you'll find them.
There are two fundamentally very different approaches here. One is to make a commitment to believing in a certain thing because that belief will produce a certain feeling -- the most popular choice being a warm, fuzzy feeling. The desired state may not, however, simply be summoned on demand; the low-level processes involved must be persuaded with some kind of evidence. Providing them with carefully selected data is one way to modify the results; repetitively inputting the same data over and over is another.

I tried these methods for years. I wanted to believe as much as anyone ever did. I tried to believe. I pretended to believe. At times, I almost believed that I believed. But the doubt was always there, pricking me like a thorn. Something wasn't right, and I knew it. Holding the thing up was just too much work. When I see excessive enthusiasm about a belief system -- fanaticism -- I understand. I know the torment doubt can bring, and I try to remember to be compassionate. Though I reached a point of acceptance about what I really believe, it didn't come easy.

The other approach, of course, is to make a commitment to truth. Once the struggle is over, it's the only thing left -- to try to find the courage to be willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads. This requires courage because the truth is often quite ugly -- even terrifying. And there is no turning back. Atheism is the red pill.

Christian

16th February 2004, 09:57 AM

Dymanic wrote:
The other approach, of course, is to make a commitment to truth. Once the struggle is over, it's the only thing left -- to try to find the courage to be willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads. This requires courage because the truth is often quite ugly -- even terrifying. And there is no turning back. Atheism is the red pill.

But if I'm really honest with myself and SEE human limitations to knowledge (in the context of close to infinite information and (from the MA perspective) randomness)) then I have to admit that the truth is unattainable.

The things that atheist can be certain about (that really matter) in comparison to the rest of the population (including Christians) is miniscule, at best.

Dymanic

16th February 2004, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by Christian

...the truth is unattainable
Agreed. It is an ugly, even terrifying, fact that that to which I am commited is something I can never attain.

elliotfc

16th February 2004, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Dymanic

Well, the longer I live, the more apparent it is to me that this notion is completely bogus. The assumption that belief is a choice is indeed central to Christianity. If you believe, you get eternal life -- if you don't, you get the lake of fire.

I'd quibble by saying you get the "lake of fire" if you reject, as oppose to the whole belief thing. At that point belief is out the window, all the cards will be on the table.

But belief -- about anything -- is not something that can be toggled on or off like a switch.

Sure it can. Taking the card analogy from above, if you're playing a card game, like spades, you can go from believing you'll make your bid to believing you'll be set. Happens all the time.

It is graded over a range of values from complete confidence to complete lack of confidence. For the most part, those degrees of confidence are composites of outputs from numerous low-level processes which are not subject to conscious control (whatever that is).

Is that what you believe?

I think there are a whole bunch of variables.

There are two fundamentally very different approaches here. One is to make a commitment to believing in a certain thing because that belief will produce a certain feeling -- the most popular choice being a warm, fuzzy feeling.

How exactly do you know this? I respect your belief of course.

I could also say that you stating your beliefs gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling. I don't know what's in your heart/head however. Were you excited when you were typing this response? Did you feel any glee at showing how your knowledge makes someone else wrong? I have no idea. How do you know what feelings people have? Besides belief. Do you have magic powers?

The desired state may not, however, simply be summoned on demand; the low-level processes involved must be persuaded with some kind of evidence. Providing them with carefully selected data is one way to modify the results; repetitively inputting the same data over and over is another.

Or contemplating and thinking and working things out.

I tried these methods for years. I wanted to believe as much as anyone ever did. I tried to believe. I pretended to believe. At times, I almost believed that I believed. But the doubt was always there, pricking me like a thorn. Something wasn't right, and I knew it. Holding the thing up was just too much work. When I see excessive enthusiasm about a belief system -- fanaticism -- I understand. I know the torment doubt can bring, and I try to remember to be compassionate. Though I reached a point of acceptance about what I really believe, it didn't come easy.

See, you tried the wrong methods (in my opinion). It isn't about wanting to believe as much as being content. But that's just me. I have doubts prick me all the time, what's so bad about doubt?

I see excessive enthusiasm for belief systems all over this forum. What's so bad about that?

It is always good to be compassionate. That includes not assuming what is going on inside other peoples heads. Just because you had these horrible feelings doesn't mean that all other believers think the same.

The other approach, of course, is to make a commitment to truth. Once the struggle is over, it's the only thing left -- to try to find the courage to be willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads. This requires courage because the truth is often quite ugly -- even terrifying. And there is no turning back. Atheism is the red pill.

I don't know what this red pill stuff is about.

But aside from that, I've heard Christians say the exact same thing. Christians say that it takes courage to follow the truth, and atheists say the same.

-Elliot

espritch

16th February 2004, 10:12 AM

All forms of intolerance to a classified (specific group) is called bigotry.

One is guilty of bigotry when one talks negatively about the group instead of the individuals (exceptions are noted, Nazis, KKK, etc.)

One is guilty of bigotry even when one talks in generic terms of Nazis, KKK, etc. Most Nazis, Klansmen, etc. don’t see themselves as evil. They do evil because they follow evil philosophies. These philosophies divide humanity into groups; Aryan and non-Aryan, white and non-white, etc. and then deny the worth and basic humanity of those in the non-favored group. This division and dehumanization is the basis of the evil produced by these philosophies. The Nazis didn’t just wake up one day and say: “hey, let’s burn all the Jews and the Gypsies!” They worked up to it over a period of years with a concerted campaign of propaganda and gradual steps. They had to dehumanize and vilify their victims before they could kill them with impunity.

Now, let’s look at this subject as it applies to Christianity. Does it divide humanity? Yes. There are the believers and the non-believers – the saved and the unsaved. Does it dehumanize one group? Absolutely. In traditional Christian theology, unbelievers are damned to hell to suffer for eternity. But a good and loving God wouldn’t condemn people to such a fate unless they deserved it. So the unbeliever is a fallen creature fully deserving of damnation. Can there be a greater dehumanization of a person than to claim they deserve to spend an eternity in Hell? I’ve noticed that a lot of fundamentalist preachers tend to treat terms like atheist, agnostic, secular humanist, and Satanist as essentially indistinguishable. Atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists don’t believe Christian philosophy so they are going to hell so they must be bad people.

I lost my religion when I was in college. I did not however, become particularly anti-religion until September 11, 2001 when I watch a dozen religious fanatics murder several thousand people in the name of their God. These were Muslims rather than Christians, of course, but given the similarities of the faiths (both claim to be the one true path with Heaven for the believer and Damnation for the infidel) and the bloody histories of both, the distinction is academic.

I willingly concede that the majority of religious people are not bad people. Most of the ones I know are in fact decent and sincere folks. They are merely misguided. It does bother me that some people on these forums tend to attack theists in a personal manner rather than focusing on the real issue. I tend to take a “love the theist, hate the theology” approach to the subject. Religious is ultimately divisive, destructive, and an impediment to science, progress, and civilization in general, and humanity would be better off without it.

elliotfc

16th February 2004, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by espritch

I willingly concede that the majority of religious people are not bad people. Most of the ones I know are in fact decent and sincere folks. They are merely misguided. It does bother me that some people on these forums tend to attack theists in a personal manner rather than focusing on the real issue. I tend to take a “love the theist, hate the theology” approach to the subject. Religious is ultimately divisive, destructive, and an impediment to science, progress, and civilization in general, and humanity would be better off without it.

Progress? There will always be progress. How can progress be avoided in chronological time?

Civilization? Hard to imagine civilizations getting off the ground without religion.

Your rhetoric is certainly divisive and inflammatory. I know you would never do anything like make religion illegal, imprison religious, or worse kill religious types.

We have to be tolerant of each other, regardless of their beliefs. I don't fault science for nuclear bombs. Science is cool.

-Elliot

DanishDynamite

16th February 2004, 10:28 AM

Christian, get over yourself.

Ruby has managed to divest herself of the unquestioning belief in a particular cult's mythology, a cult to which you apparently still adhere. Hence, she is already ahead of you, having managed the feat of entering the 21'st century while you are still stuck in you dogma.

I'm sure there were lots of factors which influenced her escape, not least the piling up of inconsistencies between what the cult preached and how it's leader and worshippers acted.

What is your hangup regarding her "intellectual" journey?

Ruby

16th February 2004, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by Christian
[b]Ruby

Here a sample of your comments:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ruby on 01-30-2004 in The psychology of Hell

Fear, fear fear. That seems to be the biggest motivaton behind so much in Christianity...although so many Christians can't see it. So many who have doubts, but still cling to Christianity, would never admit that they hold on due to a deep seated fear that "Hell" might still be for real.
_____________________________________________

I have been angered by the hardheartedness and mercilessness of those who, as you said, "take some perverse glee in describing the torments of the damned". Rapture ready forum....and other Christian forums have their fair share of those who get their jollies talking about how torturous they think "hell" is. The more hideous and agonizing they make it sound, the more they seem to get off on it.................even though some will say how desperately they don't want anyone to end up in "hell". Even if they say that, I still get the feeling that on some level they can't wait for people to be sent there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ruby on 01-15-2004 in Are Christians Persecuted? A Replication Poll

So, I get pretty ticked off when Christians start running on about being persecuted. However, I know it's just a sort of brainwashed view. I had it once too. I would not...could not face the facts. I had to believe that we had it rough...even though I knew we had it great....if that makes any sense!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ruby on 11-19-2003 in Motivation for morals

When I was a Christian, I was motivated by fear to be moral...this turned into legalism. Most Christians went around feeling superior if they abstained from more "worldly" things than other Christians. For some, it was considered immoral to drink alcohol. For others, to wear make-up was immoral. So many Christians spent far too much time worrying and sweating over little things to even face the fact that they were being immoral in the big things...where it really counted. I found many christians to be harsh and condemning of others...and the biggest backstabbing gossips. The spread of false and malicious stories was rampant. There were abuses of every sort...including sexual.

Christians have not cornered the market on morals!!

Now, as an agnostic, I choose to be moral...without fear or pressure....without legalism...without pretense. I don't expect or wait to be rewarded for doing a good deed...as christians always do.....I just do good deeds, period...expecting nothing.

I feel better about myself due to this.
___________________________________________

Poor Catholics get picked on so bad by a lot of Christian....especially 1st United Pencostal christians. I think they'd just like to burn them all at the stake. It's so horrid how they talk about them
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ruby on Most irritating theological argument ever

The guy's only "good" argument for the legitimacy of the bible was that it is "powerful" . He says the Holy spirit moves you as you read it. You "feel" something. Personally, I "feel" more reading a novel or watching a comedy or horror movie. I am much more moved by listening to Vivaldi or Puccini.

Anyway, I guess that is one of the most ridiculous arguments I hear a lot from Christians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ruby on 09-02-2003 in Contradictions needed!

It does help that I've had years of bible study. In the lists of contradictions, I know so many that can be explained away by fundamentalist christian. I know the aruments and pat answers. Some are pitiful...some are logical......few are logical.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for going to all the trouble of digging up those quotes. You have been busy. I still agree with them all and stand by them. Perhaps, in time, my mind will change on some things, but for now, I agree with what I wrote and see it as my opinion due to my own personal experience as a Christian.

Ruby wrote:
I was not aware that I have "Constantly" talked down about Christians. I will stand corrected if that is the case. Perhaps I have made a reputation on JREF for cutting down Christians without even realizing it.

Constantly is a subjective term I used loosely,

Now you say!!

nevertheless, you have done it sufficiently enough to accept challenges and observations.

It all seems rather ludicrous to me. I can't understand why you seem out to get me.

That you successfully vilified me, does not stop me from asserting that my statements have gone unchallenged by you.

Where on earth have I vilified you? I'm at a loss as to why you say that. You have put me down left and right...dug up former posts to malign my character for all to see......and now you say that I have "successfully vilified" you?

You have missrepresented my position. (this is another fact I point out.

No, this is your opinion. I cannot even conceive of how you come up with the idea that I have misrepresented your postition. I am sure you will let me know now.

And I believe you are wrong. You can't take a position and the complain if someone calls you on it.

That is not my habit. However, when someone cuts me down or my posts, without an apology, I don't feel inclined to respond to their questions.

When you responded to my post by saying " I don't think you stopped being a Christian for intellectual reasons. From your posts, I see very little intellectual reasoning and a lot of emotional elements. The refutation for the "the suffering in world" by non-believers is very basic and straight forward. That you come out and say this is one of the reasons you had to rethink your belief system is intellectual lazyness or a cop-out answer."

I did not feel good about myself after reading that. It stung. Laugh if you want. As I already told you, I struggle enough feeling inferior coming on here where everyone is miles above me intellectually. Plus, I have Fibromyalgia, which effects cognitive abilities. See these two sites for info http://www.drlamb.com/fibrofog.htm
http://www.wearefmily.com/brainfog.htm <----This is a humorous site. It helps fibro sufferers to see humor in some of the fibro symptoms, especially brain fog.

I used to be good at debates, but now it takes time, and sometimes, my brain is in a total fog. That is one reason I tend to choose discussions that are not too intellectual. The thread you accosted me in seemed a safe and easy thread.

Anytime I tried to explain my lack of intellectual ability or cognitive problems you accused me of "playing the victim". No matter what, you twisted everything around to put me in the wrong. I am sure you will do likewise with this post too.

Still, I will keep plodding through until I can respond to most of what you have said here...and then maybe I can share my conversion story...........but that may take some time to put together..... to get all my thoughts clear and typed out halfway legible.

As I have already admitted, I think, emotional reasons did play a big part in my departure from Christianity, but there were intellectual reasons too. It was not based solely on being hurt/emotionally abused by the church. Anyhow, I'll get to that as I'm able.

DanishDynamite

16th February 2004, 11:09 AM

Excellent stuff, Ruby!

Don't mind Christian. He is simply trying to denigrate the achievements of those who were strong enough to escape the mindcontrol. "Sour grapes" is an appropriate term.

Dancing David

16th February 2004, 11:15 AM

Ruby,

You are one of the most peaceful and respectful people on the board, I don't know why Christian would feel that you have constantly badmouthed christians or anything. I have a hard time undestanding why C. is having this conversation with you, I have read the thread a number of times. At least you make sense.

Peace

Ruby

16th February 2004, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
What is your hangup regarding her "intellectual" journey?

This is the same thing I want to know. :confused:

Dymanic

16th February 2004, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc

I'd quibble by saying you get the "lake of fire" if you reject, as oppose to the whole belief thing. At that point belief is out the window, all the cards will be on the table.Huh?
Taking the card analogy from above, if you're playing a card game, like spades, you can go from believing you'll make your bid to believing you'll be set.Like most words in the language, 'belief' has more than one possible meaning. The one you are using here is not the one most relevant to this discussion.
Is that what you believe?
Yes. What is important is that I don't have any choice about believing this.
I think there are a whole bunch of variables.Yes, that's pretty much what I was saying.
How exactly do you know this?I'd say that is a relatively trivial observation about human nature.
I could also say that you stating your beliefs gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling.You could. This is in fact precisely the erroneous assumption Christians so often make that atheists reach their conclusions by the same methods they themselves use (i.e., trying to make the facts fit the pre-drawn conclusions). I do not doubt that for many atheists, this is in fact the case.
How do you know what feelings people have? I think that regardless of perspective -- religious, political, emotional, philosophical, whatever -- a reasonable (even indispensible) assumption is that there is more commonality than variation between individuals with regard to certain fundamental qualities of experience.
See, you tried the wrong methods (in my opinion).We are speaking across a vast gulf it seems. You assume a priori that reaching a particular conclusion is a valid objective.
I see excessive enthusiasm for belief systems all over this forum. What's so bad about that?Well, there's nothing bad about it. It is simply part of a struggle. I take excessive enthusiasm as evidence of doubt, no matter what direction it's pointing in. It may be that, like those who claim to be sincere believers, not all who call themselves atheists are secure in that either (or they might be less inclined to spend so much energy defending it -- unless they're just bored).
It is always good to be compassionate. That includes not assuming what is going on inside other peoples headsSorry, but you simply can't not do that. It runs on automatic. A huge amount of your cognitive wiring is devoted specifically to that task. It's not about perfect accuracy, it's about fast, reasonable guesses. I wasn't actually making any broad claims about being able to do any more than that, but I do feel that my personal experience is a valid (if imperfect) model in trying to understand others. Without such a model, I have nothing on which to base compassion, or anything else.
I don't know what this red pill stuff is aboutYou never saw The Matrix?

Ruby

16th February 2004, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Excellent stuff, Ruby!

Thanks. You have no idea how good that is to hear!:)

LFTKBS

16th February 2004, 11:34 AM

Are you a bigot because you believe the set of {all non-Christians} is going to hell?

Originally posted by Christian
"No, I'm not. Because I'm not labeling a group with negative characteristics."

Well, I would say that the state of being "unsaved" and destined "to burn in hell for all eternity" is a negative characteristic. Wouldn't you?

Originally posted by elliotfc
How do you know so much about sadism and fear?

Spend any amount of time with religious people and you learn about it rather quickly.

Ruby

16th February 2004, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David
Ruby,

You are one of the most peaceful and respectful people on the board, I don't know why Christian would feel that you have constantly badmouthed christians or anything. I have a hard time undestanding why C. is having this conversation with you, I have read the thread a number of times. At least you make sense.

Peace

You are a sweetheart!:rub:

wollery

16th February 2004, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David
I don't know why Christian would feel that you have constantly badmouthed christians or anything. I can't figure this one either, I've read a lot of Ruby's posts, some of them have a go at Christianity, but she always tries to be nice about people, even the ones that treated her badly. Some of her posts relate first hand experiences of the way some christians behave, behaviour which she considers hypocritical and unchristian, but I don't see how giving your opinion on events that you have experienced is "badmouthing" somebody.

Dancing David

16th February 2004, 11:53 AM

Dear Christian:

I have read this thread three times and I am still trying to understand what your problem is, Ruby has always been very careful to state that her beliefs and thoughts and feelings are her own and that they are a product of her own personal history and life experience. I think that you have some pie in the sky attitude towards a church that is just fu;; of shot to the point of overflowing.

You seem to want to even tell Ruby why she did the things she did, who the heck are you to tell her what she thinks or feels or why she does what she does.

I present you with a tool a maturity

boundaries

Maybe you are not Ruby, maybe you are not one of the crap filled hatemongering bigots that seem to dominate the Xian faith.

Get over it, you are the one telling Ruby what she thinks ot feels. Why don't you present your ideas in refutation.

If youw ant a knock down drag out, I not only deconverted I went the other way completly.

Xians are :
-far from the treachings of Jesus
obeseesseed with power and contol
-mysoginsitic
-fanatic to the point that they can't tolerate opposing views.

If these observation of mine don't fit you , then fine don't wear them but most of the followers of christ have made a travesty of his message.

Originally posted by Christian
As in many occasion before, the lack of objectivity shown with members in this group is evident.

No your selfish little tantrum and demanding that everyone goosestep along with you is what i see. the church bauses alot of harm.

The lack of ability to READ this information is also evident.

Those who can't express themselves always resort to insults!

But, just for my sake and the record, I will offer a synopses.

This is paraphrasing (not what actually was said).

Ruby: I think Christians are crazy. They also involve themselves in worthless rituals, their beliefs are based on fear (not reason), they are sadists and delight in the idea that people will go to hell. They have been brainwashed, and are paranoid. They are immoral and the biggest backstabbing gossips. They spread false and malicious stories is rampant. They are abusers of every sort...including sexual.

Yeah so, that is the wat alot of Xians are, maybe you are lucky and have just never met those kind. There are plenty around.

And do you have any idea of how much domestic violence is approved of by the church and how matital rape is approved of?

They present no legitime arguments for their beliefs, and I characterize on of such (from Christians) to be the most ridiculuos I have ever heard. The Bible is full of factual contradictions, and most of the refutations by Christians are illogical.

This is all stuff I find to be true, maybe it just hurts your feelings that there are Xians who are full of crap!

Me: I state as a fact that you know very little of Christian dogma.

Yeah, and you cabs tate that the Catholic church never approved of slavery either.

You are apparently living is some pink cloud!

Ruby: I studied 13 years this stuff.

Me: Furthermore, you say a lot but not show very little evidence of intelectual work. In this subject you show that your decision are emotions based, that you are being intellectually lazy about it.

Yeah so what?

It just goes to show that you haven't read squat at how Ruby arrived where she is, you are the lazy presumtive twit!

What intelectual reasons do you have to believe that the bible is true.

What proof do you have that Ruby did not have to live with the abusive dogma, characteristic of Xiams.

Do you have any proof that Ruby didn't? Well then shut up!
[/b]

Ruby: You are insulting me, you are a bad person.
[/b]
What a crock! Where did Ruby say this , you are so full of it , just like most Xians!

Me: I'm making factual observations to you. If I'm wrong show me your work. You say Christians are crazy, illogical, with beliefs based on fear and that is your critizism of them. I chanllenge your judgements, and what you to show me the intellectual work that brings you to those conclusions.

i am making the factual observation that you are lazy and full of crap.
Thgis is the way most Xian behave, get over it.
Show me that you were here when Ruby gave her story, oh well that's why you say such stupid stuff.

Gee, is it enough for me to know that my mother in law beat my wife with her churches permission?

The Xian faith is full of crap, she doesn't have to prove it , we already know it.

Ruby: You are not my god, you are not my king. You can't make do anything.

Me: That's is not what I'm saying. If you call other people illogical, these people have the right to challenge you reasoning. Of course you don't have to answer any of it. But then, your statements become worthless. And it could be perceived as hypocrisy.

Yeah well you got a huge beam in your eye buddy, Ruby giving her story does not give you the right to judge her.

It does give me the right to say that you are .... a typical child of god. maybe you should open your heart to the fact that the church hurts people everyday.

Ruby: You are a villian, and others agree with me.

Others: Ruby is entitled to her opinion and she has the right to say whatever she wants about Christians. Besides, you are very ugly.

Me: I'm not arguing about her right to say those things (she has). I'm not even arguing about the right of her to villify me (she has).

I'M STATING THAT I HAVE THE RIGHT CHANLLENGE WHAT SHE SAYS AND TO ASK HER FOR THE INTELLECTUAL WORK BEHIND HERE STATEMENTS

She has her reason, no one has to justify them, are you going to sanctify all the evil done in churches everyday?
Why don't you present YOUR REASON'S and we can go over them instead.
Typical messianic paranoia, you stuck your foot in the crap, I wonder why people say you shoe stinks?

She has the right to not to answer me.

AND I HAVE THE RIGHT TO CALL THAT HYPOCRISY

Not if you are a follower of jesus you don't , rather typical of christians throw out christ when ever it suits them.

'turn the other check'
[b}

And she has the right to villify all over again.

Nah, you are just thin skinned, if you can't play with the big dogs stay on the porch.

So , what pray tell, are your intellectual reasons for believing that the church is not the beast of the anti_christ?

Ruby

16th February 2004, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by LFTKBS

Spend any amount of time with religious people and you learn about it rather quickly.

I lived steeped in fear as a Christian. That's one reason I feel so free now. That's one reason I have made remarkable recovery in the past six months or so concerning Social phobia and anxiety, and have been completely freed of panic attacks.

I know a lot of Christians who live in such fear because they attribute so much power to "Satan" and "demons". Since "God" is bound by not infringing upon people's freewill............and sometimes not intervening to help...depending on what denomination you talk to.........then "Satan" is treated like he is more powerful than "God". Add to that the argument that "Satan's" power exists because "God" allows it...then it really gets even more insidious. You have Christians running about believing that demons are attached to everything, and that only ritual, magic-like incantations can get rid of them, and even then, they might come back.

Any sickness, mental or physical, might be blamed on demons. Unbelief is blamed on demons. Temptations are often blamed on demons. Some denominations accuse other denonimnations of being of the Devil, and full of demons. Children misbehaving might be blamed on demons. Nightmares, anger, depression, and even fear itself is attributed to demons in many cases.

Not all Christians believe such things, thankfully. I do have some dear friends who are Christians who laugh at that the above type of thinking. They are more liberal in their thinking compared to most Christians here in the bible belt.

Christian

16th February 2004, 12:12 PM

Dacing David:

And you are the type of person who is defending Ruby. And this is the type of people who Ruby wants as friends.

You show exactly the phylosophy of hate you denounce.

You know what is funny (meaning ironic). That your heart is full of hatred and resentment and you don't see it.

Again I say, you have very little power in here, and the one you have have in insignifant.

I'm very glad that in the outside world you have to behave. And that moderation here also keeps you in check.

Ruby

You suggested I start this thread, you have yet to answer my questions and I feel you wont.

I stand by my assertions. And I stand by the view that I have the right to make them and to question you.

DanishDynamite

16th February 2004, 12:25 PM

Christian:Dacing David:

And you are the type of person who is defending Ruby. And this is the type of people who Ruby wants as friends.You have no idea what type of people Ruby wants as friends and it is immaterial to this thread.
You show exactly the phylosophy of hate you denounce. As do you.
You know what is funny (meaning ironic). That your heart is full of hatred and resentment and you don't see it.Indeed, you don't seem to see it.
Again I say, you have very little power in here, and the one you have have in insignifant."Power"? The only power anyone has in here is the power of their arguments.
I'm very glad that in the outside world you have to behave. And that moderation here also keeps you in check.I'm sure you are very much in favor of suppression and conformity.
You suggested I start this thread, you have yet to answer my questions and I feel you wont. What question might that be?
I stand by my assertions. And I stand by the view that I have the right to make them and to question you. You can ask any question you like. Isn't that a nice change from the dogma you normally inhabit?

espritch

16th February 2004, 12:43 PM

Progress? There will always be progress. How can progress be avoided in chronological time?

There will always be change. Change and progress are not necessarily identical concepts. A new consensus as to the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin is change but it is not progress. The rejection of the institution of slavery is progress.

Civilization? Hard to imagine civilizations getting off the ground without religion.

It is entirely possible that religion played an important role in the development of civilization but this doesn’t mean it isn’t now acting as an impediment. A multi-stage rocket cannot attain orbit without a first stage. But if it doesn’t achieve separation from the first stage at some point, it will come crashing back down to earth.

Your rhetoric is certainly divisive and inflammatory. I know you would never do anything like make religion illegal, imprison religious, or worse kill religious types.

No. I’m a secular humanist, not a communist. I would never consider making any view illegal or imprisoning or killing anyone for holding a view. That is anathema to me. I do however reserve the right to challenge those view and to offer arguments against them. If you choose to label my arguments as divisive and inflammatory and summarily dismiss them, that is certainly your prerogative, but it isn’t a valid refutation of the points raised.

We have to be tolerant of each other, regardless of their beliefs. I don't fault science for nuclear bombs. Science is cool.

We are in complete agreement on this. I think tolerance is an excellent thing. Tolerance requires that I accept your right to hold a different view and to argue in favor of that view. It even requires that I be willing to listen to your arguments and give them fair consideration. It doesn’t require that I not challenge those view.

I also find science cool. The coolest thing about it is that it has no sacred cows. Even such fundamental theories as evolution, relativity, and quantum mechanic may legitimately be challenged provided the challenger presents sufficient evidence to support the challenge or an alternative theory that better matches the evidence available.

DanishDynamite

16th February 2004, 12:47 PM

espritch:I also find science cool. The coolest thing about it is that it has no sacred cows. Even such fundamental theories as evolution, relativity, and quantum mechanic may legitimately be challenged provided the challenger presents sufficient evidence to support the challenge or an alternative theory that better matches the evidence available. Well said, espritch. Perhaps off-topic, but I wanted to congratulate you anyway. :)

Dancing David

16th February 2004, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Christian
Dacing David:

And you are the type of person who is defending Ruby. And this is the type of people who Ruby wants as friends.

I am defending Ruby, because I read the thread where she came to an intellectual descision despite what here emotions told her.
And also because while there are good christians they are in minority.

You show exactly the phylosophy of hate you denounce.

No I actualy follow a philosophy of compassion, but my personal beliefs cause me to point out that alot of christian churches abuse thier memebers and approve of that abuse.

You know what is funny (meaning ironic). That your heart is full of hatred and resentment and you don't see it.

You know what is ironic, you don't know anything about me, but you make statements like that. I am as aware of my interior state as I am sure you are.

Again I say, you have very little power in here, and the one you have have in insignifant.

Your the one on the power trip, I am judging your behavior, why don't you share your intellectual reasons for believing that all christian churches do good all the time.

I'm very glad that in the outside world you have to behave. And that moderation here also keeps you in check.

I am glad that reality keeps the power hungry Xians from taking over the world!

[/B]

Why isit Christian that if we see all the pain that churches cause , you tell us we are wrong.
I like the teachings of jesus, I wish more churches actualy followed them.

Why is Ruby wrong , or I for that matter, for feeling that there are many churches that do great evil?

elliotfc

16th February 2004, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by LFTKBS
Well, I would say that the state of being "unsaved" and destined "to burn in hell for all eternity" is a negative characteristic. Wouldn't you?

Of course it is, and nobody will be forced into a state of Hell.

Spend any amount of time with religious people and you learn about it rather quickly.

I think you're full of it, or yourself. I spend time with religious people constantly and I don't see sadism and fear. You see what you want to see, that's all you're saying. Believe what you want.

-Elliot

elliotfc

16th February 2004, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Dymanic

Like most words in the language, 'belief' has more than one possible meaning. The one you are using here is not the one most relevant to this discussion.

I see your point. There are different kinds of proof, knowledge, etc etc.

Yes. What is important is that I don't have any choice about believing this.

I'm sorry about that! Good thing you're not like a murderer or something. I'm being serious. If you can't control your beliefs (if they were abominable) I wouldn't want to be around you. If you can't control your beliefs (if they are relatively harmless, like yours), all I can say is sometimes you can in fact do things if you really put your mind to it.

This is in fact precisely the erroneous assumption Christians so often make that atheists reach their conclusions by the same methods they themselves use (i.e., trying to make the facts fit the pre-drawn conclusions). I do not doubt that for many atheists, this is in fact the case.

That was my point. All of this works both ways.

I think that regardless of perspective -- religious, political, emotional, philosophical, whatever -- a reasonable (even indispensible) assumption is that there is more commonality than variation between individuals with regard to certain fundamental qualities of experience.

I guess you're sort of right, and I guess that explains why most people are theistic, or religious.

I take excessive enthusiasm as evidence of doubt, no matter what direction it's pointing in.

It could be any of a number of things, including immaturity and spitefulness and sheer joy.

I wasn't actually making any broad claims about being able to do any more than that, but I do feel that my personal experience is a valid (if imperfect) model in trying to understand others.

As long as you admit that, no problem.

-Elliot

Christian

16th February 2004, 01:15 PM

Dancing David wrote:
Why is Ruby wrong , or I for that matter, for feeling that there are many churches that do great evil?

I never said Ruby was wrong. I never said, she can't have her view.

She said I was insulting her for saying I didn't see the intellectual work behind her statements.

I stand by that assertion. It was not me who made I big deal about my comment. She was the one who suggested I start this thread and show her her comments about Christian.

I told her I would and she agreed to join. I would have dropped the whole thing if she had not said I was insulting her for making the comment that I felt she was being intellectually lazy about the specific topic on the other thread. And furthermore, I stated that I did not see the intellectual work behind her conversion.

I understand this is a very biased crowd. I don't mind. I don't mind at all. What I'm not going to do is back down from a position I believe to be legimite.

I get questioned about my position all the time and I get comments (like yours) all the time. I don't mind them. They don't bother me. But it gives me evidence that I'm not that off on what I see as very subjective thinking. Very little analysis involved.

Christian

16th February 2004, 01:23 PM

And for the record. Most Christian are not sadists. And people who say most Christians are sadist and who say Christianity (and Christians) is bad for the world are demonstrating bigotry towards them.

But this is a new point that has come to light in this thread.

My point to Ruby is that if she is going to critize Christianity for intellectual reasons (they are illogical) then she must show the intellectual work behind that thinking. If not, it is just hypocrisy.

DanishDynamite

16th February 2004, 01:36 PM

Christian:Dancing David wrote:
Why is Ruby wrong , or I for that matter, for feeling that there are many churches that do great evil?

I never said Ruby was wrong. I never said, she can't have her view.

She said I was insulting her for saying I didn't see the intellectual work behind her statements.

I stand by that assertion. It was not me who made I big deal about my comment. She was the one who suggested I start this thread and show her her comments about Christian.

I told her I would and she agreed to join. I would have dropped the whole thing if she had not said I was insulting her for making the comment that I felt she was being intellectually lazy about the specific topic on the other thread. And furthermore, I stated that I did not see the intellectual work behind her conversion.Of corse you insult someone when you call them lazy, intellectual or otherwise.
I understand this is a very biased crowd. I don't mind. I don't mind at all. What I'm not going to do is back down from a position I believe to be legimite. An admirable view.
I get questioned about my position all the time and I get comments (like yours) all the time. I don't mind them. They don't bother me. But it gives me evidence that I'm not that off on what I see as very subjective thinking. Very little analysis involved. Whether or not you get comments on your cult-membership and whether or not they are flattering has nothing to do with whether they are true or not.

DanishDynamite

16th February 2004, 01:43 PM

Christian:And for the record. Most Christian are not sadists. And people who say most Christians are sadist and who say Christianity (and Christians) is bad for the world are demonstrating bigotry towards them.How do you know most Christians aren't sadists?Don't they believe in eternal torture and suffering for those who aren't members of their cult? Do they expound on this view? Often?

How do you know that they don't enjoy this warped idea?
But this is a new point that has come to light in this thread.It is a very sad, sad old point.
My point to Ruby is that if she is going to critize Christianity for intellectual reasons (they are illogical)... The Christianity cult is entirely illogical. Is that what you meant?
...then she must show the intellectual work behind that thinking. If not, it is just hypocrisy. It is not hypocracy. It is just that Ruby needs some time to get her views sorted out.

If you want the intellectual working behind the self-contradictory and absurdity of your cult, just ask one of us regulars.

Humphreys

16th February 2004, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by Christian
My point to Ruby is that if she is going to critize Christianity for intellectual reasons (they are illogical) then she must show the intellectual work behind that thinking. If not, it is just hypocrisy.

Do you believe based on intellectual reasons, Christian? If you cannot argue that you and/or other Christians do, then I think it's fair to say you are indeed illogical.

Dancing David

16th February 2004, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by Christian
Dancing David wrote:
Why is Ruby wrong , or I for that matter, for feeling that there are many churches that do great evil?

I never said Ruby was wrong. I never said, she can't have her view.

She said I was insulting her for saying I didn't see the intellectual work behind her statements.

I stand by that assertion. It was not me who made I big deal about my comment. She was the one who suggested I start this thread and show her her comments about Christian.

I told her I would and she agreed to join. I would have dropped the whole thing if she had not said I was insulting her for making the comment that I felt she was being intellectually lazy about the specific topic on the other thread. And furthermore, I stated that I did not see the intellectual work behind her conversion.

I understand this is a very biased crowd. I don't mind. I don't mind at all. What I'm not going to do is back down from a position I believe to be legimite.

I get questioned about my position all the time and I get comments (like yours) all the time. I don't mind them. They don't bother me. But it gives me evidence that I'm not that off on what I see as very subjective thinking. Very little analysis involved.

I agree that I don't know the basis for why you feel that churches don't abuse thier memebers. I have lived it, I have seen it , and I get to hear about it all the time.

I ask again, if I see churches that say

-"Believe as I do or you will go to hell."
(A statement that is being repeatedly made to my son by the children of Xians)
-"Condemn a whole category of people because they are .... fill in the blank..."
(Fred Phelps being the most outrageous example)
-"If you leave the church(specific building) you are turning your back upon god."
(Happened to many people who look for a new church)
-"Being a human is a bad thing, especialy if you are a young woman."
(Why is it that the women are whores and the men are just studly)
-"Child abuse is the way to raise moral children."
(Spare the rod and spoil the child, the father is always right.)
-"The woman should alwys submit to the husband."
(Approving of marital rape.)

then i am seeing and hearing them say these things, these are all beielfs held by different churchs and they are the most agregious that I can think of, so IF I see the Churches causing Harm to People, why am I a bigot.

There is a lot of suffering created by the churches and the people who herd themselves into the churches. I do not see the amelioration of suffering in churches, I see the exaserbation of suffering.

I do not condemn christianity as a spiritual belief, I condemn the people who abuse it for thier own personal pwoer. I don't condemn the people who refuse to see the suffering that churches cause, but i do point it out.

And I think that you missed the hundreds of posts where Ruby worked through a very strong intellectual process to show her journey to where she is today.

You dear sir/madam are the intellectualy lazy one for merely champing at the bit and assuming that Ruby is a bigot she, as I, is discussing the behavior of real people in real churches.

You may be a very reasonable person who would condemn the harmful behavior of churches, but to say that Ruby is intellectualy lazy just says that you are ignorant of her process.

Dancing David

16th February 2004, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by Christian
And for the record. Most Christian are not sadists. And people who say most Christians are sadist and who say Christianity (and Christians) is bad for the world are demonstrating bigotry towards them.

You are right, most people are very safe as individuals, it is when they get toether in groups that they behave more stupidly.

But this is a new point that has come to light in this thread.

Nah, it is not new at all, I have condemned most churches for a very long time now. Everytime some self righteous reverend goes and sexualy assaults thier charges, it just confirms my view that churches are the problem.

My point to Ruby is that if she is going to critize Christianity for intellectual reasons (they are illogical) then she must show the intellectual work behind that thinking. If not, it is just hypocrisy.

No , you are just demanding she do so, she went through her intellectual process, and if you don't like it then ... oh, well.

So do you deny all the evil that churches do, do you approve of the evil, or do you condemn it?

For example, the establishement of the Southern Babtist Convention to support slavery?

Schizobunny

16th February 2004, 02:49 PM

I became an Athiest because I read the Bible. I never relized one book could contradict itself so often.

LFTKBS

16th February 2004, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by elliotfc - italics added
I think you're full of it, or yourself. I spend time with religious people constantly and I don't see sadism and fear. You see what you want to see, that's all you're saying. Believe what you want.

You're putting me on, right? Everyone else sees the irony here? Can I get a show of hands?

pgwenthold

16th February 2004, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by Schizobunny
I became an Athiest because I read the Bible. I never relized one book could contradict itself so often.

For me it was the omnipotence thing. For a being that was supposedly omnipotent and all-knowing, God seemed to have a lot of human limitations. At least according to christians, that is.

For example, the old "Sometimes a parent has to show their child tough love to make them learn." Even if I accepted it as true, it wouldn't have anything to do with God, who, being omnipotent, can make us learn without having to use "tough love." In fact, there is _nothing_ that God has to do. Everything he does is by choice.

So why does his behavior always get rationalized by applying human limitations? It doesn't make sense. So after dispensing with the only god I had believed in as nonsensical, I was suddenly atheist.

Dymanic

16th February 2004, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by elliotfc

I'm sorry about that! Good thing you're not like a murderer or something. I'm being serious. If you can't control your beliefs (if they were abominable) I wouldn't want to be around you. If you can't control your beliefs (if they are relatively harmless, like yours), all I can say is sometimes you can in fact do things if you really put your mind to it.
Here again, I think a somewhat overly liberal application of the term 'belief' is a potential cause for confusion. This time you are using it to describe a system of moral standards. And again, my objection is that this is not the meaning of the word 'belief' which is most relevant. Society holds me responsible for my acts -- not my beliefs. But this is not what we are talking about here.

Under Christianity, salvation ultimately boils down to a single requirement: believe in Christ. The tacit assumption, and the commonly held notion -- which I dispute -- is that this is something which is subject to conscious choice. Since belief is the very basis of becoming accepted under such a system, to admit -- even to oneself -- that one experiences serious doubt about the matter is pretty much guaranteed to cause great internal conflict. Yet the doubt (the cause of the conflict) must be rooted out and destroyed, and this without making that admission. A tricky prospect. The way it is done is to identify doubt in others, where it can be safely acknowledged and attacked. Psychologists call this 'alienation and projection'. I think that is what we are seeing here.

It is easy to focus on the suffering such people may inflict on others, overlooking the fact that their actions demonstrate that they are suffering themselves. I am not saying that their suffering excuses the sort of brutality which they so often display, and every measure should be taken to limit the opportunities for groups of these people (where they are most dangerous, as has been observed) to augment their emotionally abusive practices with political power. The historical record quite clearly shows the results of that.

kittynh

16th February 2004, 03:17 PM

wow! If most of us posted on a Xian site I'm sure we would find the athesit belief system constantly "insulted" and "talked down". And I'm sure those people would have lots of great examples of evil atheists and bad things that have happened because of NOT believing. I really wouldn't think they would repspect someones atheist beliefs. Heck, they wouldn't respect my moderate Christian beliefs. In fact, they wouldn't respect any of their "members" that posted on the JREF site, because you have to "guard against the devil who is a good at manipulating". It's vainity to openly investigate and pit your "faith" against the devil - you're asking for trouble! (from my ultra Xian neighbor - she says I'm burning belief or not anyway...but she loves me!)

On the Xian site you are going to get people who have had good experiences through their beliefs. Here you are going to get people who have had good experiences through their skeptic beliefs or non - beliefs. Many people's lives have been bettered by leaving a too strict religious dogma. There is no worse hell, than someone elses view of heaven imposed upon another.

These are their war stories. I've found a place where I am comfortable, and that comfort brings me a sense of peace when others assail it. I share the same religious beliefs as Martin Gardner, but many others don't. (I just put that because I think he's so cool, and when I found out we were on the same wavelenght I was pretty smug for awhile....)

Ruby

16th February 2004, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by Christian
As in many occasion before, the lack of objectivity shown with members in this group is evident.
The lack of ability to READ this information is also evident.
But, just for my sake and the record, I will offer a synopses.
This is paraphrasing (not what actually was said).

Ruby: I think Christians are crazy. They also involve themselves in worthless rituals, their beliefs are based on fear (not reason), they are sadists and delight in the idea that people will go to hell. They have been brainwashed, and are paranoid. They are immoral and the biggest backstabbing gossips. They spread false and malicious stories is rampant. They are abusers of every sort...including sexual.

I am glad you said "This is paraphrasing (not what actually was said)". That was a hodge podge of statements taken of context from various threads I posted in. I don't recall ever flat out saying "I think Christians are crazy". If I did, I must have been angry.....and it must be out of context.

I don't recall ever saying that Christians, as a whole, base their beliefs on fear. The closest to that I recall saying was in the thread The psychology of Hell. Ruby said: "Fear, fear fear. That seems to be the biggest motivaton behind so much in Christianity...although so many Christians can't see it. So many who have doubts, but still cling to Christianity, would never admit that they hold on due to a deep seated fear that "Hell" might still be for real."

Part of the above paraphrasing was taken from the thread Motivation for Morals where I posted back in November of last year saying "When I was a Christian, I was motivated by fear to be moral...this turned into legalism. Most Christians went around feeling superior if they abstained from more "worldly" things than other Christians. For some, it was considered immoral to drink alcohol. For others, to wear make-up was immoral. So many Christians spent far too much time worrying and sweating over little things to even face the fact that they were being immoral in the big things...where it really counted. I found many christians to be harsh and condemning of others...and the biggest backstabbing gossips. The spread of false and malicious stories was rampant. There were abuses of every sort...including sexual.

Christians have not cornered the market on morals!!

Now, as an agnostic, I choose to be moral...without fear or pressure....without legalism...without pretense. I don't expect or wait to be rewarded for doing a good deed...as christians always do.....I just do good deeds, period...expecting nothing.

I feel better about myself due to this.

For the record, I don't think Christians, on the whole, are crazy. I also don't think, on the whole, that they are immoral. Speaking in general terms, I think that at least 1/3 of Christians are legalistic. Some are abusive. I think that some Christians are trapped by fear. I think some Christians are harsh and condemning. I think some are backstabbers and gossips.

Now, in my 13 years as a Christian, most of the Christians I was around, happened to be legalistic, abusive, condemning and so on. Only a few were exceptional. This was my experience. It was Hell. Not everyone shares my type of experience.

Me: I state as a fact that you know very little of Christian dogma.

Ruby: I studied 13 years this stuff.

I believe my exact words were (from The Blinding Power of Fear) "I lived with Christian dogma for about 13 years". I did not spend the whole 13 years studying it. I probably spent about seven or eight years out of that studying.

Me: Furthermore, you say a lot but not show very little evidence of intelectual work. In this subject you show that your decision are emotions based, that you are being intellectually lazy about it.

Ruby: You are insulting me, you are a bad person.

LOL!! I never called you a bad person. What is your point in "paraphrasing" like this? This isn't paraphrasing at all. You are adding words. I don't think you are a bad person. However, I am upset at your approach with me, and frustrated at your tactics to continue to make me look like I am some awful person. I can't even seem to get to get to the topic at hand...whatever that was............:p

Me: I'm making factual observations to you. If I'm wrong show me your work. You say Christians are crazy, illogical, with beliefs based on fear and that is your critizism of them. I chanllenge your judgements, and what you to show me the intellectual work that brings you to those conclusions.
Ruby: You are not my god, you are not my king. You can't make do anything.
Me: That's is not what I'm saying. If you call other people illogical, these people have the right to challenge you reasoning. Of course you don't have to answer any of it. But then, your statements become worthless. And it could be perceived as hypocrisy.

Yes, if I have called someone illogical, they have the right to question me, but I have not called anyone, personally, illogical. I have only talked about Christians in my past....from my life, in my experience. I have not called you illogical or any other Christian on here.

Ruby: You are a villian, and others agree with me.

What I really said was "I don't think I'm off my head.....at least one person backed me up on this."

Others: Ruby is entitled to her opinion and she has the right to say whatever she wants about Christians. Besides, you are very ugly.

Me: I'm not arguing about her right to say those things (she has).

No, I did not say them the way you have interpreted them.

I'm not even arguing about the right of her to villify me (she has).

I can't understand why you think this.

I'M STATING THAT I HAVE THE RIGHT CHANLLENGE WHAT SHE SAYS AND TO ASK HER FOR THE INTELLECTUAL WORK BEHIND HERE STATEMENTS
She has the right to not to answer me.
AND I HAVE THE RIGHT TO CALL THAT HYPOCRISY
And she has the right to villify all over again.

Why are you so angry and upset with me? What on earth have I done to provoke you like this? This disturbs me very much. I am not your enemy.

I have been responding, albeit slowly, to all your posts about my so called talking down about Christians. That was the purpose of this thread. Actually, you were supposed to ask questions about my constant talking down of Christians. There is so much to go through....so much of my posts you have copied and pasted and made comments on....that I may have missed actual questions.

I am very tired now. I must rest......but i will be back, and try to respond to what I can. I was agreeable to this thread being started....but only for the purpose of being confronted about my supposed talking down of Christians.

Go back and read The Blinding Power of Fear here http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35055&perpage=20&pagenumber=5 where I said "If you find that I "talk down about Christians constantly" and you want to question me on it, why not start a whole new topic on it?" and your reply was "ok".

That's all I agreed to concerning this thread. I was bit surprised when I came on this thread the first time and discovered you had said in your opening post "Ruby has agreed to join in and talk about her path to atheism. Ruby, what was the main reason of your "Conversion"?"

I felt you had lied or tricked me......or just grossly misunderstood our discussion in the other thread. Anyhow, I have decided I'll go ahead and post my conversion story.............but that will take awhile to put together. In the meantime, I am working my way through all the stuff you have dragged up to accuse me with. I am not avoiding questions.

:(

kittynh

16th February 2004, 04:29 PM

well, saying there aren't a lot of crazy people who claim to be Christians (though I have my doubts, can you really believe in divine retribution and act like David Koresh?) - is like saying there aren't a lot of crazy people who claim to be Muslims, or even atheists.

Bad people will latch onto and corrupt anything they can manipulate to their own ends. A dogmatic religion is as good as an inflexible and repressive political belief.

"You don't see a lot of people complaining about Swedenborgians...

http://www.swedenborg.org/tenets.cfm

Swedenborgianism
This, then, is the living reality of Swedenborg's teachings. In stressing freedom, diversity, and individualism, he issued a challenge to individuals, churches, and other organizations to be committed to the human growth processes and to express their personal commitment in ways as diverse as their numbers. Sensitivity to, and respect for, each individual's "internal church," or spirituality, is what Swedenborgianism is really all about.

I just like Swedenborgians, no ones ever heard of them....but the few I've met believe that choosing to be an atheist can be your spiritual journey. God isn't going to hold it against you...they are so nice....

this is so off the topic isn't it?

hang in there Ruby!

evildave

16th February 2004, 05:57 PM

kittynh this is so off the topic isn't it?

It's a perfect example of acknowledging the Christians who are nice.

Most Christians are just normal people who I never have any complaints about at all. They don't go out of their way to get in my face, and I never bother with messing with them at all.

It's only that peculiar extremist minority whose concept of "right and wrong" is so utterly skewed by their religious teachings that open harrassment and abuse, heck, even VIOLENCE seems "right" to them over disagreements as trivial as philosophy. They certainly can become better people if they choose. Unfortunately, their sense of what is "better", "moral" and "good" is warped into being more devout in their extremist ways.

A pity, really. If there's any truth about a "just and loving god", who cares about people, and segregates them in some way "after death" (or judgment or whatever), then the "hell" they end up with is only a "hell" for being filled with people like themselves.

Yahweh

16th February 2004, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by Christian
Dymanic wrote:
The other approach, of course, is to make a commitment to truth. Once the struggle is over, it's the only thing left -- to try to find the courage to be willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads. This requires courage because the truth is often quite ugly -- even terrifying. And there is no turning back. Atheism is the red pill.

But if I'm really honest with myself and SEE human limitations to knowledge (in the context of close to infinite information and (from the MA perspective) randomness)) then I have to admit that the truth is unattainable.

The things that atheist can be certain about (that really matter) in comparison to the rest of the population (including Christians) is miniscule, at best.
Christian,

I cant tell you how many times I've heard the "humans are so limited in their knowledge" argument. Do you know what kind of argument this is? Its a cop-out, its a vacuous statement absent of actual reasoning. Its true simply because the words which form the statement make it true (that is not reasoning, thats called tautology (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tautology), which is not equivelant to reasoning). For the same reason, there are few instances where I'll ever accept "... therefore X is true by definition".

Have you taken the time to think through the logic? It is futile at best, an endless circle. A person who worships another god as yourself could quite successfully argue against your god simply on the basis of "your knowledge is limited". And vice versa.

However, you are describing God as "the unknown". Well, if we leave it at that, what we dont know gets smaller and smaller everyday. 100 years ago, it might have been perfectly acceptable to say "where did the universe come from... ahhh, you dont know, I propose god did it (oh, but god doesnt need a cause because he's god ya know)". Today, there is no mystery in that first cause, and it seems the information we've unraveled is not god (well, I guess by technicality, you could call the big bang by the name of God, but it would be weird).

I will be unlikely to be persuaded in a belief in God because of my lack of knowledge, and I will unlikely to tolerate a condemnation of the things I believe because I myself have not achieved godhood.

The "human knowledge is limited" is not an excuse for belief in anything really... that is unless you can devise a way for which you can distinguish one supernatural explanation another. Was it God, or was it gnomes, who knows!

If you accepted human knowledge being so limited, how can you possibly accept the bible. I will propose that the book was written by devils who are trying to lead you away from the True Christian God. Though the devils did in fact give you a chance to see this True Christian God (Romans 1:20 tells you to understand God through his creation, and his creation is utterly indistinguishable from a universe absent of God, you can only assume a deistic concept of God or the fact that God has no influence on the world... hmmmm, I guess atheists go to Heaven whatever that may be).

Everything I will ever learn will come an epistemological approach to world, a series of observations and analysis of those observations. Apparently, the world is indistinguishable from a world driven entirely by natural forces.

If you care at all, I wrote a Proof for Naturalism (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35017).

Oh, and sparklecat wrote some things definitely worth reading (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34305).

RandFan,Jr.

16th February 2004, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by Ruby
"When I was a Christian, I was motivated by fear to be moral...this turned into legalism. Most Christians went around feeling superior if they abstained from more "worldly" things than other Christians. For some, it was considered immoral to drink alcohol. For others, to wear make-up was immoral. So many Christians spent far too much time worrying and sweating over little things to even face the fact that they were being immoral in the big things...where it really counted. I have to say that this is also typical of a number of Mormons. I have spent a good deal of time defending Mormonism but I have to honestly say that religion and human nature tend to do this to a significant # of people.

I have a Mormon friend who is fanatically against alcohol. He has no problem downloading porn on his computer though. It seems people tend to defend their own "sins" while not accepting others.

RandFan,Jr.

16th February 2004, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by LFTKBS
You're putting me on, right? Everyone else sees the irony here? Can I get a show of hands? I don't think it has been demonstrated that a majority of christians are sadists or live in "fear".

Could you expand on what you mean?

elliotfc

16th February 2004, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by Schizobunny
I became an Athiest because I read the Bible. I never relized one book could contradict itself so often.

Given all of the different authors it should come as no shock. I never get how contradictions in the Bible equals no God. I don't see how that equation is valid.

-Elliot

elliotfc

16th February 2004, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by LFTKBS

You're putting me on, right? Everyone else sees the irony here? Can I get a show of hands?

Irony? You stereotype a whole group of people. I'm only talking about you.

-Elliot

elliotfc

16th February 2004, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by Dymanic
Here again, I think a somewhat overly liberal application of the term 'belief' is a potential cause for confusion. This time you are using it to describe a system of moral standards. And again, my objection is that this is not the meaning of the word 'belief' which is most relevant. Society holds me responsible for my acts -- not my beliefs. But this is not what we are talking about here.

OK.....

Under Christianity, salvation ultimately boils down to a single requirement: believe in Christ.

Right, and that happens after death.

The tacit assumption, and the commonly held notion -- which I dispute -- is that this is something which is subject to conscious choice.

I sort of agree. When it's just us and God, it should be very obvious, but that doesn't mean you have to accept the obvious.

I am following you...but I think accept is the word I would use, instead of believe, when it comes down to salvation.

Since belief is the very basis of becoming accepted under such a system, to admit -- even to oneself -- that one experiences serious doubt about the matter is pretty much guaranteed to cause great internal conflict.

Yes, plus our natures fight against capitulating to God.

Yet the doubt (the cause of the conflict) must be rooted out and destroyed, and this without making that admission. A tricky prospect. The way it is done is to identify doubt in others, where it can be safely acknowledged and attacked. Psychologists call this 'alienation and projection'. I think that is what we are seeing here.

Right. You are identifying doubt in others.

It is easy to focus on the suffering such people may inflict on others, overlooking the fact that their actions demonstrate that they are suffering themselves.

But that's my point. I *could* say the same thing about you.

I am not saying that their suffering excuses the sort of brutality which they so often display, and every measure should be taken to limit the opportunities for groups of these people (where they are most dangerous, as has been observed) to augment their emotionally abusive practices with political power. The historical record quite clearly shows the results of that.

Right. USSR.

-Elliot

evildave

16th February 2004, 08:00 PM

USSR... or most of Europe throughout the Dark Ages.

Or, heck, most cultures before the 'Age Of Reason' dawned were run directly, or indirectly by religious authority.

We still have plenty of nice examples of places in Africa and the Middle East that run off religious authority.

Or my favorite example, the 'Lord's Resistance Army' (LRA) that kidnaps children to either be raped, mutilated and killed, or turned into soldiers, all in the name of establishing 'The Ten Commandments' as the government.

Religion + Government = HELL ON EARTH.

Just read your history and pay attention to your current events.

kittynh

16th February 2004, 08:13 PM

I never got converted to fundie beliefs as a teenager as my fundie friends all said that God was "omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent" (if I spelled all that right it would be a miracle).

She told me that everything was preordained by God. so, I was like, "I have no free will?" right-oh!

so, my going to special bible classes and all that wasn't going to be my choice, it was going to be Gods. In fact, being "born again" was going to be Gods choice, not mine.

I told her I'd go on like I was for now thanks. She finally decided it was pre ordained I'd go burn, and dropped me as a friend. this while I taught Sunday School every week. She's gone through a marriage and abondoned her kids...but hey, the last time I talked to her "this was God's will" and who was she to question it? Not having free will must be fun. sure am glad God decided it was ok for me to join JREF...
Thanks God!

Dymanic

16th February 2004, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by elliotfc

Under Christianity, salvation ultimately boils down to a single requirement: believe in Christ.
--------------------------------------------------------

Right, and that happens after death.
Wait...what? I don't know where you went to Sunday school, but that ain't what they taught me. You have read the bible, haven't you?

I think accept is the word I would use, instead of believe, when it comes down to salvationIf you want to just make this stuff up as you go along, that's cool, but it isn't consistent with mainstream Christianity, which involves an affirmative obligation to believe a certain thing: "Whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life". You can play around with the words all you want, but there is simply no wiggling out of that.

Right. You are identifying doubt in others...

...But that's my point. I *could* say the same thing about youI have learned that a reasonable default assumption is that a crusader (for any cause, not only religious causes) is likely trying to compensate for some percieved shortcoming.

This has subtle and widespread implications. For example, I think many who seek careers in law enforcement (certainly many of the most successful at it) are driven by a need to subjucate their own criminal tendancies. People often reveal much about themselves by what they protest against, especially when they "doth protest too much". I hope you will notice that my wording includes escape clauses in acknowledgment of the fact that this process invloves considerable guesswork, but I stand by my view that those who appear to have a significant emotional investment in what others believe is very likely to be one who is tormented by his own doubts.

I have zero emotional investment in what you, or Christian, or for that matter Ruby, or anyone else believes or doesn't believe, and you will not find me trolling Christian fora with my atheism (though I will confess that I did go through that phase). I no longer need to, because I'm (finally) comfortable with what I believe. I also don't have a problem with you guys working through your stuff here either, though there seems to be some room for improvement around style. I think we're basically all doing the best we can with what we have to work with.

My own suffering ended once I decided to stop trying to steer my beliefs. I believe what my reason tells me to believe, and I do not consider myself answerable to anyone else for that. My views may change without further notice based on the input of new information, but if they change, it will be because of that, and not a result of deliberate intent on my part. The rule of thumb I use now is that believing in something shouldn't require a lot of effort.

Yahweh

17th February 2004, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc
Given all of the different authors it should come as no shock. I never get how contradictions in the Bible equals no God. I don't see how that equation is valid.

-Elliot
I'm sure every person might answer the question differently (and possibly more succintly than I could), but one of the immediate reasoning which comes to mind is that a number of contradictions seems to defeat the idea of a perfect god. If some people accept their god as perfect, believe he wrote the bible, then certainly they ought to reject belief in God when the work he has written is internally contradictory.

However, it is quite easy to say "oh, then the bible was inspired by a perfect god". Well, there is no reason which comes to mind which feeds the idea the book was inspired. Most of the stories are quite allegorical (hey, even Gal. 4:24 says the story of Abraham was allegorical, Jesus also taught in parables). This suggests that the morals of the bible are more important than the details. For some, this is enough to feel comfortable with the idea that there is no god, because the character written in the bible is an allegory in itself. God as an allegory is a reflection of humanity.

The allegory of God comes through in the fact that the inconsistencies and contradictions of God's character. Further reasoning to suggest God is allegorical is the fact that nearly all physical manifestations of God are indirect or symbolic. God expresses his intentions through the use of symbols (such as the use of the rainbow in the allegorical story of Noah's ark).

Of course, few folks are unwilling to accept that the God written in the bible is intended as symbolic. What folks usually find hard to understand is the inconsistant nature of God. In the course of two chapters in Exodus, God threatens to destroy the Israelites, relents, and then pronounces himself loving, forgiving, and slow to anger. God physically wrestles Jacob and allows Jacob to beat him. These humble and endearing qualities of God contrast his later appearances as a pillar of fire and a thunderous mountain.

To some, contradictions in character of God, the contradictions in the bible, and the allegorical nature of many of the stories in the bible are only to be believed in the strictest of irrational faith. Many folks are unwilling to settle for irrational faith, so they reject it. With it, they reject their belief in God.

Ruby

17th February 2004, 06:16 AM

Originally posted by kittynh
She told me that everything was preordained by God. so, I was like, "I have no free will?" right-oh!

You just hit right on one of the many reasons I began to have doubts as a Christian. I could not reconcile everything....especially Christians.... being preordained, known and chosen by God, and yet man having freewill. My mind went round in circles with it. It scared me. I hid it away until too many other little things kept popping up and I had to face it all. Even then, I could not stop being a Christian. It was the emotional that held me in place..that kept me in my church....I needed that social outlet.....until my church...my Pastor, that is, turned on me and my husband. We were so hurt, and yet it was freeing at the same time. All the veils came down. What an incredible journey it has been so far!!!:)

elliotfc

17th February 2004, 06:25 AM

Christian I just don't know why you are singling out Ruby. Actually, I must admit I have some suspicions, but they could be totally wrong, so I'll just say I don't know why you are singling out Ruby.

If you should single out people, you have many to choose from, yet you choose one of the most sincere persons on this forum. Weird.

-Elliot

Ruby

17th February 2004, 06:34 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc
Christian I just don't know why you are singling out Ruby. Actually, I must admit I have some suspicions, but they could be totally wrong, so I'll just say I don't know why you are singling out Ruby.

If you should single out people, you have many to choose from, yet you choose one of the most sincere persons on this forum. Weird.

-Elliot

Thanks Elliot!!! You have been kind to me in the other thread too.

:)

elliotfc

17th February 2004, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by espritch

There will always be change. Change and progress are not necessarily identical concepts. A new consensus as to the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin is change but it is not progress. The rejection of the institution of slavery is progress.

I agree!

Looking at the big picture, we continually progress. Of course there are incidents that can be identified to the contrary.

You have a standard, which is great. I also have a standard. Thankfully are standards are basically the same, believe it or not. I think my point here is that you take individual events (terroritistic religion) as signs of regression, and I agree, but the big picture doesn't change. We are progressing, in spite of the action of a few millions.

I think you imply that the rejection of the institution of religion would be progress. If so (and I may be wrong in that implication) you ignore that it was religion that was the foundation of the abolition movements.

It is entirely possible that religion played an important role in the development of civilization but this doesn’t mean it isn’t now acting as an impediment.

I don't know if you are confusing your ideal goal (what you wish) for what you see. Religion is detached from governments, at least relatively speaking, compared to hundreds of years ago. Yet religion continues to minister to spiritual needs, as well as physical needs. I had lunch a few days ago with a dentist who ministers, pro bono, to AIDS patients who can not get dental treatment from the private sector. I'm not going to let some actions paint all of religion in a negative light.

A multi-stage rocket cannot attain orbit without a first stage. But if it doesn’t achieve separation from the first stage at some point, it will come crashing back down to earth.

OK, at first you admit that religion played a role in enabling the rise of civilizations, and now you are saying that that rocket needs to be shed or else it will be destroyed. But your analogy is inherently ironic and flawed. Your rocket is leaving earth for somewhere else, never to return, while civilization is inherently about earth and staying on earth!

No. I’m a secular humanist, not a communist. I would never consider making any view illegal or imprisoning or killing anyone for holding a view. That is anathema to me.

Excellent, I never really doubted that.

I do however reserve the right to challenge those view and to offer arguments against them. If you choose to label my arguments as divisive and inflammatory and summarily dismiss them, that is certainly your prerogative, but it isn’t a valid refutation of the points raised.

I don't have a problem with your arguments, but your prejudices and stereotypes. Religion isn't perfect, and neither is secular humanism. God knows secular humanists have as much difficulty in holding their behavioral standards as the religious.

I also find science cool. The coolest thing about it is that it has no sacred cows. Even such fundamental theories as evolution, relativity, and quantum mechanic may legitimately be challenged provided the challenger presents sufficient evidence to support the challenge or an alternative theory that better matches the evidence available.

What about the people blacklisted for speaking against evolutionary theory?

-Elliot

elliotfc

17th February 2004, 06:42 AM

Originally posted by evildave
USSR... or most of Europe throughout the Dark Ages.

Or, heck, most cultures before the 'Age Of Reason' dawned were run directly, or indirectly by religious authority.

We still have plenty of nice examples of places in Africa and the Middle East that run off religious authority.

Or my favorite example, the 'Lord's Resistance Army' (LRA) that kidnaps children to either be raped, mutilated and killed, or turned into soldiers, all in the name of establishing 'The Ten Commandments' as the government.

Religion + Government = HELL ON EARTH.

Just read your history and pay attention to your current events.

???

And what about non-religious goverments?

I don't get your point.

-Elliot

elliotfc

17th February 2004, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by Dymanic

Wait...what? I don't know where you went to Sunday school, but that ain't what they taught me. You have read the bible, haven't you?

I guess I disagree with most Bible-based Christians. I think Catholicism is distinct from these branches of Christianity. Even the most evil person who has rejected Christ all of his life is redeemable if he desires it (but the reconciliation process may be indistinguishible from Hell, except for the eternity part).

I'm in the uncomfortable position here of being a Christian who does not subscribe to all of the beliefs of the people on this Rapture list I keep hearing about! It's tough to stereotype all Christians.

I'd guess that somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of Christians would agree with my belief that a person who rejects Christ on earth can be redeemed. I base this on years of discussions with Christians.

If you want to just make this stuff up as you go along, that's cool, but it isn't consistent with mainstream Christianity, which involves an affirmative obligation to believe a certain thing: "Whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life". You can play around with the words all you want, but there is simply no wiggling out of that.

Unprovable theories are constructed to give intellectual satisfaction, science knows all about that.

Post-death, the most evil bastard can decide to believe in Christ. I wouldn't make it that simple, because that evil bastard will have to experience/understand the pain he caused others, and he may not want to go through that process.

I believe in the words actually, you just want to see it in a very narrow way (kind of like the fundies you bash).

I have learned that a reasonable default assumption is that a crusader (for any cause, not only religious causes) is likely trying to compensate for some percieved shortcoming.

Fair enough, and that could apply here as well.

This has subtle and widespread implications. For example, I think many who seek careers in law enforcement (certainly many of the most successful at it) are driven by a need to subjucate their own criminal tendancies.

Fair enough! That is the foundation of Christianity! We are driven by the need to subjugate our own sinful tendencies.

So people on this skeptic list, are they driven by a need to subjugate their own religious tendencies? If so, I don't think there is anything essentially wrong with that.

People often reveal much about themselves by what they protest against, especially when they "doth protest too much". I hope you will notice that my wording includes escape clauses in acknowledgment of the fact that this process invloves considerable guesswork, but I stand by my view that those who appear to have a significant emotional investment in what others believe is very likely to be one who is tormented by his own doubts.

OK, and I don't think your opinion is inherently invalid or outrageous, in fact, I'm sure it is very often true.

How about people who speak out against drug addiction? Do they have doubts that maybe drug use is A-OK?

I have zero emotional investment in what you, or Christian, or for that matter Ruby, or anyone else believes or doesn't believe, and you will not find me trolling Christian fora with my atheism (though I will confess that I did go through that phase).

I take you completely at your word.

My own suffering ended once I decided to stop trying to steer my beliefs. I believe what my reason tells me to believe, and I do not consider myself answerable to anyone else for that.

I say the exact same thing, except I believe I have to answer to God. I suspect you would say that this belief in God means that I do not, in fact, steer my beliefs.

Is it possible to not steer one's beliefs? Is it possible to be an unbaised reporter? Maybe some people are better at it than others.

My views may change without further notice based on the input of new information, but if they change, it will be because of that, and not a result of deliberate intent on my part. The rule of thumb I use now is that believing in something shouldn't require a lot of effort.

I don't spend a lot of effort confirming my beliefs, but obviously I do spend effort in advocating them, or simply supplying them, on this forum. It is good exercise I think.

-Elliot

elliotfc

17th February 2004, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by Yahweh

I'm sure every person might answer the question differently (and possibly more succintly than I could), but one of the immediate reasoning which comes to mind is that a number of contradictions seems to defeat the idea of a perfect god. If some people accept their god as perfect, believe he wrote the bible, then certainly they ought to reject belief in God when the work he has written is internally contradictory.

Excellent post Yahweh, and I'll get back to it later (gotta split), but briefly...

The concept of God can exist independent of the Bible. That is undeniable. Therefore, how can a faulty Bible mean God does not exist?

-Elliot

Skeptical Greg

17th February 2004, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc

The concept of God can exist independent of the Bible. That is undeniable. Therefore, how can a faulty Bible mean God does not exist?

-Elliot

It would mean, that if the God of the Bible exists, then that God is faulty...:D

pgwenthold

17th February 2004, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc

Excellent post Yahweh, and I'll get back to it later (gotta split), but briefly...

The concept of God can exist independent of the Bible. That is undeniable.

OK, tell us about this alternate version of god...

I have a hard time believing in something when I don't even know what it is. The bible gives a description of some supposed god. However, that description has problems, so we conclude it is not a real description of any supposed god. So you say, "well, the bible isn't really an accurate description of the 'real god.'" So what is?

Unless this god has some actual properties, it makes about as much sense to believe in it as it would to believe in a hufnagwample.

Christian

17th February 2004, 07:33 AM

Ruby wrote:
For the record, I don't think Christians, on the whole, are crazy. I also don't think, on the whole, that they are immoral. Speaking in general terms, I think that at least 1/3 of Christians are legalistic. Some are abusive. I think that some Christians are trapped by fear. I think some Christians are harsh and condemning. I think some are backstabbers and gossips.

It is evident that you don't see the problem. Let me illustrate:

For the record, I don't think Atheists, on the whole, are crazy. I also don't think, on the whole, that they are immoral. Speaking in general terms, I think that at least 1/3 of Atheists are legalistic. Some are abusive. I think that some Atheists are trapped by fear. I think some Atheists are harsh and condemning. I think some are backstabbers and gossips.

Do you have a problem with the above statement. Even of you backtrack from your original statement, you are still not fixing the labeling thing.

Now, in my 13 years as a Christian, most of the Christians I was around, happened to be legalistic, abusive, condemning and so on. Only a few were exceptional. This was my experience. It was Hell. Not everyone shares my type of experience.

Now, this is completely different. The main reason this statement is different is because you can possible name everyone in this group. You can say Tom, Jack, Peter, Anna.... happened to be legalistic, abusive, condemning and so on. These are the people you were around.

My opinion is that they were not legalistic, abusive, condemning and so on because they were Christians. If they were it was because they as persons were.

LOL!! I never called you a bad person. What is your point in "paraphrasing" like this?

You never called me a bad person, no. You have done worse.
Every chance you get you have reminded me of you mental challenging condition, you told me to pick on someone my own size, and you make comments like these:

Why are you so angry and upset with me? What on earth have I done to provoke you like this? This disturbs me very much. I am not your enemy.

You are characterizing me as someone who is attacking an innocent person who, besides being physically challenged, has done nothing to provoke the attack.

When I said you were demonstrated intellectual laziness, I referred specifically to that topic. That comment has spawned this whole thing.

As I said before, I respect you, but that does not mean I will back down from a position a feel is correct.

I don't think you are a bad person. However, I am upset at your approach with me, and frustrated at your tactics to continue to make me look like I am some awful person. I can't even seem to get to get to the topic at hand...whatever that was.

I'm not using any tactics to make you look like an awful person. On the contrary, if anything, you are looking like the hero, you are getting congratulations left and right. People are giving you unconditional support and I see only cheers for you.

You are still wrong.

Yes, if I have called someone illogical, they have the right to question me, but I have not called anyone, personally, illogical. I have only talked about Christians in my past....from my life, in my experience. I have not called you illogical or any other Christian on here.

I wont be reposting but illogicall is what you definitely meant. I did not say you called me illogical.

I'm not even arguing about the right of her to villify me (she has).
I can't understand why you think this.

Because you have.

am very tired now. I must rest......but i will be back, and try to respond to what I can. I was agreeable to this thread being started....but only for the purpose of being confronted about my supposed talking down of Christians.

Go back and read The Blinding Power of Fear here http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/sho...20&pagenumber=5 where I said "If you find that I "talk down about Christians constantly" and you want to question me on it, why not start a whole new topic on it?" and your reply was "ok".

That's all I agreed to concerning this thread. I was bit surprised when I came on this thread the first time and discovered you had said in your opening post "Ruby has agreed to join in and talk about her path to atheism. Ruby, what was the main reason of your "Conversion"?"

We are not communicating here. Why would I want to discuss you negative comments of Christians just for the sake of it. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. You are entitled to your opinion and your comments.

This stuff did not come in a vacuum. All along, I have said you have not shown your intellectual work. And I said you need to show it BECAUSE OF THE NEGATIVE comments about Christians.

If you had not had negative comments (regarding intellectual work of Christians) then I would not have asked you to present your work. I would not have stated that I saw very little of it.

So, the negative comments is only my evidence that my comments did not come in a vacuum and that I had the right to say you need to show your intellectual work.

It is that simple. There is nothing else.

I have no negative feelings towards you, the only thing that keeps me going in this thread is pure conviction. That is all.

I felt you had lied or tricked me......or just grossly misunderstood our discussion in the other thread. Anyhow, I have decided I'll go ahead and post my conversion story.............but that will take awhile to put together. In the meantime, I am working my way through all the stuff you have dragged up to accuse me with. I am not avoiding questions.

Listen, it took me about 15-20 minutes to pull those quotes out. It is very easy, all I had to do was use the search function (Ruby and Christians as key words). The quotes came from the first two pages. I didn't bother to look further.

I'm not accusing you, you instructed me to show you how you bashed Christians, remember?

Yah wrote:
Christian,

I cant tell you how many times I've heard the "humans are so limited in their knowledge" argument. Do you know what kind of argument this is? Its a cop-out, its a vacuous statement absent of actual reasoning.

Let's get things straight here. My comments in no way are an argument for a belief in God. You are constructing a strawman.

Have you taken the time to think through the logic?

Yes, I have.

Well, if we leave it at that, what we dont know gets smaller and smaller everyday.

You are right, but you are wrong.

You have not thought about this carefully. Let me illustrate this mathematically.

x= all the knowledge available to humans
y=knowledge=close to infinity

Let's say "x" 200 years ago= 100

So a person knowing 30 of x could know 30% of all knowledge. This is why there use to be erudites in ancient times.

Now, x=1,000,000 (social sciences, aeronatics, computer science, anthropology, physics, etc.) This is why a person specializes on a sub-set of a sub-set of a subject. e.g. Medicine-Dentist-Orthodontist.

So, a person knowing 200 of x knows much more than a person 200 years ago. That is true. But in terms of all the knowledge available, he know (percentages wise) much, much less.

Make the division 200/1,000,000.

The numbers of course are just illustrations but the idea is correct.

The implications of this, is that we have to rely heavely on others to survive. It would not be possible to check and study for ourselves everything there is to be successful.

So here my comment again.

But if I'm really honest with myself and SEE human limitations to knowledge (in the context of close to infinite information and (from the MA perspective) randomness)) then I have to admit that the truth is unattainable.

The things that atheist can be certain about (that really matter) in comparison to the rest of the population (including Christians) is miniscule, at best.

And remember, knowledge has always been infinite. Now, if you are willing to argue that atheist are more successful than other groups. You would have to tell in what areas and show this evidence.

You would have to argue that the quality of your life is better than the quality of other groups (holding all other variables similar) based on your atheism.

kittynh

17th February 2004, 09:09 AM

Geez Christian! Never go to a Swedenborgian church!

Thank Ed the Christian church I go to won't allow me to make the comment I'd like to make about Christian being very un-Christian and perhaps as a professed Christian acting in a intimidating and agressive manner that would be considered unproductive and hurting of others. When asked to stop picking on someone, I imagine most Christians that aren't fundie would back off. I find most Christians I like find a great deal of peace and comfort in their religion, and hope others find peace and comfort also. Also, the one thing that I enjoy about my Christian friends )non fundie) is that they hold themselves to a higher standard of behavior than they feel the rest of the world has adopted. they don't prove they are "better" by their words, they do so by their actions.

OOpppssssyyy, geez, now I wish I was a Catholic so I could go to confession....rats!

Christian

17th February 2004, 09:41 AM

kittynh wrote:
Thank Ed the Christian church I go to won't allow me to make the comment I'd like to make about Christian being very un-Christian and perhaps as a professed Christian acting in a intimidating and agressive manner that would be considered unproductive and hurting of others.

You are entitled to your opinion. I don't see how I'm intimidating anyone here. If taking a stand on what I believe to be correct is agressive, I accept that. I'm not going to roll over on this one.

I have made one direct negative comment to Ruby, I believe the comment is factual.

When asked to stop picking on someone, I imagine most Christians that aren't fundie would back off.

She has not asked to stop engaging her. And when she did ask (even with a very long post, I did not respond) Later, she again engaged and suggested I begin this thread.

And as you can see, we keep having exchanges and she has even said she will put her conversion story forth.

Ah, forget it. What is the use.

Dymanic

17th February 2004, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by Christian

Ah, forget it. What is the use.
What were you hoping to accomplish here?

Dancing David

17th February 2004, 12:46 PM

posted by Christian
You would have to argue that the quality of your life is better than the quality of other groups (holding all other variables similar) based on your atheism.

You are just all over the place Christian , and i am interested in what it is that you are trying to say, you might want to try one thought per post, that way less confusion will be present.

If Ruby says that here life is better for being an atheist, which i don't think is what she said, then she only needs to demonstrate that her life is better. She does not need to demonstrate that all atheists have better lives.

Secondly:

Ruby has made statements that in her personal experience, she has found the Xian faith to be abusive.

You are a real wonk for saying this makes her intellectualy lazy.

The burden of proof cuts BOTH WAYS , why aren't you presenting your proof that Xians are not abusive. Oh , I see, it is because you are lazy?

Don't take her comments so personaly about Xians, I am an atheist and I have morals, but every month someone comes to this VB to demonstrate that I don't have morals because I am an atheist.

Christian

17th February 2004, 01:52 PM

Dymanic wrote:
What were you hoping to accomplish here?

Oh, that comment was directed toward the poster not my resolve in the thread.

But, that is a good question. I don't know anymore.

It started out as a defense of my factual statements, then the correctness of making those kind of statements; then, the proof that those statements were legitimate and not unwarranted attacks; then an exposition on bigotry; then I can't even remember anymore. :confused:

Dancing David wrote:
You are just all over the place Christian , and i am interested in what it is that you are trying to say, you might want to try one thought per post, that way less confusion will be present.

Man, are you right or what. :(

The thing is that I can't even decide what to answer.

Now, pleas pay attention to my answers, please, please.

If Ruby says that here life is better for being an atheist, which i don't think is what she said, then she only needs to demonstrate that her life is better. She does not need to demonstrate that all atheists have better lives.

I agree 100% with this statement and have from the beginning.

Secondly:

Ruby has made statements that in her personal experience, she has found the Xian faith to be abusive.

I have no problem with this either. That is 100% fair.

You are a real wonk for saying this makes her intellectualy lazy.

Here is where the miscommunication/misunderstanding or whatever is keeps popping out.

I didn't not say she deconverted because she was intellectually lazy.

She said made a specific comment and I said that THAT specific answered showed she was being intellectually lazy about that specific answer (or that the answer was a cop-out)

There is a huge difference.

The burden of proof cuts BOTH WAYS , why aren't you presenting your proof that Xians are not abusive. Oh , I see, it is because you are lazy?

I don't have to present evidence about blanket statements. Christians (or any other group or class) are not abusive, individuals regarless of group are abusive. And you see, I have to defend a point that is totally apart from my comments.

Don't take her comments so personaly about Xians, I am an atheist and I have morals, but every month someone comes to this VB to demonstrate that I don't have morals because I am an atheist.

I didn't take her comments personaly. She has the right to make all the comments she wants. I don't feel offended by them at all.

That's not my argumentation.

Johnny Pneumatic

17th February 2004, 02:37 PM

A powerful god would not deserve worship if he were not good.-Xev

And a good and powerful god would not care if its worshipped
or not.

elliotfc

17th February 2004, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
A powerful god would not deserve worship if he were not good.-Xev

And a good and powerful god would not care if its worshipped
or not.

If worship is a form of allegiance (as I think it is), it is better to give your allegiance to God than to anyone else.

We are at war with God, so it is good to train ourselves to be on his side.

I'll see all of you people in March, I have to stay focused on other things for the next couple of weeks. You are all in my prayers.

Yours in Christ,

Elliot

Ruby

17th February 2004, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by Christian
It is evident that you don't see the problem. Let me illustrate:

For the record, I don't think Atheists, on the whole, are crazy. I also don't think, on the whole, that they are immoral. Speaking in general terms, I think that at least 1/3 of Atheists are legalistic. Some are abusive. I think that some Atheists are trapped by fear. I think some Atheists are harsh and condemning. I think some are backstabbers and gossips.

Do you have a problem with the above statement.

No, I don't. Coming from a Christian, it might sound like they are trying to be careful not to say all Atheists act in negative ways. Personally, even though I am not Atheist, I would appreciate the way the Christian had stated that............especially if they said that on the whole that Atheists are not immoral.

Now, in my 13 years as a Christian, most of the Christians I was around, happened to be legalistic, abusive, condemning and so on. Only a few were exceptional. This was my experience. It was Hell. Not everyone shares my type of experience.
Now, this is completely different. The main reason this statement is different is because you can possible name everyone in this group. You can say Tom, Jack, Peter, Anna.... happened to be legalistic, abusive, condemning and so on. These are the people you were around.

My opinion is that they were not legalistic, abusive, condemning and so on because they were Christians. If they were it was because they as persons were.

You do not know any of these people. You did not live my life!! I've had many friends who I have seen totally changed by legalistic churches. I had a best friend, some years ago. She was a Christian.....she loved God.........she joined a legalistic charismatic church....the same one I had joined. She was a lot of fun....very relaxed, friendly and kind.

The church changed her into a harsh, condemning, narrowminded, gossiping, judgmental person. Although the church had an effect on me, I was not quite as drawn in as others. At least, I kept feeling terrible guilt and nagging doubt about certain things.

Anyhow, I had another kind, funny friend too who I have seen legalistic Charismania almost totally destroy.

I had a compassionate, down to earth, approachable Pastor who had successfully kept away from "religious thinking" and legalism for years and years despite being a Charismatic Pastor. He even preached against legalism and manipulation. He was a shock to most Pastors in this area and got many letters from upset people.....since he was on local TV (My hubby produced our services for TV). Then when certain circumstances happened, he got caught up in "signs and wonders" and suddenly took a legalistic route with his church and congregants. He wanted everyone to sign a contract-like certificate to agree to pay tithes, participate in church....going to all services, attending all functions, and being involved in ministries. Anyone who was home sick was to be scorned. In fact, he did some scorning himself.....much to my shock.

It was as if our Pastor had changed overnight...as if he was possessed...except, I did not believe in possession. He had given in to the Charismatic legalism.....and as a result, about a third of the congregation left.

The sad thing is, legalism had also done a number on me. Before I became a Christian, I was quiet, shy, gentle natured, very kind, and compassionate........and I am NOT exaggerating or bragging. That was just my personality. Then I got involved in the 1st United Pentecostal church. That was the first church that I joined. I was in my 20's. I was in a desperate state. I needed help, and they were the only ones close to me that I felt I could contact.

Anyhow, this church org. turned little me into a harsh, condemning, legalistic person who thought everyone, except truly dedicated 1st United Pentecostals, were going to Hell. I felt little to no compassion over the idea of Trinitarian Christians going to Hell......and Catholics were "Anathema" and "The whore of Babylon". (It blows my mind that they got me to think like this.......not to say how angry I have been through the years...although some of that is fading. )

I was taught that wearing make-up, jewelry, pants, shorts were worldly and a sin...so I gave it all up and went around looking down my nose at all women who wore make-up or jewery. I feel ashamed to think of it now. They basically brainwashed me.

One I got out of the UPC, I was freed from that thinking. I was no longer harsh, condemning etc.

There are cults...real cults full of basically good, kind people who have been changed by the cult to think and act differently. My husband and his family grew up in a cult. This is a tough situtation.....since the cult with it's legalistic mindset raised my husband and a couple of his younger brother's, they carry a lot with them to this day. It's harder to escape from those things that you were raised in. My husband was easily sucked in at Church on the Rock.....where we met...and where my friend went through drastic changes. But that's another story.

LOL!! I never called you a bad person. What is your point in "paraphrasing" like this?

You never called me a bad person, no. You have done worse.
Every chance you get you have reminded me of you mental challenging condition, you told me to pick on someone my own size, and you make comments like these:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why are you so angry and upset with me? What on earth have I done to provoke you like this? This disturbs me very much. I am not your enemy."

It does not make any sense, christian, to say that I have done worse to you than call you a bad person. I'm sorry, but I don't understand your reasoning at all. Why is it so cruel for me to tell you I have Firbromyalgia that causes some cognitive problems? I did this because you kept blasting me concerning my lack of intellectual reasoning. I felt overwhelmed and vulnerable. It takes longer for me to grasp things at times....or put my thoughts together. I was defending myself.....and being a bit too open and honest with you...apparently.

The quote, where I said "I am not your enemy" was said in kindness and with true concern. It was not meant to wound you. You seemed angry................you still do.....but I'll take your word that you are not.

You are characterizing me as someone who is attacking an innocent person who, besides being physically challenged, has done nothing to provoke the attack.

I have not set out to purposely characterize you in any certain way...it's just the way things have evolved. I am not innocent. I don't think of myself as either physically or mentally challenged. At least, I don't use such terms. Besides, physically, so long as I'm not having a fibro flare-up, I am very strong and busy and work out etc. Goodness knows, I have a four year old and one year old to chase around all day!:)

When I said you were demonstrated intellectual laziness, I referred specifically to that topic. That comment has spawned this whole thing.

Well, here goes more copying and pasting.

The first post I made on the thread The blinding power of fear was in reply to Pahansiri

I posted with----------------> "...What you described above was one of the very type of things that caused me to rethink my belief system. I knew, that as a parent, if I had foreknowledge of my little girl being molested, raped, or killed, I would prevent it from happening.

"God" is supposed to have this foreknowledge....omiscience, but he lets tons of little girls and boys get raped and murdered every day all over the world. How could I believe such a god as this existed? "A loving parent" is how the christian church presents god...his love is supposed to be perfect!!! "He loves us more than we love our own children"....I heard that so many times. I bought it for awhile...but then it just did not add up..it did not play out at all."

Then you responded to my above statement with "You are entitled to your opinion, of course. But, in this specific instance, you are showing a poor understanding of the Christian dogma"

And then Ruby wrote: "I lived with Christian dogma for about 13 years.......most of that was as a Charismatic Christian. I used to debate.....apologetics......on a Christian forum that I ran........so I know Christian dogma very well!!!"

Christian replied "Well, I think you don't. Furthermore, I don't think you stopped being a Christian for intellectual reasons.
From your posts, I see very little intellectual reasoning and a lot of emotional elements.
The refutation for the "the suffering in world" by non-believers is very basic and straight forward. That you come out and say this is one of the reasons you had to rethink your belief system is intellectual lazyness or a cop-out answer."

Then I said "When I left the church it was for a combination of emotional and intellectual reasons. I don't think I have ever denied that the church hurt me emotionally."

You said "Well, I'm flat out saying you haven't done it for intellectual reasons. If you are in this new path of rationality and truth. Then you should be objective and prove me wrong."

I said "My departure from church began a big search and study to grasp all the logic, reason, science, and other proof that exists to disprove Christianity.......most of this happened on here....actually, I came on here when I was still a Christian."

You said "I have read many of your posts and in them you show very little intellectual work regarding logic, reason, science and other. This is a fact that I'm pointing out to you."

All the above quotes by you seem to say that you were talking about my "intellectual laziness" in a much broader sense than just in relation to the thread we were on.

As I said before, I respect you, but that does not mean I will back down from a position a feel is correct.

I wish I could say that I feel that respect, but I don't.:(

I don't think you are a bad person. However, I am upset at your approach with me, and frustrated at your tactics to continue to make me look like I am some awful person. I can't even seem to get to get to the topic at hand...whatever that was.

I'm not using any tactics to make you look like an awful person. On the contrary, if anything, you are looking like the hero, you are getting congratulations left and right. People are giving you unconditional support and I see only cheers for you.

You are still wrong.

I am very thankful for the support. I love everyone here. They are like family. They have helped me so much. I've been through hell.

Saying I am wrong is just your opinion............and I know it makes you feel better. The funny thing is, I don't even know what it is I am "wrong" about anyway.

I can't understand why you think this.

Because you have.

Now that sounds very much like what my four year old might say.

am very tired now. I must rest......but i will be back, and try to respond to what I can. I was agreeable to this thread being started....but only for the purpose of being confronted about my supposed talking down of Christians.
Go back and read The Blinding Power of Fear here http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/sho...20&pagenumber=5 where I said "If you find that I "talk down about Christians constantly" and you want to question me on it, why not start a whole new topic on it?" and your reply was "ok".
That's all I agreed to concerning this thread. I was bit surprised when I came on this thread the first time and discovered you had said in your opening post "Ruby has agreed to join in and talk about her path to atheism. Ruby, what was the main reason of your "Conversion"?"

We are not communicating here. Why would I want to discuss you negative comments of Christians just for the sake of it. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. You are entitled to your opinion and your comments.

No, we are not communicating. I keep reminding you why this thread was started and you keep side stepping about it. Yes, I know I am entitled to my opinons and comments....so what?

This stuff did not come in a vacuum. All along, I have said you have not shown your intellectual work. And I said you need to show it BECAUSE OF THE NEGATIVE comments about Christians.
If you had not had negative comments (regarding intellectual work of Christians) then I would not have asked you to present your work. I would not have stated that I saw very little of it.
So, the negative comments is only my evidence that my comments did not come in a vacuum and that I had the right to say you need to show your intellectual work.
It is that simple. There is nothing else.

Yes, I know you have said I have not shown my intellectual work.....heck, I just proved it to you myself above. I don't have the slightest clue what you are all about. I don't need to show you anything. I will show my testimony at my leisure.

Now, if you want to ask specific questions about my "supposed" talking down of christians, go ahead, since that is why this thread was created.

Schizobunny

17th February 2004, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by elliotfc

Given all of the different authors it should come as no shock. I never get how contradictions in the Bible equals no God. I don't see how that equation is valid.

-Elliot

Well the argument is valid becauseif god told these people what to write then it should be perfect seen as god is supposedly without fallicy or contradiction.

Christian

18th February 2004, 08:40 AM

Ruby wrote:
No, I don't. Coming from a Christian, it might sound like they are trying to be careful not to say all Atheists act in negative ways. Personally, even though I am not Atheist, I would appreciate the way the Christian had stated that............especially if they said that on the whole that Atheists are not immoral.

Maybe I should have used a more evident example. I don't know if you are aware of the test to see if a statement shows prejudice (intolerance, bigotry). The test is very simple. If you stick any group in the statement made and the statement keeps its meaning in tact, then it is bigoted statement.

Let me show you.

For the record, I don't think Mexicans, on the whole, are crazy. I also don't think, on the whole, that they are immoral. Speaking in general terms, I think that at least 1/3 of Mexicans are legalistic. Some are abusive. I think that some Mexicans are trapped by fear. I think some Mexicans are harsh and condemning. I think some are backstabbers and gossips.

or

For the record, I don't think Jews, on the whole, are crazy. I also don't think, on the whole, that they are immoral. Speaking in general terms, I think that at least 1/3 of Jewish are legalistic. Some are abusive. I think that some Jews are trapped by fear. I think some Jews are harsh and condemning. I think some are backstabbers and gossips.

I promise you, I don't want to offend you. I'm not implying or suggesting you are a bigot or any similar. I don't think you are. But the statement is, that is a fact.

I will explain where I think the problem is Ruby. If you let me explain, I will come from rational place, free from negative emotions.

My opinion is that they were not legalistic, abusive, condemning and so on because they were Christians. If they were it was because they as persons were.

You do not know any of these people. You did not live my life!!

Good. This is exactly what this thread is about (should be about).

You are talking about causation. You are saying that Christianity causes people to be legalistic, abusive, condemning, etc. and you are offering anecdotal evidence to support your claim.

As you are well aware, anecdotal evidence is suspect at best. If I told you, you should believe in God because I have seen Him, (or if millions of people gave sworn testimony that they have seen Him) would you believe in God simply because of my or their testimony? Of course not.

I can think of lots of reasons why you have this perception. Maybe you hung out only with people engaging in this behavior. Maybe you focused a lot on this types of behavior. Maybe you attracted the type of people in situations that elicit this behavior. All of these are just possibilities, I have no idea.

What I do know is that there is no body of evidence that Christianity causes these behaviors. Surely, it is not the teachings in the Bible.

The sad thing is, legalism had also done a number on me. Before I became a Christian, I was quiet, shy, gentle natured, very kind, and compassionate........and I am NOT exaggerating or bragging. That was just my personality. Then I got involved in the 1st United Pentecostal church. That was the first church that I joined. I was in my 20's. I was in a desperate state. I needed help, and they were the only ones close to me that I felt I could contact.

Anyhow, this church org. turned little me into a harsh, condemning, legalistic person who thought everyone, except truly dedicated 1st United Pentecostals, were going to Hell. I felt little to no compassion over the idea of Trinitarian Christians going to Hell......and Catholics were "Anathema" and "The whore of Babylon". (It blows my mind that they got me to think like this.......not to say how angry I have been through the years...although some of that is fading. )

I was taught that wearing make-up, jewelry, pants, shorts were worldly and a sin...so I gave it all up and went around looking down my nose at all women who wore make-up or jewery. I feel ashamed to think of it now. They basically brainwashed me.

This is why I said you seemed not to know very much about Christian dogma. The source of your information was the church leaders and members (I suppose). I'm sure of this because the NT (Christian dogma) does not teach any of the things you speak about.

One I got out of the UPC, I was freed from that thinking. I was no longer harsh, condemning etc.

I hope you are not offended by this next comment, but I feel you are harsh and condemning, the only difference is the group that harshness and comdemnation is directed at.

It does not make any sense, christian, to say that I have done worse to you than call you a bad person. I'm sorry, but I don't understand your reasoning at all. Why is it so cruel for me to tell you I have Firbromyalgia that causes some cognitive problems? I did this because you kept blasting me concerning my lack of intellectual reasoning. I felt overwhelmed and vulnerable. It takes longer for me to grasp things at times....or put my thoughts together. I was defending myself.....and being a bit too open and honest with you...apparently.

Maybe you are not used to people being blunt, confronting you. That people cheer you on and say they like you, does not mean they really care.

I show my respect for you by treating you as my equal, someone who will be able to accept rational thoughts and ideas. My definition of condescension is people who pat me on the back and say good boy.

I appreciate when people have the guts to come up to me and tell me I'm wrong for this and that reason. How else do we grow, if we are not open to critizism and open to confront our ideas?

The quote, where I said "I am not your enemy" was said in kindness and with true concern. It was not meant to wound you. You seemed angry................you still do.....but I'll take your word that you are not.

Ruby, I'm not your enemy. I thank you for your kindness and concern. I'm not angry. I'm just determined.

Things are not what they seem. Many times, one has to look deeper.

I have not set out to purposely characterize you in any certain way...it's just the way things have evolved.

Fair enough. I will accept this.

I am not innocent. I don't think of myself as either physically or mentally challenged. At least, I don't use such terms. Besides, physically, so long as I'm not having a fibro flare-up, I am very strong and busy and work out etc. Goodness knows, I have a four year old and one year old to chase around all day!

I used that term very carefully (I could not find any other, and that is the politically correct term to use when someone has a situation, a challenge). If the term is incorrect, I apologize for that.

All the above quotes by you seem to say that you were talking about my "intellectual laziness" in a much broader sense than just in relation to the thread we were on.

You know what? I think you are right. I was thinking that your intellectual laziness was regarding your conversion. But, still in no way am I saying that you are nothing but intelligent.

Anyway, I'm sorry, but I still think that is true. I think you didn't sit down and through the analysis of objective data, decided Christianity was false.

And I do get the point, so what if you didn't?

And that's just none of my business. I get it.

I am very thankful for the support. I love everyone here. They are like family. They have helped me so much. I've been through hell.

This is also none of my business, but I'm very troubled by this statement.

Saying I am wrong is just your opinion............and I know it makes you feel better. The funny thing is, I don't even know what it is I am "wrong" about anyway.

You are wrong about two things.

1. Your opinion of Christianity and Christians.
2. That your conversion has anything to do with intellectual reasons.

Now that sounds very much like what my four year old might say.

Ok, I can take that. :)

Yes, I know you have said I have not shown my intellectual work.....heck, I just proved it to you myself above. I don't have the slightest clue what you are all about. I don't need to show you anything. I will show my testimony at my leisure.

Now, if you want to ask specific questions about my "supposed" talking down of christians, go ahead, since that is why this thread was created.

Ruby, if you want to stop this conversation now, it is ok with me. I see no point in questioning you about that per se.

Dancing David

18th February 2004, 12:12 PM

Some of us Christian do feel that it is in the nature of the modern Christian church to be bigoted and filled with hate. I observe the behavior mainly in .... well Christians.... I understand that you are talking about the causality of the things.

Why is my son being told that he will go to hell because he doen't go to church on a regular basis?

It would seem to me that the problem is in the churches, not nessecarily Christianity per se. But given the apparent authoritarian nature of Xian churches , why shouldn't others question the abuse of power.

Hey 70% of the pagans I know are out right loons, it doesn't mean that i am bigoted, it means that out of all the pagans I know, 70% are just plain nuts!

The questions is this:

Do I judge someone on the basis of thier stated religion?
No, I judge them by thier actions.

wollery

19th February 2004, 06:07 AM

Originally posted by Christian
For the record, I don't think Mexicans, on the whole, are crazy. I also don't think, on the whole, that they are immoral. Speaking in general terms, I think that at least 1/3 of Mexicans are legalistic. Some are abusive. I think that some Mexicans are trapped by fear. I think some Mexicans are harsh and condemning. I think some are backstabbers and gossips.I would have no problem with that statement, provided it was being made by a Mexican, or someone who had lived for a reasonable length of time in Mexico. I don't personally know any Mexicans, so I'd have to say that my opinion would remain that I don't really have any feelings on the matter, whatever I was told.

For the record, I don't think Jews, on the whole, are crazy. I also don't think, on the whole, that they are immoral. Speaking in general terms, I think that at least 1/3 of Jewish are legalistic. Some are abusive. I think that some Jews are trapped by fear. I think some Jews are harsh and condemning. I think some are backstabbers and gossips.Okay, as a Jew I'd have to say that, in my experience, that is not an accurate assessment of my people. But I could make statements that would seem equally condemning of the group as a whole.

My point is that someone who is, or was a member of a particular group of people, or who has had prolonged experience in dealing with those people has a good perspective on that group, and has a right to hold a strong opinion on them. Someone who holds a strong opinion on a group that they have little or no direct experience of is bigoted. That's the difference between bigotry and considered opinion based on experience.

Ruby

19th February 2004, 12:34 PM

Hi,

I hope I have not kept you waiting too long. Would you believe I am still trying to recover from the flu? :( I made a few posts yesterday and then felt really sick and had to rest. I printed out your post and laid in bed last night....while hubby took care of kiddos, and tried to formulate a response. I think it's going to take at least two posts to respond....mainly due to how much I need to say.

I really appreciate your softened tone with me. That certainly makes me more willing to open up.

I hope I can make sense. You don't have to believe a word I say. I cannot prove everything I tell you. I can only say that I will be honest......according to my experience, knowledge, and opinions.

Originally posted by Christian
Ruby wrote:
[b]No, I don't. Coming from a Christian, it might sound like they are trying to be careful not to say all Atheists act in negative ways. Personally, even though I am not Atheist, I would appreciate the way the Christian had stated that............especially if they said that on the whole that Atheists are not immoral.
Maybe I should have used a more evident example. I don't know if you are aware of the test to see if a statement shows prejudice (intolerance, bigotry). The test is very simple. If you stick any group in the statement made and the statement keeps its meaning in tact, then it is bigoted statement.

Such as...."For the record, I don't think Homosexuals, on the whole, are crazy. I also don't think, on the whole, that they are immoral. Speaking in general terms, I think that at least 1/3 of Homosexuals are legalistic. Some are abusive. I think that some Homosexuals are trapped by fear. I think some Homosexuals are harsh and condemning. I think some are backstabbers and gossips.[/quote]

Although I still disagree on your viewpoint on this issue. I am curious, since you believe in this "test to see if a statement shows prejudice....", if you would include homosexuals on your list?

Let me show you.

For the record, I don't think Mexicans, on the whole, are crazy. I also don't think, on the whole, that they are immoral. Speaking in general terms, I think that at least 1/3 of Mexicans are legalistic. Some are abusive. I think that some Mexicans are trapped by fear. I think some Mexicans are harsh and condemning. I think some are backstabbers and gossips.

or

For the record, I don't think Jews, on the whole, are crazy. I also don't think, on the whole, that they are immoral. Speaking in general terms, I think that at least 1/3 of Jewish are legalistic. Some are abusive. I think that some Jews are trapped by fear. I think some Jews are harsh and condemning. I think some are backstabbers and gossips.

I promise you, I don't want to offend you. I'm not implying or suggesting you are a bigot or any similar. I don't think you are. But the statement is, that is a fact.

Thank you for saying you don't think I am a bigot. Goodness knows, I am not anything of the sort. Admittedly, I would have a problem with the above statements if I came across them..........unless they were written by someone Mexican or Jewish who was speaking from their hurtful experience within that ethnic group. I could not question them since I am not Mexican or Jewish and have not been hurt by either group.

But yes, I could understand another Mexican or someone Jewish being upset and asking them questions. So, I do, to some extent, understand you questioning me....challenging me..........although, the reason I said, "For the record, I don't think Christians, on the whole, are crazy. I also don't think, on the whole, that they are immoral. Speaking in general terms, I think that at least 1/3 of Christians are legalistic. Some are abusive. I think that some Christians are trapped by fear. I think some Christians are harsh and condemning. I think some are backstabbers and gossips. is because that 1/3 was a rough estimate of the size of the Charismatics within Christianity who are legalistic. My estimate might be way off.

In a way, because of my experience, I view Christianity in the following way. We have devout Catholic Christians. We have liberal Catholic Christians. We have liberal Christians from denominations like Methodist, Episcopalian, or who may not even attend church, but believe in God, Jesus, and the bible, although probably don't view the bible as infallable, and might not believe in hell, or salvation only for Christians. We have fundamental Protestants who believe adamantly that the bible is infallable, and that hell is for real and waiting for all who reject the "gospel" message...who also might be Methodist and Episcopalian, but more likely to be Church of Christ, Church of Nazarene, Baptist, and Presbytarian. I can't think of other denominations, but I know there are others.

Then we have ultra legalistic Oneness Pentecostals (who reject the Trinity) and have strict "holiness standards", and put a lot of emphasis on speaking in tongues. We have Oneness Pentecostals who do not have strict "holiness standards", but still reject the Trinity, and put emphasis on tongues. We have legalistic nondenominational Charismatic Christians who put a lot of stress on tongues and other "gifts of the spirit". Finally, we have a very small group of non-denominational Charismatics who aren't legalistic.

I realize that, in actual fact , there are two major groups in Christianity; Catholics and Protestants. It's just that there are so many subgroups within the Protestant group....and many of them are so diverse. It's hard, sometimes, to see them all as one big group................especially when they don't all agree.

I will explain where I think the problem is Ruby. If you let me explain, I will come from rational place, free from negative emotions.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinion is that they were not legalistic, abusive, condemning and so on because they were Christians. If they were it was because they as persons were.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You do not know any of these people. You did not live my life!!
Good. This is exactly what this thread is about (should be about).

You are talking about causation. You are saying that Christianity causes people to be legalistic, abusive, condemning, etc. and you are offering anecdotal evidence to support your claim.

I don't believe that Christianity as a whole causes people to be legalistic, abusive, condemning, etc.....although, one could argue that even the salvation message is open to abuse. However, I'm not making that argument.

I just know that if a church has a legalisitc mindset handed to it from it's leaders, then people within that church are going to be effected......which translates into them being drawn in to that mindset, and becoming legalistic and potentially abusive....and certainly abused by the church leaders and even members. I can't say how much of this goes in regular fundamental churches........as I was only in a regular fundamental church a short time. However, I've had some exposure to legalistic thinking amongst regular Fundamentals due to online debates with them.

Anyhow, I can say with certainty that this abuse happens a lot in Charismatic churches and Oneness Pentecostal churches because I lived it so long....I know the doctrines.....i know the manipulations...I know the mindsets.

As you are well aware, anecdotal evidence is suspect at best. If I told you, you should believe in God because I have seen Him, (or if millions of people gave sworn testimony that they have seen Him) would you believe in God simply because of my or their testimony? Of course not.

Making claims to see God is a far cry from someone speaking of their own hurt and/or anger from emotional abuse due to a certain "religious" group within Christianity. But, yes, without proof, my testimony is suspect.

Ok, I must stop here. I am feeling pretty sick again with this stupid flu. I will get back to the rest asap.

Ratman_tf

19th February 2004, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by Ruby
Ok, I must stop here. I am feeling pretty sick again with this stupid flu. I will get back to the rest asap.

Don't knock yourself out, Ruby. We'll all be here when you get better.

Johnny Pneumatic

19th February 2004, 05:52 PM

If worship is a form of allegiance (as I think it is)-elliotfc

wor·ship
n.

1.

a. The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.

b. The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed.

2. Ardent devotion; adoration.

As a child, I was told to believe that savages were doomed to boil in molten sulfur if they did not accept the "merciful" deity that was described to me, even if they had no opportunity of knowing about him/it! That deity, from what I was told, suffered from many serious defects that I was told to avoid. He/it was capricious, insecure, jealous, vindictive, sadistic, and cruel, and demanded constant praise, sacrifice, adulation, and ego-support, or the penalties could be very severe. I found, early on in my observations, that religious people were very fearful, trembling and wondering if they'd committed any infractions of the multitude of rules they had to follow. They were — and are — ruled by fear. That's not my style.-James Randi

Ruby

21st February 2004, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by Ratman_tf

Don't knock yourself out, Ruby. We'll all be here when you get better.

Thank you. I've been pretty sick. I was overdoing things when the flu had hit me.... so it got a lot worse. I'm getting better....but having to rest, rest, rest. Hubby took off work one day and has been coming home early past two days. That has helped a lot.

I'm still weak.....but on the mend. I hope to be much better by Sunday since it's my birthday!

Be back to posting as soon as I'm able.:)

Christian

21st February 2004, 08:28 AM

Ok, happy birthday. I'll wait for your response.

Ruby

21st February 2004, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by Christian
Ok, happy birthday. I'll wait for your response.

Well, thank you!!:D

Thanks for being patient with me. If I can possibly get to responding this weekend, I will.....but it might not be til Monday.

Yahweh

21st February 2004, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by Christian
Yah wrote:
Christian,

I cant tell you how many times I've heard the "humans are so limited in their knowledge" argument. Do you know what kind of argument this is? Its a cop-out, its a vacuous statement absent of actual reasoning.

Let's get things straight here. My comments in no way are an argument for a belief in God. You are constructing a strawman.
An argument for belief in God, no, but it appeared to me you were creating an argument against an atheist (or people in general) justifying what they believe in terms of intellectual fulfillment.

That was what I gathered from your post, that was the angle from which I was coming from in my above response.

No strawman on my part, but I wouldnt be willing to say that it was impossible for me to misunderstand your post. If I did, the misunderstanding was inadvertant.

Well, if we leave it at that, what we dont know gets smaller and smaller everyday.

You are right, but you are wrong.

You have not thought about this carefully. Let me illustrate this mathematically.

x= all the knowledge available to humans
y=knowledge=close to infinity

Let's say "x" 200 years ago= 100

So a person knowing 30 of x could know 30% of all knowledge. This is why there use to be erudites in ancient times.

Now, x=1,000,000 (social sciences, aeronatics, computer science, anthropology, physics, etc.) This is why a person specializes on a sub-set of a sub-set of a subject. e.g. Medicine-Dentist-Orthodontist.

So, a person knowing 200 of x knows much more than a person 200 years ago. That is true. But in terms of all the knowledge available, he know (percentages wise) much, much less.

Make the division 200/1,000,000.

The numbers of course are just illustrations but the idea is correct.

The implications of this, is that we have to rely heavely on others to survive. It would not be possible to check and study for ourselves everything there is to be successful.

So here my comment again.

But if I'm really honest with myself and SEE human limitations to knowledge (in the context of close to infinite information and (from the MA perspective) randomness)) then I have to admit that the truth is unattainable.

The things that atheist can be certain about (that really matter) in comparison to the rest of the population (including Christians) is miniscule, at best.

And remember, knowledge has always been infinite.[/b]
I dont understand what you mean by "knowledge" under what you described above.

You appear to be describing knowledge as a finite quantity (or a small part of the totality of something larger), but I dont know what you define as "knowledge" or where you make the distinctions between one "knowledge" and another "knowledge".

I always assumed "knowledge" was something human defined, not something which can be expressed as a physical value.

Now, if you are willing to argue that atheist are more successful than other groups. You would have to tell in what areas and show this evidence.

You would have to argue that the quality of your life is better than the quality of other groups (holding all other variables similar) based on your atheism.
I'm dont consider myself an elitist. I am not that arrogant to suggest that I am better than another person intellectually/physically/emotionally/socially for having beliefs different than another. I would not be willing to argue either of those.

Ratman_tf

21st February 2004, 11:48 PM

Happy Birthday Ruby! Many happy returns!

Loki

22nd February 2004, 07:33 PM

Christian,

Came to this thread late, and have just finished (eventually) working through the posts. So many possible replies! I'll contend myself with just a simple comment - sometimes you're a real ass christian.

You know exactly where Ruby is coming from, and why she makes the comments she does. Do you think your god would approve of the time you are spending on this? Look at your motives for pursing this - we both know this "righteous defence of evil christian stereotypes" argument doesn't justify the way you're treating Ruby. Grow up.

Oh, and happy birthday Ruby!

Christian

23rd February 2004, 12:24 PM

Yah wrote:
No strawman on my part, but I wouldnt be willing to say that it was impossible for me to misunderstand your post. If I did, the misunderstanding was inadvertant.

Ok.

I dont understand what you mean by "knowledge" under what you described above.

You appear to be describing knowledge as a finite quantity (or a small part of the totality of something larger), but I dont know what you define as "knowledge" or where you make the distinctions between one "knowledge" and another "knowledge".

I always assumed "knowledge" was something human defined, not something which can be expressed as a physical value.

Is it theoretically possible to quantify what you know?

I'm dont consider myself an elitist. I am not that arrogant to suggest that I am better than another person intellectually/physically/emotionally/socially for having beliefs different than another. I would not be willing to argue either of those.

Ok.

Loki wrote:
Came to this thread late, and have just finished (eventually) working through the posts. So many possible replies! I'll contend myself with just a simple comment - sometimes you're a real ass christian.

Just sometimes? I would say many times.

Look at your motives for pursing this - we both know this "righteous defence of evil christian stereotypes" argument doesn't justify the way you're treating Ruby. Grow up.

You are right, in the end my motives for pursuing this is vanity. Everybody keeps saying I'm treating her incorrectly. Maybe I blind. Maybe I should just leave it alone.

The worst part is that I still have more comments to make (and await Ruby's).

I told her we could stop but she has decided to continue. I'm glad about that.

You look good in your shining armor. :D :D

Loki

23rd February 2004, 01:30 PM

Christian,

Just sometimes? I would say many times.
If you say so.

You are right, in the end my motives for pursuing this is vanity.
Your honesty is your best attribute. You blind unquestioning commitment to "the way" is your worst.

Everybody keeps saying I'm treating her incorrectly. Maybe I blind. Maybe I should just leave it alone.
Or maybe you could try dealing with some real world issues rather than playing "defender of the faith" on behalf of anything with the word 'christian' attached to it?

I told her we could stop but she has decided to continue. I'm glad about that.
How generous of you - and I'm glad to see Ruby willing to respond as and when she can.

You look good in your shining armor.
Norse gods don't wear armor. But you sure look good in you lion-wrestling outfit. Does it feel good to be the hero of the coliseum, killing kitties for god?

DanishDynamite

23rd February 2004, 01:56 PM

Christian has asked for the specifics of the intellectual parts of Ruby's journey from blind faith to freedom. I wonder If Christian can likewise present his "intellectual" reasons for remaining a believer.

Christian

24th February 2004, 11:00 AM

Loki wrote:
Your honesty is your best attribute. You blind unquestioning commitment to "the way" is your worst.

My commitment to the way is based on results not blind faith.

Faith is strenthen by results.

Or maybe you could try dealing with some real world issues rather than playing "defender of the faith" on behalf of anything with the word 'christian' attached to it?

So, to you, posting in a forum is real world issues. Oh boy.

How generous of you - and I'm glad to see Ruby willing to respond as and when she can.

Thank you.

Norse gods don't wear armor. But you sure look good in you lion-wrestling outfit. Does it feel good to be the hero of the coliseum, killing kitties for god?

Killing kitties???? What world are you in?

DanishDinamite wrote:
Christian has asked for the specifics of the intellectual parts of Ruby's journey from blind faith to freedom. I wonder If Christian can likewise present his "intellectual" reasons for remaining a believer.

Because the quality of my life is as good any's being a believer, and being a believer has resulting in making the quality of life of others be better as well.

As I said, are you willing to argue that the quality of your life is better because you are not a believer?

Loki

24th February 2004, 12:50 PM

Christian,

My commitment to the way is based on results not blind faith.
It's a symbiotic relationship, right? You have a little faith, you get a little result, which builds your faith, which increases the results, which increases the faith, which .... is that it?

So, to you, posting in a forum is real world issues. Oh boy.

Not even a good attempot to construct a strawman, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume yor just failing to understand, rather than attempting to score cheap points.

Faith is strenthen by results.
Can faith be weakened by results? Which comes first - a drop in faith leads to bad results, or bad results lead to a drop in faith?

Killing kitties???? What world are you in?
Planet Bad Joke, I guess.

As I said, are you willing to argue that the quality of your life is better because you are not a believer?
I'd be prepared to assert that my life is no worse by being a non-believer. Is that enough? It's an assertion, though, because I can't see any real way of measuring this, so it's gonna come down to your opinion against mine I expect.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again - I can't see any correlation between "christian" and "happy life" ( or between "non-believer" and "happy life", for that matter). The most devote person I know (the sister of a close friend) is dreadfully unhappy, and has been for years. In fact, the unhappier she gets, the more she seeks comfort in the church. She attends mass daily, sometimes several times a day. She works on the church community council. She's terribly lonely, a social recluse, 40 years old, and unhappy with her present and her past.

Where's the result here? Or is she simply not a "real christian"? You'd judge her faith by the results of her life? The results are poor, so her faith must be poor?

Christian

24th February 2004, 02:50 PM

Loki wrote:
It's a symbiotic relationship, right? You have a little faith, you get a little result, which builds your faith, which increases the results, which increases the faith, which .... is that it?

No, not like that. Call faith "the last mile." There is only so much humanly possible.

When there is no more that can be done, then faith takes over. You might call it serendipity, luck. I say it is God.

Not even a good attempot to construct a strawman, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume yor just failing to understand, rather than attempting to score cheap points.

Naw, just trading at the same level. When you pick it up, so will I.

Can faith be weakened by results? Which comes first - a drop in faith leads to bad results, or bad results lead to a drop in faith?

If the last mile is seldom or never reached. If it is random, I don't see how one can have faith. It is when the impossible/improbable consistently becomes real that faith has any meaning.

Planet Bad Joke, I guess.

Well, you forgot the smiling faces or stuff :wink8:

I'd be prepared to assert that my life is no worse by being a non-believer. Is that enough?

Sounds good to me.

It's an assertion, though, because I can't see any real way of measuring this, so it's gonna come down to your opinion against mine I expect.

Give me a criteria to measure by, and then it is just not a matter of opinion, right?

I've said it before, but I'll say it again - I can't see any correlation between "christian" and "happy life" ( or between "non-believer" and "happy life", for that matter). The most devote person I know (the sister of a close friend) is dreadfully unhappy, and has been for years. In fact, the unhappier she gets, the more she seeks comfort in the church. She attends mass daily, sometimes several times a day. She works on the church community council. She's terribly lonely, a social recluse, 40 years old, and unhappy with her present and her past.

Your prejudices and preconceptions haunt you.

Practical Christianity is not about devotion to morality or rituals. By what you describe, no wonder she feels terrible. Tell her I have the perfect solution for her unhappiness. (tongue and cheek)

Where's the result here? Or is she simply not a "real christian"? You'd judge her faith by the results of her life? The results are poor, so her faith must be poor?

I can't judge if she is a real Christian, but if that is all she does, I see no way she can be happy or experience the power of God. (if that is all she does, you tell me very little, but if that is all, I don't see how)

And when you say the results in her life, you mean her personal life. When I say it, I don't mean that. I mean the result of her life.

Ruby

24th February 2004, 03:04 PM

Hi,

I'll just start this post where I left off with the other one.

Originally posted by Christian
I can think of lots of reasons why you have this perception. Maybe you hung out only with people engaging in this behavior. Maybe you focused a lot on this types of behavior. Maybe you attracted the type of people in situations that elicit this behavior. All of these are just possibilities, I have no idea.

I'm not sure how to respond to the above paragraph. I'm unclear if you are saying that in general.....in my life, I hung out with people who were abusive etc., and was therefore led easily into a church org that abused me......or if you saying that once in church, I hung out with the abusive sort etc.

Other than an early marriage (married at 17 then divorced at 21) to a very abusive husband, I never hung out with abusive type people. My adult friends were kind, funny, and great towards me. I rarely met any mean people back then. I stayed away from people who were mean, and backed away from people who became mean.

Even in my childhood, my friends were the very sweet sort. I did know of a few mean kids as a child, but I imagine that most people do.

As a teen, at thirteen, I started blossoming into a somewhat attractive young woman. This led to lots of guys flirting with me..which was both flattering, but in some ways a bit scary. It was just so new. Unfortunately, I endured being molested a couple of times by one guy, and then sexually harrassed for months by another guy...... in the halls of an old school on the way to one of my classes. When I was sixteen, I was flat out (date) raped.

I know the issue you have brought up is not about this type of behavior. But as an analogy......perhaps you could say that I "attracted the type of people in situations that elicit this behavior". The truth is, I was innocent, and well developed. I never ever dressed provocative at that age. In fact, I wore completely buttoned up blouses. I never flirted or did anything intentional to attract a guy. I was still very shy around them. Those are traits (innocence/virginity, and being shapely) that can easily stir up a teenage boy who has raging hormones. I was not strong enough to fight off the attacks, and afterwards, I was so embarrassed that I could not tell a soul. Plus, I did not even know what kept going on was wrong.

Still, this is something I came to terms with long ago. I don't feel any anger or hurt about it.

What I have divulged above is also "anecdotal evidence". So if I said that some men were sexually abusive, you could also make a case against me.

Why is it so terrifying for you to consider that some denominations within Christinaity are legalistic and abusive?

Anyhow, I did not become a Christian until I was 27. I had gone through a scary experience with an ouija board...and was desperate for help. I had remembered, previous to this ouija experience, that I had visited a little 1st United Pentecostal church with a friend of mine some years back, and since the church was close, and I remembered the Pastor's wife as being very sweet, I called her to get help. I was going through such hell that I was desperate for release...I was willing to do anything......so, becoming a 1st United Pentecostal Christian with all it's rules did not bother me. Plus, when they taught their doctrine to me, having never read, let alone, studied the bible, I thought I was seeing truth. It made sense.

Once the terror from the ouija experience I was going through ended......I started taking a good look at things in the UPC org......things that had already been said by my Pastor, and things I was hearing and reading. Some things did not bother me.........I thought the pastor's wife was very kind and the daughter was my friend. However other things, over time, began to bug me. Still, it took four years before I left.

I liked the sense of belonging that going to church gave me. I had never really experienced that before. It felt great to be a part of something. To be considered part of a family. Not only that, I was part of the only church org. that had the "truth". I was taught that I was "special" as a 1st United Pentecostal. Special because I had true savation.

Well, living by so many church rules........no make-up, no jewelry, no pants, no shorts, no TV....and so on, I was becoming very depressed. I did not feel like a woman anymore. We were taught to wear dresses with lengths below knees....most all the woman wore dresses nearly to the floor. We were also taught to wear dresses that covered our elbows. As if our elbows could incite lust!

Anyhow, I left the UPC because the person I was inside could no longer handle the condemning crap I was being taught. Also, I could not live by their rules....and I could not go around condemning Trinitarians Christians to hell.

After a break to recover from being in the UPC, I started attending a huge Charismatic non-denominational church because I still believed in speaking in tongues and the "gifts of the spirit". Charismatics do not have rules about what you should or should not wear.....so that was also inviting. I went there on an invitation from a dear friend. My friend was also a very kind, gentle person who would never hurt a fly....she was another victim of charismania.

I never hung out with people who were legalistic until I had the same mindset. Many good, kind people go into abusive churches and get changed. They weren't looking for it. They did not attract abuse on purpose. They don't focus on abusive behavior.....usually far far from it. One church leaves them with a legalistic mindset and if the blinders don't come off, they go into another legalistic church and become more and more harsh and condemning themselves.

The type of abuse and legalism I am talking about can only be learned in a church. And in my experience, it happens constantly in the UPCI and Charismatic churches.

What I do know is that there is no body of evidence that Christianity causes these behaviors. Surely, it is not the teachings in the Bible.

This is the problem. We have all these denominations running about......all interpreting the bible differently. All accusing each other of doing things that aren't biblical. The fact is, the bible can be made to say anything you want it to. It's chock full of contradictions.

It might be easy to start a new bible based religion. Just pick and choose your verses and build your dogma around it. Then claim you've had some incredible revelation from God, himself, and there you go. It would not be too hard to rent a building or buy an old abandoned church. Then advertise using cleverly put together catchy phrases that sound uplifting, and give the promise of changing people's lives through Christ, and people are bound to come. There's always someone looking for answers..looking for something better and new that their current church isn't giving.

Anyhow, I can say for a fact that a lot of UPC doctrine is based on twisted scripture, and some is scripture taken out of context, but some is scripture that has been interpreted in a different manner due to the many contradictions that exist in the bible. Charismatics have a bit more of a leg to stand on with a lot of their doctrine......but some is also questionable. But I'll get more into that in a bit.

Ruby said:"The sad thing is, legalism had also done a number on me. Before I became a Christian, I was quiet, shy, gentle natured, very kind, and compassionate........and I am NOT exaggerating or bragging. That was just my personality. Then I got involved in the 1st United Pentecostal church. That was the first church that I joined. I was in my 20's. I was in a desperate state. I needed help, and they were the only ones close to me that I felt I could contact. Anyhow, this church org. turned little me into a harsh, condemning, legalistic person who thought everyone, except truly dedicated 1st United Pentecostals, were going to Hell. I felt little to no compassion over the idea of Trinitarian Christians going to Hell......and Catholics were "Anathema" and "The whore of Babylon". (It blows my mind that they got me to think like this.......not to say how angry I have been through the years...although some of that is fading. ) I was taught that wearing make-up, jewelry, pants, shorts were worldly and a sin...so I gave it all up and went around looking down my nose at all women who wore make-up or jewery. I feel ashamed to think of it now. They basically brainwashed me.

Christian said: This is why I said you seemed not to know very much about Christian dogma. The source of your information was the church leaders and members (I suppose). I'm sure of this because the NT (Christian dogma) does not teach any of the things you speak about.

Ok, so lets look at the UPC dogma that I was taught. First of all I learned that salvation only occurred through 1. Repentance; 2. Baptism in Jesus name; 3. Receiving the Holy Spirit baptism as evidenced by speaking in tongues.

They back this is up with the following passages.

Acts 2:1-16

When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance. Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. They were amazed and astonished, saying, "Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? _"Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, _Cretans and Arabs--we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God."
_And they all continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, "What does this mean?" But others were mocking and saying, " They are full of sweet wine." But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: "Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words. For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day; but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel: "

So, here we have the day of Pentecost. All the disciples plus some waiting for the promise that Jesus said he would pour out. They were all filled with Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages.

Then it goes on to say Acts 2:37-39

Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?" Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."

This is where they believe the bible gives the one, and only, salvation message. They believe repentance is crucial...and most of their churches stress repentance as being a major event where you better cry, wail, and beg "God" to forgive you for all your sins. (They seem to miss that repentance really means to change one's mind and/or turn away from sin.) They believe that baptizing someone in total immersion of water saying "in Jesus name", is the only valid baptism. Anyone who has been baptized with "in the name of the father, son, and Holy spirit" being said over them needs to be rebaptized in Jesus name according to them. Otherwise, that mode of baptism will send them to hell. I'll explain why in a bit. Receiving the Holy Spirit baptism is vital to be saved......and according to them , unless you speak in tongues as evidence, then you did not get it. Once again, not speaking in tongues will send you to hell too.

So, you can have repentance and water baptism in Jesus name covered, but if you have not received the Holy spirit baptism and spoken in tongues, you are still on your way to hell. Needless to say, there are many UPC members without the Holy spirit baptism who are living in fear that the rapture (another doctrine that does not exist in the bible) will come and leave them behind, or they will die and go to hell. It's nuts!!

I went through the repentance....but not really like they want you to................however, there was no way for any of them to hear if I was wailing or carrying on because all the women of the church were surounding me (while I laid at the altar terrified of them and hiding), and they were making the loudest noises you ever heard in your life. I think they did all the wailing for me.

I got baptized. I had no idea what it meant at the time. They did not bother to tell me..they were just so excited to get a new convert. After that, I found myself too terrified at the idea of "speaking in tongues".....so I did not seek after it. This gave my Pastor, and his wife fits. Besides having little talks with me, they also preached horrible sermons about hell and how we are "living in the last days" in order to scare me into seeking for the Holy spirit baptism. They harped on and on about the last days. I expected it to happen a second....but I was still too afraid to speak in tongues. I was too damn honest to fake it.

So, I had to listen to many sermons about how if you don't give yourself fully to God (speak in tongues) then God might cause something bad to happen to someone you love to get you to do it. I am serious!!

My pastor also took something from my "scary" experience that had led me into church in the first place, and he preached on it from the pulpit. He did this...knowing that I was still struggling with this scary experience...in order to terrify me enough into seeking for the holy spirit baptism. This was very very cruel. I was shocked.....but I did not seek to be baptized.

I had been at the church about eight months when I finally did seek for it. We had two other new members, so I was not alone, and that felt so good. That meant I did not have to go to the altar alone. Despite the insistance of most UPC members that only highly emotional demonstrative praying would cause one to be baptized with the Holy spirit and speak in tongues, I proved that quiet praying and being very still could also cause one to be baptized and speak in tongues. It was a surprise when it happened to me. I was in my right mind....not hypnotized or acting zany. It really sounded like a real language that I was speaking, I thought it was for real, I thought so for many years. I am no longer of that belief........even though I can still "do it".

The reason the UPC rejects baptism "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy spirit" is because they have determined that Jesus is the "Father", "Son", and "Holy Spirit". (That is also part of the reason they are Oneness and reject the Trinity.) They say that Father, son and Holy spirit are just titles for Jesus....but they are not his name. They say His name is power.......and it is only through Jesus we are saved. Therefore, only the "Jesus" baptism counts.

They say that in the following passage, Jesus was specifically addressing his disciples; Matthew 28:18-19 "And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, " All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, ". They say that the disciples knew that Jesus was "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit", and that is why when they carried out Jesus' commision concerning baptism, they did it in Jesus name. Most baptisms mentioned in Acts and the Epistles say it was done "In Jesus name". They take this quite literally.

It wasn't until years later, after a bit of study, and reading my bible, that I came to the conclusion that the scriptures did not mean that either "in the name of the Father, son, or Holy Spirit" or "in Jesus name" had to be spoken, like a magic spell over someone who was baptized. It was a custom...part of the culture (during biblical times) for people to tell others to do things in "so an so's name". It was a figure of speech. I came to the conclusion that so long as someone "had Jesus in their heart" it did not matter what was spoken over them in baptism, because the committment to Jesus in the heart, meant that the baptism had occured in Jesus name or in the name of Faher, Son and Holy spirit.

As for the Charismatic dogma, Ill get to that in my next post!!

Ruby

24th February 2004, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
Happy Birthday Ruby! Many happy returns!

Thank you!!:D

Ruby

24th February 2004, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Loki

Oh, and happy birthday Ruby!

Thank you!!!:D

Loki

24th February 2004, 03:47 PM

Christian,

Naw, just trading at the same level. When you pick it up, so will I.
Ok. I'll try to raise the level.

If the last mile is seldom or never reached. If it is random, I don't see how one can have faith.
I agree. If the universe is random, then faith has little meaning.

It is when the impossible/improbable consistently becomes real that faith has any meaning.
I agree. Just show me some impossible things happening and I'm all yours.

Give me a criteria to measure by, and then it is just not a matter of opinion, right?
I've already suggested that I think finding "suitable criteria" is difficult, perhaps impossible. Any idea what criteria we might use?

Your prejudices and preconceptions haunt you.
I understand that you need to believe this - that remains your problem, not mine.

Practical Christianity is not about devotion to morality or rituals.
"Practical Christianity" differs from "Practical Humanism" exactly how? Sure the theory is different, but how so in practice?

I can't judge if she is a real Christian, but if that is all she does, I see no way she can be happy or experience the power of God. (if that is all she does, you tell me very little, but if that is all, I don't see how)
I admit that there's not much detail here, and perhasp I'm missing something important (and therefore I'm not able to pass it on to you). But she claims to "experience god" quite a lot. She claims it is the only good thing in her life. She claims it is clear and unambiguous. I can't help but see someone clinging desperately to anything she can. But its just an anecdote, so until we establish come of these 'objective criteria' you are so fond of there's probably little more we can say about her?

And when you say the results in her life, you mean her personal life. When I say it, I don't mean that. I mean the result of her life.
Oh, I understand. You'll accept *any* positive, in any aspect of her life, in any degree, as being the "result" of her faith. You'll ignore *any* negatives in her life, as being "not what I meant". This is not a pattern I'm unfamiliar with Christian.

Christian

24th February 2004, 09:08 PM

Ruby,

Your post needs a proper response. I will do that, thank you for sharing this information with us (me). Please wait for my response.

Loki wrote:
I agree. Just show me some impossible things happening and I'm all yours.

Oh, God would use you in wonderful ways Loki.

I've already suggested that I think finding "suitable criteria" is difficult, perhaps impossible. Any idea what criteria we might use?

How about choices in life? What choice in life do you make that qualitatively better than a Christian's? Christians pray. Do you? Is praying better than not praying? (don't forget my last mile explanation)

Originally posted by me

Your prejudices and preconceptions haunt you.

I understand that you need to believe this - that remains your problem, not mine.

Only if this is not true, but I will show you evidence it is.

"Practical Christianity" differs from "Practical Humanism" exactly how? Sure the theory is different, but how so in practice?

Results, the Bible says works, deeds.

I admit that there's not much detail here, and perhasp I'm missing something important (and therefore I'm not able to pass it on to you). But she claims to "experience god" quite a lot. She claims it is the only good thing in her life. She claims it is clear and unambiguous. I can't help but see someone clinging desperately to anything she can. But its just an anecdote, so until we establish come of these 'objective criteria' you are so fond of there's probably little more we can say about her?

I don't see how she can experience God from your description. If she were to experience God, she would feel succesful and joyfull, no doubt about that. And she could point out the source of her hapiness, palpable, tangibly. Yes, there is objective criteria.

You said she felt lonely, if she feels the power of God, she could not feel this way. There is an objective formula that does not fail, that is like the laws of the physical world. This is available to anyone who uses the formula. An atheist will feel this joy and togetherness if he or she were to use it.

Oh, I understand. You'll accept *any* positive, in any aspect of her life, in any degree, as being the "result" of her faith. You'll ignore *any* negatives in her life, as being "not what I meant". This is not a pattern I'm unfamiliar with Christian.

Here is my evidence that you are prejudice. You think that I'm talking about selective choosing. To you, I'm talking about counting the hits and ignoring the misses.

I'm not talking about that at all. I make the distinction of the inner and outer results.

What we accomplish for ourselves is, at the end, vanity, superfluos. Selfishness is a the street that leads to the darkest place.

No, let's see what she has done in her life for others. What is her contribution to other people? How does she enrich the lives of others. I see none of that in your account of her.

What has she done in her life, means what has she contributed to her fellow human? What does she do more, take or receive?

Loki, your prejudices and preconceptions don't help you see that the core of Christianty is service. The more one serves others, the more blessing one gets. It is a principle as true as gravity.

People who are sad, depressed struggleling are mostly on the take. It's always about them, about how they need.

People who live in abundance of all this world has to offer are mostly on the give. It is always about how others can benefit, how others can be helped. There is so many people waiting to bless us with their needs.

This is the core of practical Christianity.

I'm sorry, I know I'm preaching but had to.

Kopji

24th February 2004, 11:18 PM

...the core of Christianity is service. The more one serves others, the more blessing one gets. It is a principle as true as gravity.

People who are sad, depressed struggling are mostly on the take. It's always about them, about how they need.

Well this is real news. And here I was under the mistaken impression that the core of Christianity was faith in Jesus Christ. With service at the center as an engine of increased blessings, am I to conclude that the poor receive their just lot in life? The logic seems inescapable.

The second part about sad and depressed people being on the take... is just plain offensive, I'm not even sure how to respond in a way that would not be filtered.

After all the lengthy posts about Ruby not being intellectual enough or being a hypocrite for promoting a blanket characterization of Christainity...

It's sorta like this: Leaving the grip of religion sometimes takes YEARS, not days or months. That is how much a prison it sometimes is. The "way out" has many phases and not all are intellectual. Ranting and anger are part of the journey, and maybe a very needed part.

Ruby! YOU GO GIRL!

Loki

24th February 2004, 11:43 PM

Christian,

Rather than a point-by-point counter, let me just express my philosophy for you :

"Your prejudices and preconceptions don't help you see that the core of Humanism is service. The more one serves others, the more fulfillment one gets. It is a principle as true as gravity."

scribble

25th February 2004, 02:13 AM

[i]Originally posted by Christian

... the core of Christianty is service. The more one serves others, the more blessing one gets. It is a principle as true as gravity.

That's ***** awesome. Get me a beer. You'll get blessed, I'll get blasted, we'll both be happy.

Go on, what are you waiting for? Get me a beer.

Christian

25th February 2004, 03:20 AM

Loki wrote:
Christian,

Rather than a point-by-point counter, let me just express my philosophy for you :

"Your prejudices and preconceptions don't help you see that the core of Humanism is service. The more one serves others, the more fulfillment one gets. It is a principle as true as gravity."

Oh, no you don't. Show me. Show me the tons of humanist organizations the serve. And if humanists did serve, yes they would get blessed.

Talk is cheap, specially in this place.

scribble wrote:
That's ***** awesome. Get me a beer. You'll get blessed, I'll get blasted, we'll both be happy.

Go on, what are you waiting for? Get me a beer.

Still thinking about it? I'm still waiting? See, you do have to and indeed obey even social rules. ;)

wollery

25th February 2004, 06:20 AM

Originally posted by Christian
Loki wrote:
I agree. Just show me some impossible things happening and I'm all yours.

Oh, God would use you in wonderful ways Loki.That's not an answer!

I've already suggested that I think finding "suitable criteria" is difficult, perhaps impossible. Any idea what criteria we might use?

How about choices in life? What choice in life do you make that qualitatively better than a Christian's? Christians pray. Do you? Is praying better than not praying? (don't forget my last mile explanation)Someone has a better quality of life because the get on their knees and ask a mythical sky daddy for help?
I don't pray, so I have more time to actually get on and make a difference in my life and other lives.

I understand that you need to believe this - that remains your problem, not mine.

Only if this is not true, but I will show you evidence it is.Go on then. We're all waiting.

"Practical Christianity" differs from "Practical Humanism" exactly how? Sure the theory is different, but how so in practice?

Results, the Bible says works, deeds.Are you saying that only christians do good deeds?

I admit that there's not much detail here, and perhasp I'm missing something important (and therefore I'm not able to pass it on to you). But she claims to "experience god" quite a lot. She claims it is the only good thing in her life. She claims it is clear and unambiguous. I can't help but see someone clinging desperately to anything she can. But its just an anecdote, so until we establish come of these 'objective criteria' you are so fond of there's probably little more we can say about her?

I don't see how she can experience God from your description. If she were to experience God, she would feel succesful and joyfull, no doubt about that. And she could point out the source of her hapiness, palpable, tangibly. Yes, there is objective criteria.

You said she felt lonely, if she feels the power of God, she could not feel this way. There is an objective formula that does not fail, that is like the laws of the physical world. This is available to anyone who uses the formula. An atheist will feel this joy and togetherness if he or she were to use it.So you're saying that there are people who claim to be christian (like Lokis friend) who aren't really christian, because they haven't found the formula.
BTW, does this formula involve partial differentials, because I'm a bit rusty on those:)

Oh, I understand. You'll accept *any* positive, in any aspect of her life, in any degree, as being the "result" of her faith. You'll ignore *any* negatives in her life, as being "not what I meant". This is not a pattern I'm unfamiliar with Christian.

Here is my evidence that you are prejudice. You think that I'm talking about selective choosing. To you, I'm talking about counting the hits and ignoring the misses.

I'm not talking about that at all. I make the distinction of the inner and outer results.

What we accomplish for ourselves is, at the end, vanity, superfluos. Selfishness is a the street that leads to the darkest place.

No, let's see what she has done in her life for others. What is her contribution to other people? How does she enrich the lives of others. I see none of that in your account of her.

What has she done in her life, means what has she contributed to her fellow human? What does she do more, take or receive?

Loki, your prejudices and preconceptions don't help you see that the core of Christianty is service. The more one serves others, the more blessing one gets. It is a principle as true as gravity.

People who are sad, depressed struggleling are mostly on the take. It's always about them, about how they need.

People who live in abundance of all this world has to offer are mostly on the give. It is always about how others can benefit, how others can be helped. There is so many people waiting to bless us with their needs.

This is the core of practical Christianity.

I'm sorry, I know I'm preaching but had to. Wow, way to contradict yourself there Christian. You start by saying that what counts are the actions and deeds, and finish by saying that depressed people are selfish and therefore (presumably by your definition) not true christians. As someone who has suffered from clinical depression I can tell you that you haven't a clue what being depressed is. The highest rates of depression in the UK are in the emergency and health services (I'll bet it's the same for the U.S.). These are people who regularly put their lives on the line for other people, and large numbers of them suffer from depression. If you want to talk about something then maybe you should know something about it first.

One final thought, if christianity is about giving to those who need, doesn't that make the needy takers. Are they condemned then to hell for not being givers?

(Apologies christian if this seems aggressive, but that last post of yours really got my hackles up)

DanishDynamite

25th February 2004, 10:29 AM

Christian:DanishDynamite:
Christian has asked for the specifics of the intellectual parts of Ruby's journey from blind faith to freedom. I wonder If Christian can likewise present his "intellectual" reasons for remaining a believer.

Christian:
Because the quality of my life is as good any's being a believer, and being a believer has resulting in making the quality of life of others be better as well.

As I said, are you willing to argue that the quality of your life is better because you are not a believer?So you're intellectual reasons for remaining a believer is because it makes you feel good? Sorry, I don't see the intellectual component there. Could you elaborate?

In regard to arguing that my life is better for not being a believer, this is a probably a fool's errand as we would be arguing the meaning of "better" forever. Is a caged animal who is regularly fed and cared for better off than an animal living free?

Loki

25th February 2004, 01:41 PM

Christian,

Oh, no you don't. Show me. Show me the tons of humanist organizations the serve.
Geez...you want to go through this again? We had this conversation 2 years ago. Remember the collection of links I posted of secular organisations from around the world that do charity work? How about we start with the various organisations that work under the United Nations banner? They are clearly secular. The World Health Organisation? UNICEF? Do they qualify?

Here's one for you, christian. A secular organisation is the single biggest organisation in Australia that provides services, support, money, etc to the poor, the aged, the disadvantaged. And it's by a huge margin. It is, of course, the government. Paid for by all of us, and staffed by - gasp - a diverse spread of believers and non-believers.

Do hospital staff count, Christian? Or do you mean "work done by people that is NOT paid for?"

And if humanists did serve, yes they would get blessed.
By 'blessed', do you mean 'rewarded in this life", or "rewarded in the next life"?

Talk is cheap, specially in this place.
You could answer a few questions, you know. I let it pass, but since you want to get picky, how about explaining this (I don;t understand your answer :

I asked you for some 'objective criteria' to measure one's "life results" by. You said you knew of such and objective standard.

I wrote : "Any idea what criteria we might use?"

You wrote : "How about choices in life? What choice in life do you make that qualitatively better than a Christian's? Christians pray. Do you? Is praying better than not praying?"

Now, when I read this it seems to me that your saying "An objective criteria for measuring life results is choices in life."
I don't understand this. If this IS what you meant, can you give me an example of 'objective standard'? If it's not what you meant, can you clarify?

Christian

26th February 2004, 11:09 AM

Right now, I'm busy with stuff I gotta do. I WILL answer/reply on the weekend. Thanks.

Christian

28th February 2004, 08:01 PM

Ruby,

Again, thank you for sharing part of life with me. You are talking about very personal and deep things and I appreciate that.

Now, here is my response.

Ruby wrote:
I'm not sure how to respond to the above paragraph. I'm unclear if you are saying that in general.....in my life, I hung out with people who were abusive etc., and was therefore led easily into a church org that abused me......or if you saying that once in church, I hung out with the abusive sort etc.

One possibility is that you focused (paid attention to) on this behavior. Can you buy this idea: you can be surrounded by negative abusive people that act generous and positive with you.

What I have divulged above is also "anecdotal evidence". So if I said that some men were sexually abusive, you could also make a case against me.

Can you buy the idea that some women attract the gentle, chivalrous kind men in their lives?
And this says nothing pejorative or bad about women who seem to attract predators. On the contrary, as you describe it, you attracted them because of good inherent traits.

Why is it so terrifying for you to consider that some denominations within Christinaity are legalistic and abusive?

I don’t think it is terrifying. This is my theory. All social groups contain legalistic and abusive people. Maybe, some have them in a greater percentage within that group. And they may be legalistic and abusive about some things in certain circumstances, but not others. Team work is extremely difficult. Get a bunch of people together for any period of time and bad things start to happen. This is going to be true with any people you get together with on a consistent basis.

I liked the sense of belonging that going to church gave me. I had never really experienced that before. It felt great to be a part of something. To be considered part of a family. Not only that, I was part of the only church org. that had the "truth". I was taught that I was "special" as a 1st United Pentecostal. Special because I had true savation.

I want you to forgive in advance for what I am about to say. Isn’t this the same feeling you have now? Don’t you feel a sense of belonging and that you are a part of something. Didn’t you say you love everyone here and consider them your family? And don’t you consider yourself special because now you are in the path to the truth, that a veil has been lifted?

Can you buy the idea that the problem is not the scenery, it is not the stage, not the outside environment?

Well, living by so many church rules........no make-up, no jewelry, no pants, no shorts, no TV....and so on, I was becoming very depressed. I did not feel like a woman anymore. We were taught to wear dresses with lengths below knees....most all the woman wore dresses nearly to the floor. We were also taught to wear dresses that covered our elbows. As if our elbows could incite lust!

Can you think of all the rules that you must follow now. For example, even if you think (very deep down) that a bible story can be a great lesson for children to listen to, you don’t because it is just as any other mythology. (I can’t guess about your answer, it is just an example to illustrate that humans constantly have to follow rules, we are never free from them , and the funny thing is that the more advanced the society we live in , the more regulated we are)

The type of abuse and legalism I am talking about can only be learned in a church. And in my experience, it happens constantly in the UPCI and Charismatic churches.

I’m sorry but I disagree. I will give a perfect example that abuse and legalism is everywhere you have groups.

Right here in this website, the main administrator left. If you read the posts related to him prior to his departure and after, you will see abuse and legalism all over. And you know when all that started? Right after rules of conduct where enacted. Before that time, anarchy was supreme. Once posters had to follow rules, the group dynamic changed dramatically.

Now, someone could argue that it was a small percentage of people, some could argue the other way. I would say that those who focused on it, got a very good look that the abusive and legalistic behavior.

What is a certainty is that the administrator was so fed up with it, that he decided to leave.

This is the problem. We have all these denominations running about......all interpreting the bible differently. All accusing each other of doing things that aren't biblical. The fact is, the bible can be made to say anything you want it to. It's chock full of contradictions.

I don’t think it is full of contradictions. I do believe that there are many contradictory interpretations. It is not the same thing. I definitely agree that we can create interpretations to fit our views and beliefs.

It might be easy to start a new bible based religion. Just pick and choose your verses and build your dogma around it. Then claim you've had some incredible revelation from God, himself, and there you go.

This is true, it can be done, but it won’t hold to the real litmus test.

It would not be too hard to rent a building or buy an old abandoned church. Then advertise using cleverly put together catchy phrases that sound uplifting, and give the promise of changing people's lives through Christ, and people are bound to come. There's always someone looking for answers..looking for something better and new that their current church isn't giving.

Also true.

Anyhow, I can say for a fact that a lot of UPC doctrine is based on twisted scripture, and some is scripture taken out of context, but some is scripture that has been interpreted in a different manner due to the many contradictions that exist in the bible.

Ok, we seem to agree here on most of what you say. I still disagree that the bible is full of contradictions. I will show you what I mean using the passages you cite.

Ok, so lets look at the UPC dogma that I was taught. First of all I learned that salvation only occurred through 1. Repentance; 2. Baptism in Jesus name; 3. Receiving the Holy Spirit baptism as evidenced by speaking in tongues.

They back this is up with the following passages.

Acts 2:1-16

Now, please not that the passage you cite does not explicitly say that is the way salvation occurs. It is a POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION. How do we know if it is a the right interpretation? How do we solve that?

This is a common problem is jurisprudence. Legislators make laws and when they made them they a specific intent. Many laws are straight forward to understand, many are not. So, how does a judge determine what the right interpretation is? Well, there are two mayor criteria:

1. Context/reference
2. literality.

From what you write, I’m sure I don’t have to go into #1. On #2, this is the litmus test in jurisprudence (that I referred to before). If the law is clear and precise about a specific aspect or topic (if it is literal in the law) then that takes precedence over any and every interpretation regarding the same aspect. It is only when #2 cannot be found, then we move to #1. Christians don’t have a Supreme Court that can uphold a particular interpretation, but we certainly can use the same principles, specifically literality.

This is where they believe the bible gives the one, and only, salvation message. They believe repentance is crucial...and most of their churches stress repentance as being a major event where you better cry, wail, and beg "God" to forgive you for all your sins. (They seem to miss that repentance really means to change one's mind and/or turn away from sin.) They believe that baptizing someone in total immersion of water saying "in Jesus name", is the only valid baptism. Anyone who has been baptized with "in the name of the father, son, and Holy spirit" being said over them needs to be rebaptized in Jesus name according to them. Otherwise, that mode of baptism will send them to hell. I'll explain why in a bit. Receiving the Holy Spirit baptism is vital to be saved......and according to them , unless you speak in tongues as evidence, then you did not get it. Once again, not speaking in tongues will send you to hell too.

How is the litmus test applied? It is very easy. If the passage can stand on it’s own in terms of meaning (that it does not require interpretation) and it contradicts a particular interpretation, then the INTERPRETATION is wrong. Yes, the interpretation can contradict the literal passage. The sound conclusion is not that the passages are contradicting one another, it is that the interpretation must be wrong.

Ok, what literal passage contradicts on its own this particular interpretation? Here it is (and please see that the passage does not need a single interpretation or explanation of any kind. It’s stands on its own)

1 Corinthians 12 NIV

Spiritual Gifts

1Now about spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant. 2You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols. 3Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.
4There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.
7Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,[1] and to still another the interpretation of tongues.[2] 11All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.
12The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. 13For we were all baptized by[3] one Spirit into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free--and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
14Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. 15If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, but one body.
21The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" 22On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.
27Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues[4] ? Do all interpret? 31But eagerly desire[5] the greater gifts.
And now I will show you the most excellent way.

So, I had to listen to many sermons about how if you don't give yourself fully to God (speak in tongues) then God might cause something bad to happen to someone you love to get you to do it. I am serious!!

Do you see why the interpretation is fails at the most fundamental level?

I don’t want to get into a biblical debate here. I know you don’t either but this was important for me to say about that subject.

Christian

28th February 2004, 08:58 PM

Kopji wrote:
Well this is real news. And here I was under the mistaken impression that the core of Christianity was faith in Jesus Christ. With service at the center as an engine of increased blessings, am I to conclude that the poor receive their just lot in life?

When you say poor, what kind of scarcity are you referring to?

The second part about sad and depressed people being on the take... is just plain offensive, I'm not even sure how to respond in a way that would not be filtered.

Why is this statement not true?

By me:
Oh, God would use you in wonderful ways Loki.

Wollery wrote:
That's not an answer!

If you were expecting me to say I can move mountains by sheer will, I can’t. But I can see the miracles of God constantly. The many thing that could and should wrong that God makes right in my experience is good enough for me. I know it is not good enough for the many here. I’m not even sure if they allow themselves to be such situations to see thing going right when the odds are against it.

Someone has a better quality of life because the get on their knees and ask a mythical sky daddy for help?
I don't pray, so I have more time to actually get on and make a difference in my life and other lives.

Well, I asked the question. Is your answer that you have a better quality of life because you don’t pray, because you don’t waste that time in it? Does this mean you don’t waste any time? And if you do waste some time, is it less than the time wasted by a Christian praying? Is listening to music while driving to work less of a waste than praying while driving to work. How about other forms of multitasking? You get the picture, right.

Are you saying that only christians do good deeds?

Of course not. I’m saying that people who engage in good deeds (regardless of creed) reap the rewards of them. It is a physical principle. The law of gravity applies to all creeds and non-creeds.

So you're saying that there are people who claim to be christian (like Lokis friend) who aren't really christian, because they haven't found the formula.

You misunderstand. I don’t know and can’t say if she is a Christian or not. The formula for happiness is there for all of us. It applies to all of us regardless of creed. Christianity just happens to have that formula as the central aspect of life.

Wow, way to contradict yourself there Christian. You start by saying that what counts are the actions and deeds, and finish by saying that depressed people are selfish and therefore (presumably by your definition) not true christians.

Your misinterpretation cause the contradiction. Luckily the sourse is here to clear up the meaning. Actions and deeds of service gives us a life of joy. True Christians can be depressed and selfish. If they do not serve, that is the consequence.

As someone who has suffered from clinical depression I can tell you that you haven't a clue what being depressed is.

You are mistaken. I have a very good idea what depression is all about.

The highest rates of depression in the UK are in the emergency and health services (I'll bet it's the same for the U.S.). These are people who regularly put their lives on the line for other people, and large numbers of them suffer from depression. If you want to talk about something then maybe you should know something about it first.

These are the only people you consider have a high value of service? The way you mean it, we all serve. Is it less important when a waiter serves you your food? Is it less important that the man at the service station puts gas on the ambulance? We all serve this way, and we are all connected and need each other to function. People would starve to death if there were no one would transport the food. Those truck drives put their lives on the line for other people everyday.

No, this is not the kind of service I’m talking about. You know the one I mean. It is the one where you gain absolutely nothing from but the satisfaction of having done a good deed. Every time you come across the kid who you helped out of drugs, that feeling of accomplishment that comes with it, is indescribable. Each of his successes becomes your success and pride. It is pure joy.

One final thought, if christianity is about giving to those who need, doesn't that make the needy takers. Are they condemned then to hell for not being givers?

No. A child needs a lot. But one day, if he has learned how to have a happy life, he, in turn, will become a giver and thus a virtues cycle ensues.

(Apologies christian if this seems aggressive, but that last post of yours really got my hackles up)

No apologies needed.

By me:
Because the quality of my life is as good any's being a believer, and being a believer has resulting in making the quality of life of others be better as well.

DanishDynamite wrote:
So you're intellectual reasons for remaining a believer is because it makes you feel good? Sorry, I don't see the intellectual component there. Could you elaborate?

No, let me put it another way, I don’t see how being an atheist is better than being a believer? And if it is not better, why not be a believer? I don’t see any practical advantages to not believing.

So, instead of asking, how is the quality of an atheist’s life better? I will ask the same the question in another way. What are the practical advantages of not being a believer?

In regard to arguing that my life is better for not being a believer, this is a probably a fool's errand as we would be arguing the meaning of "better" forever. Is a caged animal who is regularly fed and cared for better off than an animal living free?

If you mean it as an analogy, it is a false one. If it is not, that depends on the size of the cage, or the number poachers on the outside.

Loki wrote:
Geez...you want to go through this again? We had this conversation 2 years ago. Remember the collection of links I posted of secular organisations from around the world that do charity work?

I’m not letting you off the hook this time.

How about we start with the various organisations that work under the United Nations banner? They are clearly secular. The World Health Organisation? UNICEF? Do they qualify?

They clearly don’t count. And you know, it is very telling that you can’t come up with organizations created by the will of citizens to do charity work that are atheist.

You know your examples of cop-outs. I know you know.

Here's one for you, christian. A secular organisation is the single biggest organisation in Australia that provides services, support, money, etc to the poor, the aged, the disadvantaged. And it's by a huge margin. It is, of course, the government. Paid for by all of us, and staffed by - gasp - a diverse spread of believers and non-believers.

So, am I to understand you consider charity work to be taxes that people are BY LAW required to give? What was that word? Geez…

Do hospital staff count, Christian? Or do you mean "work done by people that is NOT paid for?"

You got it. I know you always do.

By 'blessed', do you mean 'rewarded in this life", or "rewarded in the next life"?

Rewarded in this life.

You could answer a few questions, you know. I let it pass, but since you want to get picky, how about explaining this (I don;t understand your answer :

I asked you for some 'objective criteria' to measure one's "life results" by. You said you knew of such and objective standard.

I wrote : "Any idea what criteria we might use?"

You wrote : "How about choices in life? What choice in life do you make that qualitatively better than a Christian's? Christians pray. Do you? Is praying better than not praying?"

Now, when I read this it seems to me that your saying "An objective criteria for measuring life results is choices in life."
I don't understand this. If this IS what you meant, can you give me an example of 'objective standard'? If it's not what you meant, can you clarify?

Ok, the specific choice is measurable, that is the objective standard.

Let me explain. What is the objective criteria that says a person is a better investor than another. It is the choices the investor makes.

One chooses paper assets, the other chooses real estate. And another chooses a portfolio. You know what? The person that chooses the portfolio outperforms the others every time. (take a time of 10 to 20 years please)

Loki

28th February 2004, 10:55 PM

Christian,

They clearly don’t count. And you know, it is very telling that you can’t come up with organizations created by the will of citizens to do charity work that are atheist.
I gave you a (quickly compiled) list of 5 or so organisations when we did this last time. Now you want to do it again. Okay, if I can find the time I'll do it - but it's not really the point. There's a logical fallacy lurking in your argument, which I hope you can see. Just ask yourself "why?" do christian organisations perform charity work. I'm interested to see how you can isolate the result (charity) from the motivation, since you are keen to establish that results only count if they are "where you gain absolutely nothing from but the satisfaction of having done a good deed". I'm sure you think this is self-evident - but I'm not prepared to conceed this. Can you prove the motivation?

You know your examples of cop-outs.
Your prejudices blind you, Christian. Think for moment ... what might a world without religion look like? How might humans organise themselves to help those who need assistance if there was no religious charity? Once you've imagined that, please explain how this "imaginary" scenario differs from the examples I've listed.

Look - it's simple, Christian. You're so used to the christian/charity/service model that you fail to understand that it is *only one possible model*. It has nothing intrinsicly better in it, and no result that cannot be achieved in other ways.

You're arguing "this is the way it is, so this is the way it must have to be". I disagree.

And if it is not better, why not be a believer?
Pascal's Wager? Would you agree then that there are no disadvatages to believing in the Norse gods? None at all? Anser truthfully - you'd rather than your daughter's grow up believing in Zeus that as atheists? You'd rahter they are Muslims than atheists? Really - is that true? Imagine that they devout followers of Olympus. This would not cause any concern for you at all?

What are the practical advantages of not being a believer?

At heart, a realisation that humanity (and it's attendant god?s) is *not* the center of the universe. You're one of 1 billion, I'm one of 6 billion. If you can't see an advantage in that perspective, then once again your field of vision is too narrow.

Loki

29th February 2004, 01:52 AM

Christian,

I don't have time to be more complete, but here's a few items to get you going. Perhaps you can explain to me why each of these non-religous, volunteer-based or registered charities don't qualify as "service"?

State Emergency Service (http://www.ses.vic.gov.au)
The Victoria State Emergency Service (SES) is a volunteer based emergency service, servicing the State of Victoria.
The SES has a wide range of roles including planning for and responding to floods, severe storms, earthquakes, road accident rescue as well as search and rescue. The SES also provides a support role to other emergency service agencies including the Victoria Police. More than 5,500 volunteers, supported by 72 staff, provide this response across the state.

Country Fire Authority (http://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/about/index.htm)
CFA is one of the world’s largest volunteer-based emergency services. There are around 58,000 volunteer members supported by over 400 career fire fighters and officers and more than 700 career support and administrative staff.

Surf Life Saving Australia (http://www.slsa.asn.au)
All members that wear the red & yellow quartered cap are volunteer surf lifesavers.
...
There are over 100,000 surf lifesaving club members around Australia around 25,000 of which actively patrol our beaches.

Since you mentioned drug rehabilitation, how about...

Odyssey House (http://www.odysseyvictoria.org.au)

And to show that it's not just Australians helping Australians ...

The Fred Hollows Foundation (http://www.hollows.org/)

Community Aid Abroad (http://www.caa.org.au/index.html)
Today, the agency is a secular, independent, non-government, not-for-profit organisation working in over 30 countries around the world.

AustCare (http://www.austcare.org.au/)

Here's an idea - how about you do some reseach for yourself, and find out how the rest of the world (you know, the bit beyond your immediate involvement) works?

(And still not sure why the UN based organisations don't count...)

Christian

29th February 2004, 08:23 PM

Loki wrote:
I gave you a (quickly compiled) list of 5 or so organisations when we did this last time. Now you want to do it again. Okay, if I can find the time I'll do it - but it's not really the point. There's a logical fallacy lurking in your argument, which I hope you can see. Just ask yourself "why?" do christian organisations perform charity work. I'm interested to see how you can isolate the result (charity) from the motivation, since you are keen to establish that results only count if they are "where you gain absolutely nothing from but the satisfaction of having done a good deed". I'm sure you think this is self-evident - but I'm not prepared to conceed this. Can you prove the motivation?

The motivation is the conviction of service. I can tell you I see this first hand constantly.

Let me give you one example:

Eagle Ranch (http://www.eagleranch.org/index.htm)

Your prejudices blind you, Christian. Think for moment ... what might a world without religion look like? How might humans organise themselves to help those who need assistance if there was no religious charity? Once you've imagined that, please explain how this "imaginary" scenario differs from the examples I've listed.

Your scenario es untestable. We can only speculate.

You are throwing all the skeptics tools out the window. I will get to your examples in a bit.

Look - it's simple, Christian. You're so used to the christian/charity/service model that you fail to understand that it is *only one possible model*. It has nothing intrinsicly better in it, and no result that cannot be achieved in other ways.

It is a model that I have in front of me, a real life testable phonomenon. I can't compare it to other non-existent models and conclude those are better in real life. That would be absurd.

You're arguing "this is the way it is, so this is the way it must have to be". I disagree.

I'm arguing that atheists don't seem to organized in the same way.

Pascal's Wager? Would you agree then that there are no disadvatages to believing in the Norse gods? None at all? Anser truthfully - you'd rather than your daughter's grow up believing in Zeus that as atheists? You'd rahter they are Muslims than atheists? Really - is that true? Imagine that they devout followers of Olympus. This would not cause any concern for you at all?

This logic is all wrong. I will tell you why. I believe Christianity is superior objectively to Greek mythology. Zeus has not stood the test of time. I can definitely argue that my daughter will have a qualitatively better life as a Christian than as a Muslim.

The point is that atheists come my way to tell me I'm in darkness, and they are in light. I challege that. I dispute it. So far, no one seems to why it is better to be an atheist.

In contrast I can definitely tell why it is bettet to believe in the Christian God than Zeus and Olympus.

At heart, a realisation that humanity (and it's attendant god?s) is *not* the center of the universe. You're one of 1 billion, I'm one of 6 billion. If you can't see an advantage in that perspective, then once again your field of vision is too narrow.

No so fast. What does a realization that humanty is not the center of the universe mean? I don't want to comment until you show me the significant/relevance of that statement.

I don't have time to be more complete, but here's a few items to get you going. Perhaps you can explain to me why each of these non-religous, volunteer-based or registered charities don't qualify as "service"?

They definitely qualify as service. What I could not successfully show last time was why all of your examples don't count as evidence of atheists coming together to do service work.

Now I can. You present a
Fallacy of Division (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/division.html)

Although the organizations you cite, as a group, are secular (and note that you cite not one single professed atheist service organization), that does not mean the member are secular humanists or atheists.

I could argue that many in such organizations are Christians and they serve because of their personal convictions. We just don't the make up of the populations you present.

Here's an idea - how about you do some reseach for yourself, and find out how the rest of the world (you know, the bit beyond your immediate involvement) works?

Just an idea, how about you rebutt my statements and stop characterizing my scope of knowledge?

(And still not sure why the UN based organisations don't count...)

Maybe now you do.

Now let me give a valid example of an organization that does fit the criteria, right there in your back yard. Maybe you have heard of it?

World Vision Australia (http://www.worldvision.org.au/whoweare/faq.asp)

World Vision is Australia's largest charitable group. More Australians entrust more money to World Vision than any other charity in the country. With the support of more than 350,000 Australians, World Vision helps over 10 million people every year.

We are a Christian organisation providing help on the basis of need. We do not discriminate on religious, political, social, cultural, age or gender grounds. World Vision believes in freedom, justice, peace and opportunity for everyone.

As you can see, they identify themselves as a Christian organization. The implications are evident.

Edited to add:

You told me the Australian population is mostly secular and that Christians represent a very small % of the population. If this is so, why is a Christian organization the largest of its kind there. And why is it that Australians trust it the most?

Loki

29th February 2004, 09:44 PM

Christian,

The motivation is the conviction of service. I can tell you I see this first hand constantly.
Could the motivation *for some* be the need to "spread the lord's word"?

It is a model that I have in front of me, a real life testable phonomenon. I can't compare it to other non-existent models and conclude those are better in real life. That would be absurd./quote]
"Better the Devil you know..." Your lack of imagination is noted, although I suspect "can't" should be replaced with "won't" in the above quote.

[quote]I'm arguing that atheists don't seem to organized in the same way.
Perhaps because "atheists" don't see that one trait as being the central point of their life? So they can be humanists, conservatives, radicals, politicians, terrorists, etc. Atheists organise to solve problems, just like everybody else.

note that you cite not one single professed atheist service organization
Are you being deliberately silly, or was this a joke? You'd expect a charity or service organistion to list what they don't believe in as an attribute???

Although the organizations you cite, as a group, are secular ... that does not mean the member are secular humanists or atheists.
Correct! Applies also to Christian organisations, but we can both agree that Christian organisations are more likely to directly and indirectly discourage non-christian members? Therefore increasing their percentage member base?

You told me the Australian population is mostly secular and that Christians represent a very small % of the population. If this is so, why is a Christian organization the largest of its kind there. And why is it that Australians trust it the most?
Because it's there, and it works! Hell, I give to 3 different christian charities!! What's the problem here? Why is the largest 'foreign aid' charity in Australia a christian organisation? Probably for the same reason that the largest volunteer fire fighting organisation isn't christian - think about it!!!!

Now I can. You present a Fallacy of Division
Well, no, I did no such thing!! If I said "I can prove that all atheists will do service, because here is a secular charity" then you might have something. But that's not what we are discussing.

You said : "...very telling that you can’t come up with organizations created by the will of citizens to do charity work that are atheist."

What do you mean here? The organisation MUST identify itself as atheist? It's members must all be atheists?

Let me try to clarify.

I think you're saying :

1. Christianity says "do service".
2. Many (but not all) Christian therefore create organisations to make "doing service" easier.
3. The proof of this is the number of organisation that (a) do service and (b) identify themselves 'christian'.

Fair enough. You then presumably continue :

1. There are no organisations that (a) do service and (b) identify themselves as "atheist"
2. Therefore, atheists do not want to do service.

Is that about it?

You said "Show me the tons of humanist organizations the serve." I guess we have to decide what makes an organisation "humanist", don't we? You appear to want to run with "must (a) declare themselves to be atheist and (b) must consist of 100% (or at least an overwhelming majority) of atheists amongst the staff/volunteers". Given that definition, I'll concede the debate! I doubt I can find such an organisation!

Christian

1st March 2004, 02:30 PM

Loki wrote:
Could the motivation *for some* be the need to "spread the lord's word"?

Christians have the motivation to spread the word, it is a mandate.
But, I assure you, the motivation to serve comes from pure conviction, from the Spirit. I see it as a common trait in Christians. I can't explain it in secular terms, when people become Christian, they have this sense of service, of contribution.

My explanation is that the Spirit gives a mission, a purpose to the individual. You are recruted and become a soldier to a specific cause.

From the site that I posted (Eagle Ranch) people have come to El Salvador. They are trying to emulate their model for children here. The benefits for the children are enormous.

Perhaps because "atheists" don't see that one trait as being the central point of their life?

Ok.

Atheists organise to solve problems, just like everybody else.

I don't see atheists organizing to solve very much. I don't see much atheist organization. And I understand there can be many explanations for this.

Are you being deliberately silly, or was this a joke? You'd expect a charity or service organistion to list what they don't believe in as an attribute???

Wait. The point I'm making is that atheist don't seem to organize to serve.

Remember, all this conversation started because I say talk was cheap.

I was showing you that a common trait in the Christian community is a life of service, and that people that serve have a happy life.

Also remember that we were talking about deeds, actions.

Correct! Applies also to Christian organisations, but we can both agree that Christian organisations are more likely to directly and indirectly discourage non-christian members? Therefore increasing their percentage member base?

It is my understanding the most Christian organizations require their members to at least profess Christianity. It is a fair assumption to think that a Christian organization consists of Christians, definitely.

Because it's there, and it works! Hell, I give to 3 different christian charities!! What's the problem here?

I'm glad to hear this. I'm glad to hear that you are not the type of atheist who claims Christianity is evil (you know the vitriolic rhetoric.)

Why is the largest 'foreign aid' charity in Australia a christian organisation? Probably for the same reason that the largest volunteer fire fighting organisation isn't christian - think about it!!!!

What if the mayority of the volunteers in that fire fighting organization are Christian? Would that make the organization Christian? Do you see the fallacy of division you are implying?

Well, no, I did no such thing!! If I said "I can prove that all atheists will do service, because here is a secular charity" then you might have something. But that's not what we are discussing.

You said : "...very telling that you can’t come up with organizations created by the will of citizens to do charity work that are atheist."

What do you mean here? The organisation MUST identify itself as atheist? It's members must all be atheists?

The organization must identify as a humanist organization.

Let me try to clarify.

I think you're saying :

1. Christianity says "do service".
2. Many (but not all) Christian therefore create organisations to make "doing service" easier.
3. The proof of this is the number of organisation that (a) do service and (b) identify themselves 'christian'.

Fair enough.

Ok.

You then presumably continue :

1. There are no organisations that (a) do service and (b) identify themselves as "atheist"
2. Therefore, atheists do not want to do service.

Is that about it?

No, like this:

1. I find no evidence of organizations that (a) do service and (b) identify themselves as "humanists"
2. Therefore, service does not seem to be a priority for humanists.

You said "Show me the tons of humanist organizations the serve." I guess we have to decide what makes an organisation "humanist", don't we?

You are right. When I say humanist, I'm referring to secular humanists. You once agreed with me you considered yourself a secular humanist.

Secular Humanism (http://www.secularhumanism.org/intro/what.html)

And, you know what is ironic. The secular humanist sites I've found have as their main purpose, spreading the word

The Council for Secular Humanism is North America's leading organization for non-religious people. A not-for-profit educational association, the Council supports a wide range of activities to meet the needs of people who find meaning and value in life without looking to a god. Its activities range from magazine publishing to campaigning on ethical issues, from conferences to support networks, from educational courses to conducting secular ceremonies, from local groups to international development.

Secular humanists do organize. They just don't seem to organize for service to others. (you know what I mean.)

The James Randi Educational Foundation is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1996. Its aim is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today.

You appear to want to run with "must (a) declare themselves to be atheist and (b) must consist of 100% (or at least an overwhelming majority) of atheists amongst the staff/volunteers".

No, not at all. I can find secular humanists organizations. There are many. And their mission statement or purpose is clearly defined. I believe Hal is a deist and he is (was???) an important person here. Still, this particular organization is clearly a secular humanist one. As many others are.

I just don't seem to find organizations with service as a mission or purpose.

Given that definition, I'll concede the debate! I doubt I can find such an organisation!

Without that definition, you would have to concede that if there are any, they are scarce.

Loki

1st March 2004, 03:19 PM

Christian,

After going throhg several thousand possible responses, I think I'll limit myself to just the following...

I'm glad to hear that you are not the type of atheist who claims Christianity is evil (you know the vitriolic rhetoric.)
Christianity is evil? As you're so fond of saying, it's all relative to the 'frame of reference'. Certainly I find many past and some current behaviours/beliefs of christians to be abhorrent. But realism dictates that we're all in this together, so I make day to day decisions in that light. I won't donate to fundamentalist christian organisations. I will donate to christian organisations that put the result ahead of the preaching.

I just don't seem to find [humanist] organizations with service as a mission or purpose
Two points :

1. We've discussed secular or "Non-religious" organistations, but they don't count - you only want those who specifically say "humanist" in the title or mission statement, and they must do charity work only (any other type of service doesn't count). I'd make a list that (might) fulfill this criteria, but :

2. Even if we agree on such an organisation, you've invoked the "fallacy of division" argument, which essentially says that you believe that vast majority of the members of any such organisation are christians anyway, so the organisation is a defacto christian one even if it says it's not. I can't disprove this (and you can't prove it) so lets just agree that you're correct! There, feel better? Feel like you've won?

So we agree :

Only christians do charitable work, and that if there were no christians society would evolve into a terrible class based system with a divide between the uncaring rich and the suffering poor, just like Europe in the 18th century ... oh, wait, wasn't that a christian society? Hmmm ... how could that be? The Spirit recruits soldiers for the lord's work? Where were they 200 years ago when almost 100% of the population was christian? Well, 600 years ago they were raping and murdering their way through Central America, so perhaps you are right - the Spirit tailors it's "service" (charity/murder/salvery/etc) to suit the circumstances.

DanishDynamite

1st March 2004, 04:40 PM

Christian:No, let me put it another way, I don’t see how being an atheist is better than being a believer? And if it is not better, why not be a believer? I don’t see any practical advantages to not believing.If there were no practical differences between believing that Bigfoot exists and was the son of Hitler and a space alien, and not believing so, would you believe it? Why not?
So, instead of asking, how is the quality of an atheist’s life better? I will ask the same the question in another way. What are the practical advantages of not being a believer?While I can sympathise with the view of a hard-core pragmatist, I still find your question quite dumbfounding.

How in the world can you view the world in this way? You seem to be saying that as long as any old belief you have can't be shown to have any disadvantage on your wellbeing, it is perfectly reasonable to have this belief. Aren't you at all interested in what is true and what is false? Don't you have any curiousity about the world and how it works and why it is the way it is? Don't you have a burning desire to understand the world in which you find yourself? I do.

And the fact that I want the truth about how the universe works means that it would be impossible for me to simply choose one of the many religious viewpoints which in their own way boil down to "God did it", and then just stop my investigation and be content with whatever this view was. In this sense, not only is my life better for not wearing such a straightjacket, but I couldn't become a believer even if I tried.
If you mean it as an analogy, it is a false one. If it is not, that depends on the size of the cage, or the number poachers on the outside.I meant it as an example of how the meaning of "better off" is quite subjective.

Christian

2nd March 2004, 10:24 AM

Loki wrote:
Christianity is evil? As you're so fond of saying, it's all relative to the 'frame of reference'. Certainly I find many past and some current behaviours/beliefs of christians to be abhorrent.

Yes, humans, whether christians, muslim, atheists or other, have many past and some current behaviours/beliefs that are abhorrent.

But realism dictates that we're all in this together, so I make day to day decisions in that light. I won't donate to fundamentalist christian organisations. I will donate to christian organisations that put the result ahead of the preaching.

So they are mutually exclusive? I don't think so.

Only christians do charitable work, and that if there were no christians society would evolve into a terrible class based system with a divide between the uncaring rich and the suffering poor

Actually, that is pretty much way it is in the non-christian world.

just like Europe in the 18th century ... oh, wait, wasn't that a christian society? Hmmm ... how could that be? The Spirit recruits soldiers for the lord's work? Where were they 200 years ago when almost 100% of the population was christian? Well, 600 years ago they were raping and murdering their way through Central America, so perhaps you are right - the Spirit tailors it's "service" (charity/murder/salvery/etc) to suit the circumstances.

This is the subject of another thread. But I will tell you that you are presenting fallacies/lies/misconceptions. You would also lose that debate.

DanishDynamite wrote:
If there were no practical differences between believing that Bigfoot exists and was the son of Hitler and a space alien, and not believing so, would you believe it? Why not?

If you can show me the comparable relevance in believing in Bigfoot+characteristics to believing in Christianity, then I can answer your question.

How in the world can you view the world in this way? You seem to be saying that as long as any old belief you have can't be shown to have any disadvantage on your wellbeing, it is perfectly reasonable to have this belief.

I'm not saying this. It would be ridiculous for me to say this. I'm not saying any old belief (that is a strawman).

I'm saying Christianity.

Aren't you at all interested in what is true and what is false? Don't you have any curiousity about the world and how it works and why it is the way it is? Don't you have a burning desire to understand the world in which you find yourself? I do.

And this is another strawman. I'm interested in the truth just as you are. What truths do you speak about that I don't know. Again, what advantages are there? What is it that you know that I don't that makes your model better?

By the way, materialist-atheists do not believe they can know the truth. They believe they can only have a degree of confidence based on the evidence thus far. In the MA view, everything must be falsifiable. These rules bind them.

So, what can you know that makes you better than I?

And the fact that I want the truth about how the universe works means that it would be impossible for me to simply choose one of the many religious viewpoints which in their own way boil down to "God did it", and then just stop my investigation and be content with whatever this view was.

Another strawman. I want ot know how the universe works just as you do. Christianity does not impede this.

In this sense, not only is my life better for not wearing such a straightjacket, but I couldn't become a believer even if I tried.

Show me that your life is better. Saying so, does not make it so. Show me your actions, your choices. How and why are they better than mine?

And you are a believer. You wear the straghtjacket of your beliefs. (as you say) as I mine.

DanishDynamite

2nd March 2004, 11:16 AM

DanishDynamite:
If there were no practical differences between believing that Bigfoot exists and was the son of Hitler and a space alien, and not believing so, would you believe it? Why not?

Christian:
If you can show me the comparable relevance in believing in Bigfoot+characteristics to believing in Christianity, then I can answer your question.They are both beliefs in something for which there is no evidence and no reason to even suspect it might be true.
DanishDynamite:
How in the world can you view the world in this way? You seem to be saying that as long as any old belief you have can't be shown to have any disadvantage on your wellbeing, it is perfectly reasonable to have this belief.

Christian:
I'm not saying this. It would be ridiculous for me to say this. I'm not saying any old belief (that is a strawman).

I'm saying Christianity.You are saying Christianity now, but what you actually said before and what I was responding to was the following:

"So, instead of asking, how is the quality of an atheist’s life better? I will ask the same the question in another way. What are the practical advantages of not being a believer?"

This has no mention of Christianity. And remember that an athiest not only doesn't believe in any of the versions of god which various Christian cults use, but doesn't believe in any type of god whatsoever.
DanishDynamite:
Aren't you at all interested in what is true and what is false? Don't you have any curiousity about the world and how it works and why it is the way it is? Don't you have a burning desire to understand the world in which you find yourself? I do.

Christian:
And this is another strawman. I'm interested in the truth just as you are. What truths do you speak about that I don't know. Again, what advantages are there? What is it that you know that I don't that makes your model better?

By the way, materialist-atheists do not believe they can know the truth. They believe they can only have a degree of confidence based on the evidence thus far. In the MA view, everything must be falsifiable. These rules bind them.

So, what can you know that makes you better than I?The truth I'm talking about is the truth of the workings of the Universe. How did it start? How did it develop? It is my understanding that the holy book of Christianity says their god made it in a week about 5,000 - 10,000 years ago, and that is more or less the end of that.

You say you are interested in the truth. Does that mean you don't agree with the above description of how the world came into being? Afterall, it is in complete contradiction of everything we have learned about the world.

BTW, will you now address my question regarding your hard-core pragmatical view?

Christian:
Another strawman. I want ot know how the universe works just as you do. Christianity does not impede this.Then please tell me which parts of the Bible don't apply. And please tell me how someone interested in learning the truth can have the a priori belief that an invisible being who is outside time and space and who is all-knowing and who can decide the fate of other invisible parts of humans (souls) and who etc, etc, etc, exists.
[b]DanishDynamite:
In this sense, not only is my life better for not wearing such a straightjacket, but I couldn't become a believer even if I tried.

Christian:
Show me that your life is better. Saying so, does not make it so. Show me your actions, your choices. How and why are they better than mine?

And you are a believer. You wear the straghtjacket of your beliefs. (as you say) as I mine.My life is better because I'm free to explore the world without some encumbering belief in how the world must be, derived from some old book.

And please tell me what straightjacket I'm wearing.

Loki

2nd March 2004, 12:55 PM

Christian,

This is the subject of another thread. But I will tell you that you are presenting fallacies/lies/misconceptions. You would also lose that debate.
I'm fairly sure I would lose, given the ground rules you work from. But it may be interesting to see you work through christian history, so by all means lead on. I suspect I know which pitch your going to run with, but perhaps you'll surprise. What would you like to tackle first? The role of christian citizens in public welfare during 18th century Europe? The Spirit inspired service of slave owners in 19th century America? The service provided by inquisitors in ridding Europe of witches during the Middle Ages?

Christian

2nd March 2004, 01:16 PM

DanishDynamite wrote:
They are both beliefs in something for which there is no evidence and no reason to even suspect it might be true.

First, you are not comparing oranges to oranges. Christianity is a religion. The other is something you made up on the fly.

Second, you are not answering my question. How is Bigfoot relevant as Christianity is relevant? Are you saying both are as relevant? I can say that my belief in Christianity is superior to anyone's belief in Bigfoot.

You are saying Christianity now, but what you actually said before and what I was responding to was the following:

"So, instead of asking, how is the quality of an atheist’s life better? I will ask the same the question in another way. What are the practical advantages of not being a believer?"

This has no mention of Christianity.

Listen, this whole thread has had that context. But, if you say it was unclear, then now it is clear.

And remember that an athiest not only doesn't believe in any of the versions of god which various Christian cults use, but doesn't believe in any type of god whatsoever.

This is clear.

The truth I'm talking about is the truth of the workings of the Universe. How did it start? How did it develop?

Let's suppose this has tremendous relevance. Are you telling me you know the truth of how the universe began and how it developed? Are you saying you know the workings of the universe?

And if you are saying you know a % of that truth and not the whole truth, what % would that be?

It is my understanding that the holy book of Christianity says their god made it in a week about 5,000 - 10,000 years ago, and that is more or less the end of that.

You say you are interested in the truth. Does that mean you don't agree with the above description of how the world came into being? Afterall, it is in complete contradiction of everything we have learned about the world.

Your understanding is wrong.

And, do you really think it is so hard to understand the scientific evidence regarding the age of the earth. That matter on earth and the universe is known to be billions of years old does not contradict Genesis. Sure, it contradicts an interpretation of Genesis, indeed.

BTW, will you now address my question regarding your hard-core pragmatical view?

I'm not going to address a strawman.

Then please tell me which parts of the Bible don't apply.

When you say apply, what do you mean? Apply in terms of what?

And please tell me how someone interested in learning the truth can have the a priori belief that an invisible being who is outside time and space and who is all-knowing and who can decide the fate of other invisible parts of humans (souls) and who etc, etc, etc, exists.

What's the problem? How does a belief in God impede me from knowing how the world works?

Please note that you must be wrong from pure unadultaretad logic. You are saying that a person who believes in the Christian God cannot acquire knowledge (search for the truth). This is nonsense. Wasn't there a poster who posted that a physics winner was a Christian.

And, aren't there many Christian scientists in all fields of human knowledge?

My life is better because I'm free to explore the world without some encumbering belief in how the world must be, derived from some old book.

Ok, give me a couple of examples, don't just make the statement without backing it up.

And please tell me what straightjacket I'm wearing.

You believe there is no other life but this one. You believe you are free. You believe there are no consequences of negavite action that go unpunished by humans.

You believe morality is relative to you and you alone. You must accept that other societies behavior are as legitimate as yours based on this last premise.

Those beliefs have implications that bind you. And they do.

Loki wrote:
I'm fairly sure I would lose, given the ground rules you work from.

Geez... (I like that word) You really can't concede.

But it may be interesting to see you work through christian history, so by all means lead on. I suspect I know which pitch your going to run with, but perhaps you'll surprise.

How about and objective look at the whole picture. Is a hollistic view of Christianity in those times fair enough for you. Or is picking and choosing selective examples to support a biased view better for you?

What would you like to tackle first? The role of christian citizens in public welfare during 18th century Europe? The Spirit inspired service of slave owners in 19th century America? The service provided by inquisitors in ridding Europe of witches during the Middle Ages?

Oopps, I guess you already took your pick.

Loki

2nd March 2004, 01:58 PM

Christian,

Geez... (I like that word)
You should - it's a shorted form of "Jesus". Usually used to express frustration, so I guess it's kind of taking the lord's name in vain?

You really can't concede.
When you :

(a) define "Christian charities" as "any charity organisation that has the world 'christian' in it's name or mission statement";
(b) declare that "it's obvious" that the members of "christian charities" are overwhelming Christian;
(c) declare that charities that either make no religious references, or use the term 'secular' are defacto christian charities because "its obvious" their members are almost certainly christian;

...I concede! Given the rules as you've laid them out, you win!

How about and objective look at the whole picture. Is a hollistic view of Christianity in those times fair enough for you. Or is picking and choosing selective examples to support a biased view better for you?
Yep - that's pretty much the way I thought you'd go. It's certainly the angle I'd try to play if I wanted to run with your argument! "Holistic Christianity". Homoeopathic Holy Water?

DanishDynamite

2nd March 2004, 02:09 PM

Christian:First, you are not comparing oranges to oranges. Christianity is a religion. The other is something you made up on the fly. What is the difference?
Second, you are not answering my question. How is Bigfoot relevant as Christianity is relevant? Are you saying both are as relevant? I can say that my belief in Christianity is superior to anyone's belief in Bigfoot.Yes, please show how one unfounded belief is superior to another.

BTW, is being a Christian superior to being a Scientologist? Or a Muslim? Or a Budhist?
Listen, this whole thread has had that context. But, if you say it was unclear, then now it is clear.So if everything is now clear, please tell me: Is believing in something for which there is no evidence perfectly reasonable as long as said belief isn't a disadvantage to the life of the believer? I.e., is making stuff up (e.g. elves in Elvis outfits live at the center of Jupiter. They are all named Zem) and then believing it OK as long as it isn't detrimental to living a happy life? Is such a belief compatible with a search for truth about how the world works?
Let's suppose this has tremendous relevance. Are you telling me you know the truth of how the universe began and how it developed? Are you saying you know the workings of the universe?Obviously not.
And if you are saying you know a % of that truth and not the whole truth, what % would that be?I know enough to know that Christianity's version is wrong.
Your understanding is wrong. So which parts of the Bible do you find are wrong?
And, do you really think it is so hard to understand the scientific evidence regarding the age of the earth. That matter on earth and the universe is known to be billions of years old does not contradict Genesis. Sure, it contradicts an interpretation of Genesis, indeed.Eh? An interpretation? Which bits of the Bible are up for interpretation, then? Was Jesus really crucified? Or was this just a metaphor for his tax audit? Was he really the son of god? Or was this just a metaphor for his sharp dressing?
I'm not going to address a strawman.How is it a strawman?
When you say apply, what do you mean? Apply in terms of what?Which bits need the "proper interpretation" to make the slightest sense.
What's the problem? How does a belief in God impede me from knowing how the world works?Because you have already decided how certain parts of work without any reason to suspect that what you have decided is true. You have decided that humans have souls, without evidence. You have decided that the fate of these souls is determined by an invisible being. You have decided that wishing ferverently (praying) to this invisible being can magically influence things in the real world. You have decided that this being started the Universe. You have decided that life on this planet was likewise created by this magic being. All of this without the slightest evidence. How can you search for the actual truth if you have already decided what the truth is?
Please note that you must be wrong from pure unadultaretad logic. You are saying that a person who believes in the Christian God cannot acquire knowledge (search for the truth). This is nonsense. Wasn't there a poster who posted that a physics winner was a Christian.Where did I say this? I said that such an unfounded belief would encumber the search for the truth. See above.
And, aren't there many Christian scientists in all fields of human knowledge?Presumably. I wonder how they reconcile their belief in a dictated truth and actually searching for the truth.
Ok, give me a couple of examples, don't just make the statement without backing it up.A couple of examples of what?
You believe there is no other life but this one.There is no reason for me to expect otherwise. How is this a straightjacket?
You believe you are free. There is no reason for me to expect otherwise. How is this a straightjacket?
You believe there are no consequences of negavite action that go unpunished by humans. No, as a matter of fact, I don't. Most people have a conscience.
You believe morality is relative to you and you alone. Not sure what you mean. I believe most morals are genetically based.
You must accept that other societies behavior are as legitimate as yours based on this last premise.Why?
Those beliefs have implications that bind you. And they do.Obviously my view of what is right or wrong will result in me viewing some things as right and some as wrong. How is that a straightjacket in regard to searching for the truth about the workings of this Universe?

Christian

3rd March 2004, 12:42 PM

Loki wrote:
You should - it's a shorted form of "Jesus". Usually used to express frustration, so I guess it's kind of taking the lord's name in vain?

So I guess I wont be using it anymore :D

When you :

(a) define "Christian charities" as "any charity organisation that has the world 'christian' in it's name or mission statement";
(b) declare that "it's obvious" that the members of "christian charities" are overwhelming Christian;
(c) declare that charities that either make no religious references, or use the term 'secular' are defacto christian charities because "its obvious" their members are almost certainly christian;

...I concede! Given the rules as you've laid them out, you win!

a) You have the right to challenge any example I present. If I say it is a Christian organization, you can dispute it. You have not. So, it is a fair assumption to accept they are.
b) It is another assumption that can be challenged. I say it is fair and correct assumption.
c) This is not true, I didn't say they were Christian Charities, I said your examples contain the fallacy of division which is absolutely the case.

You are implying that I'm setting up unfair rules (disadvantageous to you and favorable to me). This is not the case.

Yep - that's pretty much the way I thought you'd go. It's certainly the angle I'd try to play if I wanted to run with your argument! "Holistic Christianity". Homoeopathic Holy Water?

There is no other way to go. Either we look at the whole thing or we pick and choose to our convinience.

DanishDynamite wrote:
What is the difference?

For starters, a codefied system of principles that have lasted for 2000 years.

Yes, please show how one unfounded belief is superior to another.

You say unfounded, I say it is not. Christianity is superior to a belief in Bigfoot in many areas.

BTW, is being a Christian superior to being a Scientologist? Or a Muslim? Or a Budhist?

Now, you are comparing oranges to oranges. By your question you are talking about individuals. We would have to compare a specific Christian to a specific Muslim or Budhist. And we would have to qualify un which way they are superior. One can't be absolutely superior to the other as a person.

Now, if you change the question to: is Christianity superior to Scientology or Islam or Budhism, then that is a different answer.

So if everything is now clear, please tell me: Is believing in something for which there is no evidence perfectly reasonable as long as said belief isn't a disadvantage to the life of the believer?

It is reasonable to believe in things for which one has evidence. That others may not accept this evidence is another matter. The advantages come from the belief working in one's life.

I.e., is making stuff up (e.g. elves in Elvis outfits live at the center of Jupiter. They are all named Zem) and then believing it OK as long as it isn't detrimental to living a happy life?

You keep constructing this strawman. The answer is obvious and it is not the position I hold. You are attacking an interpretation of what you think I mean, not my position.

Is such a belief compatible with a search for truth about how the world works?

The problem is that you are constructing ideas that suit you for purpose destroying them later.

The model that I work with tells me that we both have limited access to what is real. We both go to the distance of what is possible to know. From that point on, you live in a world uncertainty. I live in a world of faith. That I’m deluding myself in that final mile, is inconsequential because, at the end, from your perspective, the outcome is a matter of probability, chance. So if I’ve done as much homework as you have, and at the end, kissing the dice before throwing them is, in your view, a waste of time, it can’t hurt me.

And I’m willing to argue that kissing the dice before throwing them has helped me immensely.

I know enough to know that Christianity's version is wrong.

What you believe to be Christianity’s version is wrong. Not the same.

So which parts of the Bible do you find are wrong?

None.

Eh? An interpretation? Which bits of the Bible are up for interpretation, then?

A lot of parts. Why would you suspend the common rules of literature with the Bible. Some parts of the Bible are literal, some are allegorical, some need context to be interpreted, etc, just like any text that is voluminous.

Was Jesus really crucified? Or was this just a metaphor for his tax audit? Was he really the son of god? Or was this just a metaphor for his sharp dressing?

He was crucified and He is the Son of God.

How is it a strawman?

Because I would have to defend a position you have constructed. You characterize my position as hard-core pragmatist. I don’t agree with that characterization. First show me that your characterization of me is correct, then I will defend my position.

Which bits need the "proper interpretation" to make the slightest sense.

With the proper interpretation, all of it makes sense.

Because you have already decided how certain parts of work without any reason to suspect that what you have decided is true.

This is not true. I have reason to suspect that why I have decided is true.

You have decided that humans have souls, without evidence. You have decided that the fate of these souls is determined by an invisible being.

But I do have evidence. It is not the type that can convince you, but it is sufficient for me.

You have decided that wishing ferverently (praying) to this invisible being can magically influence things in the real world.

Yes, I have.

You have decided that this being started the Universe. You have decided that life on this planet was likewise created by this magic being. All of this without the slightest evidence. How can you search for the actual truth if you have already decided what the truth is?

You speak of the truth as if it were a small object that one chases to catch. This is not the case.

Knowledge is so vast that, in your life time, you wont be able to even grasp an infinitesimal part of it. Not even an infinitesimal part, will you or I be able to grasp.

Your point is moot, from this perspective. And I suspect you don’t use any examples of the knowledge that is commonly useful to most humans because you will find that we are in equal footing.

That I believe those things to be true, does not impede from learning and acquiring knowledge. The areas of knowledge are so vast and we can’t be right about everything we think is true.

And remember, you still have to function in a world that is impatient an wont stop for you figure out through the scientific method, what choices to make.

Where did I say this? I said that such an unfounded belief would encumber the search for the truth. See above.

If I follow your line of argumentation, you are still wrong because an unfounded belief would encumber the search for a tiny miniscule infinitesimal part of knowledge, not the whole truth.

Presumably. I wonder how they reconcile their belief in a dictated truth and actually searching for the truth.

Wonder no more.

A couple of examples of what?

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

My life is better because I'm free to explore the world without some encumbering belief in how the world must be, derived from some old book.

Show me specific examples how your life is better in this exploration.

There is no reason for me to expect otherwise. How is this a straightjacket?

(in relation to no other life but this one) You have a time limit to attain all the knowledge you can. This is infinitesimal. For you, this is a fact. Isn’t searching for the truth important to you? You will only find a miniscule part of it. And part of that infinitesimal part will be wrong.

There is no reason for me to expect otherwise. How is this a straightjacket?

(in relation to being free) Because you are not free, you have very limited freedom. You have very little say on what goes on in the your world. But you hold the illusion of freedom, which according to your standards is unfounded.

No, as a matter of fact, I don't. Most people have a conscience.

(in relation to there are no consequences of negavite action that go unpunished by humans.) Why would you believe in something not physical, material. If someone kills another person and gets away with it. There are absolutely no consequences for this person for his actions. What is the physical rule that states that people will feel anything? What is a conscience? What are the related physical properties to negative actions that go undetected by humans?

Not sure what you mean. I believe most morals are genetically based.

(in relation to morality being relative to you and you alone.) I’m confused, you don’t choose your morals, they are determined by your genes?

Why?

(in relation to accepting that other societies behavior are as legitimate as yours based on this last premise.) Well, who are we (from the atheist’s perspective) to dictate moral principles to other societies. For atheists, ethnocentricity is a no no.

Obviously my view of what is right or wrong will result in me viewing some things as right and some as wrong.

Obviously. And that’s the point. You cannot impose your views of what is right or wrong to others. The Guarani, historically (not the only tribe either) have killed their children to survive. The mother performs this task. May tribes kill their children who are deformed. From the atheist’s perspective, I see no way you can judge this behavior as bad.

How is that a straightjacket in regard to searching for the truth about the workings of this Universe?

What is right or wrong? What is good? From where would you get the compass of what is right or wrong? Is monogamy right or wrong? If you speak to most women (atheist or not) they will say, that polygamy is not right for them. If you speak to most men (atheist or not, and if they are truly honest) they might have a different view.

Don’t go so far in the universe. The choices you make everyday, here on earth gives you your straightjacket.

If you believe you have no right to impose your morality on others, then you must let the Guaranis be.

The Catholic Church believed on imposing morality on others as do I. This gives a very different approach to life.

Now, before responding to my assertion (be outraged) that I believe on imposing morality on others, think about it.

From my relations to atheists, I have found that many like cursing a lot. (maybe is this false sense of freedom). Yet, morality was imposed on them right here on this website. I agree with this imposition. See, you are not free to curse in here. You have to follow others morality.

This is good.

Ruby

3rd March 2004, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Christian
Ruby,
Again, thank you for sharing part of life with me. You are talking about very personal and deep things and I appreciate that.

Your welcome. Sorry I have not been back to this thread in days.

Ruby wrote:
I'm not sure how to respond to the above paragraph. I'm unclear if you are saying that in general.....in my life, I hung out with people who were abusive etc., and was therefore led easily into a church org that abused me......or if you saying that once in church, I hung out with the abusive sort etc.

One possibility is that you focused (paid attention to) on this behavior. Can you buy this idea: you can be surrounded by negative abusive people that act generous and positive with you.

Oh yes, I can buy that idea. That describes many of the people I was around in Charismatic circles. I focused on that behavior mostly while I was a Christian. I was conditioned to think that way. However, before I was a Christian, my friends were not abusive or negative.

I have some Christian friends now who are exceptional...and far from being abusive......but they are not Charismatics.

What I have divulged above is also "anecdotal evidence". So if I said that some men were sexually abusive, you could also make a case against me.

Can you buy the idea that some women attract the gentle, chivalrous kind men in their lives?
And this says nothing pejorative or bad about women who seem to attract predators. On the contrary, as you describe it, you attracted them because of good inherent traits.

I am missing your point :confused:

Why is it so terrifying for you to consider that some denominations within Christinaity are legalistic and abusive?

I don’t think it is terrifying. This is my theory. All social groups contain legalistic and abusive people. Maybe, some have them in a greater percentage within that group. And they may be legalistic and abusive about some things in certain circumstances, but not others. Team work is extremely difficult. Get a bunch of people together for any period of time and bad things start to happen. This is going to be true with any people you get together with on a consistent basis.

When the leadership or originators of a group are not legalistic or abusive, then people coming into a group who are abusive and/or legalistic are likely to not last long in the group....or at least not make much of an impact or have much of a voice. For instance, the Unitarian Universalists are not likely to make it easy for someone who is legalistic to flourish in any of their churches. While they might not censor what that person has to say, they would surely counter their remarks..open things up for debate......and re-emphasize the UU beliefs. Why would someone legalistic want to be in a UU church anyway? It would be way too liberal for them. They'd leave in disgust after only one visit.

It is when the leaders and/or originators of a group/church/religion are legalistic or abusive that you have trouble. The UPCI originators and leaders were/are very legalistic. This makes the entire org. legalistic. Most of the nondenominational Charismatic churches are legalistic, and that is why most Charismatic churches are legalistic.

I liked the sense of belonging that going to church gave me. I had never really experienced that before. It felt great to be a part of something. To be considered part of a family. Not only that, I was part of the only church org. that had the "truth". I was taught that I was "special" as a 1st United Pentecostal. Special because I had true savation.

I want you to forgive in advance for what I am about to say. Isn’t this the same feeling you have now? Don’t you feel a sense of belonging and that you are a part of something. Didn’t you say you love everyone here and consider them your family? And don’t you consider yourself special because now you are in the path to the truth, that a veil has been lifted?

I think that having a sense of belonging in important is life, period. I am thankful I still feel that. I shared my experience because feeling that "sense of belonging" was new to me when I entered church for the first time. It was powerful....but it was sad and unforunate that I had to experience it in a legalistic abusive church. Their version of the "truth" was that all Trinitarian Christians, let alone unbelievers, were going to Hell.

Yes, I do feel that now I am truly seeing the "truth" and that I have been freed from a prison. But guess what? I came to this truth all by myself. It was not a church or church dogma that crammed this down my throat. It was my own pursuit. It was my own questioning and searching. No one preached to me. When I asked questions on here, they were answered. I was free to make up my own mind...to look into things myself.....which I did. I was not told that a whole lot of people...billions upon billions ..were going to hell...if they did not convert to Atheism or Humanism etc.

I consider myself blessed to be set free from Christian dogma. It has changed my life so much for the better. Christianity never did half of what has occured in my life since de-converting.

, living by so many church rules........no make-up, no jewelry, no pants, no shorts, no TV....and so on, I was becoming very depressed. I did not feel like a woman anymore. We were taught to wear dresses with lengths below knees....most all the woman wore dresses nearly to the floor. We were also taught to wear dresses that covered our elbows. As if our elbows could incite lust![/b]

Can you think of all the rules that you must follow now. For example, even if you think (very deep down) that a bible story can be a great lesson for children to listen to, you don’t because it is just as any other mythology. (I can’t guess about your answer, it is just an example to illustrate that humans constantly have to follow rules, we are never free from them , and the funny thing is that the more advanced the society we live in , the more regulated we are)

Yes, life....society...comes with rules. Many of those rules I am thankful for...like speed limits....no drinking and driving........rules against crime. There are also rules to protect against discrimination. These, and many others, are good rules. Many people have fought for these rules to be out into effect.

What I am talking about is a church org that has strict rules set up dictating to it's members on how they should dress or wear their hair. This church org. does not just look down on women who have short hair, but it looks down on a woman for just trimming her hair. It is considered sin to cut your hair, period. They claim that the bible teaches this.

Society has moved forward concerning women, not backward. Women were given the right to vote, and then equal rights in the work place. Women are running for more political offices than ever. I don't see things for women becoming more restrictive. But, we have the UPCI with it's strict rules for women, and Charismatic Christianty with it's teachings on women being subservient to their husbands and not allowed to be Pastors or teach to men.

I'd say sociey is way ahead of the UPCI and Charismania. I'm glad that society allows women to be free,and to be equal to men.

type of abuse and legalism I am talking about can only be learned in a church. And in my experience, it happens constantly in the UPCI and Charismatic churches.[/b]

I’m sorry but I disagree. I will give a perfect example that abuse and legalism is everywhere you have groups.

Right here in this website, the main administrator left. If you read the posts related to him prior to his departure and after, you will see abuse and legalism all over. And you know when all that started? Right after rules of conduct where enacted. Before that time, anarchy was supreme. Once posters had to follow rules, the group dynamic changed dramatically.

I'm clueless about this situation. The only abuse I had was from Dark Cobra...but he was a teen going through some rough stuff.

how, I can say for a fact that a lot of UPC doctrine is based on twisted scripture, and some is scripture taken out of context, but some is scripture that has been interpreted in a different manner due to the many contradictions that exist in the bible.[/b]

Ok, we seem to agree here on most of what you say. I still disagree that the bible is full of contradictions. I will show you what I mean using the passages you cite.

Ok, so lets look at the UPC dogma that I was taught. First of all I learned that salvation only occurred through 1. Repentance; 2. Baptism in Jesus name; 3. Receiving the Holy Spirit baptism as evidenced by speaking in tongues.

They back this is up with the following passages.

Acts 2:1-16

Now, please not that the passage you cite does not explicitly say that is the way salvation occurs. It is a POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION. How do we know if it is a the right interpretation? How do we solve that?

Whoa, wait a min. Something I have not got into yet is how I realized the UPC doctrine was wrong. There are many flaws in the UPC salvation doctrine. I am well aware that the passage does not explicitly citethat is it the way salvation occurs.

This is where they believe the bible gives the one, and only, salvation message. They believe repentance is crucial...and most of their churches stress repentance as being a major event where you better cry, wail, and beg "God" to forgive you for all your sins. (They seem to miss that repentance really means to change one's mind and/or turn away from sin.) They believe that baptizing someone in total immersion of water saying "in Jesus name", is the only valid baptism. Anyone who has been baptized with "in the name of the father, son, and Holy spirit" being said over them needs to be rebaptized in Jesus name according to them. Otherwise, that mode of baptism will send them to hell. I'll explain why in a bit. Receiving the Holy Spirit baptism is vital to be saved......and according to them , unless you speak in tongues as evidence, then you did not get it. Once again, not speaking in tongues will send you to hell too.

How is the litmus test applied? It is very easy. If the passage can stand on it’s own in terms of meaning (that it does not require interpretation) and it contradicts a particular interpretation, then the INTERPRETATION is wrong. Yes, the interpretation can contradict the literal passage. The sound conclusion is not that the passages are contradicting one another, it is that the interpretation must be wrong.

And in the case of the passage in Acts 2, the UPC have definitely interpreted it very wrong.

t literal passage contradicts on its own this particular interpretation? Here it is (and please see that the passage does not need a single interpretation or explanation of any kind. It’s stands on its own)

1 Corinthians 12 NIV

That is one of the very passages I used to use after I had left the UPC to debate Oneness Pentecostals online. It is a good counter argument against their tongues doctrine.....that is, their belief that everyone who is baptized with the Holy spirit wil speak in tongues as evidence.

I had to listen to many sermons about how if you don't give yourself fully to God (speak in tongues) then God might cause something bad to happen to someone you love to get you to do it. I am serious!![/b]

Do you see why the interpretation is fails at the most fundamental level?

Well, of course, I do. Why do you think I left the org? Why do you think I studied the bible after that for myself and saw right through their doctrine. I found out that the "Holy spirit baptism" was not ever referred to as salvation in the bible. All the bible referrs to it as being is "empowerment".

Then there was Matthew 3:16-17 "After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased."

I read that passage and realized that the UPC doctrine "Oneness"...which claims that Jesus was literally the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, could not be true due to the above passage. How could Jesus be in the water, and the holy spirit above, with a voice coming out of the heavens, with the claim that Jesus was the holy spirit and the Father. Could Jesus project his own voice to tell himself "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased". There were other passages too that led me away from the oneness doctrine, but the Matthew one was the clincher. No one taught these passages to me. I studied and found them myself.

It confounded me that I had never seen or realized them while I was UPC.

want to get into a biblical debate here. I know you don’t either but this was important for me to say about that subject.

I don't think a biblical debate is needed...since I think you misunderstood me. All the talking I did about the UPC was to share what I went through..what they believd...how legalistic it was.....how they twisted scripture....how they ignored many passages of scripture. Boy, do they ignore scripture......especially all the passages about being saved by grace.

Anyhow, Charismatics don't beleive in the same doctrine as the UPC. Stil, they have their problems too. I'll get into that sometime.

Loki

3rd March 2004, 01:45 PM

Christian,

You are implying that I'm setting up unfair rules (disadvantageous to you and favorable to me).
Not quite, although that may be the impression I created. Sorry. No, I meant to say that there's no point arguing with you (once again, I concede!) because you've set up axioms that cannot be challenged, and which lead to your conclusion.

Afterall, I need to remind myself that you are the person who claims that there are, in fact, no atheists - we're all just scared christians deep down inside, rebeling against the god that we KNOW in our hearts exists, but which we seek to deny for our own petty private reasons. I can't prove you wrong on that, and you won't allow the possibility that your wrong. Discussion is doomed. I concede. Your silly fallacy of division argument is just another manifestation of the same process.

Christian

3rd March 2004, 01:57 PM

Loki wrote:
Afterall, I need to remind myself that you are the person who claims that there are, in fact, no atheists - we're all just scared christians deep down inside, rebeling against the god that we KNOW in our hearts exists, but which we seek to deny for our own petty private reasons.

Loki, don't do this. I don't believe this. I don't claim this.

I DON'T BELIEVE THIS

I can't prove you wrong on that, and you won't allow the possibility that your wrong. Discussion is doomed. I concede. Your silly fallacy of division argument is just another manifestation of the same process.

As you say, so many way to respond, but I will say this: When you invoke the tools of the skeptic, they are rational thoughts, when I do it, they are sillyness. Oh boy.

Loki

3rd March 2004, 03:10 PM

Christian,

Loki, don't do this. I don't believe this. I don't claim this.

I DON'T BELIEVE THIS
Okay - so you've changed you opinon? Like the way you've decided that the biblical flood is not a literal story, whereas two years ago you thought it might have been true? You have certainly told me in the past that you believe that "in our heart of hearts" atheists know that truth of god's existence, but we are rebelling against this knowledge. I'll accept that you've changed your opinon on this if you say so (and you do).

Actually - I may be wrong. Your comment MIGHT have been in relation to those who have heard the gospels, and rejected them. So perhaps you are right and I have exaggerated. At the very least you have told me that I actually believe in god, but am living in denial of this core truth. So which is it :

1. All atheists know god, but deny him.
2. All those who call themselves atheists but have read the gospels know the true of god, but deny him. There are some atheists who are 'true atheists'.
3. There may be some athesits who actually believe and deny god, but there is no pattern to this.

When you invoke the tools of the skeptic, they are rational thoughts, when I do it, they are sillyness
No christian - I never said that "a secular organisation means that all it's members are secular" (which MAY be a fallaccy of division). But the discussion was in the context of "finding organisations that identify themselves as secular". When I did this, you reply "fallacy of division - that doesn't mean the members are secular!!" hHe sillyness of this comes from the context :

Of course, why were we looking for secular organisations in the first place? Because we were using the following logic :

1. Christians want to serve
2. The proof of this is organisations decicated to service, that identify themselves as 'christian'.

This is your opening "proof" of the existence of 'christian service'. Fair enough, seems a reasonable grounds to me to work from. So I reply with the same proof :

1. Atheists want to serve.
2. The proof of this is organisations dedicated to service, that identify themselves as 'secular'.

You reply "prove it - give me a list of such organisations!"

I give you a list.

You reply "Fallacy of division - I believe that most members of the listed organisations are christians!"

The 'ground rules' of this exchange are contained in your opening 'proof'. You argued that "existence of organisation identifying themselves as christian" is proof of "christian service". When I use *exactly* the same proof as a counter, you invoke a 'logical fallacy'.

I concede, Christian. You apply rules to suit, based upon your conviction that the conclusion is obvious.

evildave

3rd March 2004, 03:43 PM

If someone uses a hammer to drive nails, and another uses a hammer to drive screws, the outcome is not the same, even though one is using "the same tools".

In this case, the tools are "communication", and the nails and screws are "definitions".

The metaphor attempts to drive home the point that our underlying definitions for terms for ideas conflict.

Perhaps we need to add some notation to keep the words clear? Paint the nails and screws different colors so they're easier to tell apart?

christian.Christian: Christian's definition of 'Christian'
???

loki.Christian: Loki's definition of 'Christian'
???

evildave.Christian: EvilDave's definition of 'Christian'
"Anybody who self-identifies as a Christian." (Far be it from me to play 'judge' over who is Christian, and who is not.)

christian.Charity: Christian's definition of 'Charity'
???

loki.Charity: Loki's definition of 'Charity'
???

evildave.Charity My definition of 'Charity' is whatever the legal definition is.
http://dictionary.law.com/ - Lookup Charity
charity
n. 1) in general the sentiment of benevolence, doing good works, assisting the less fortunate, philanthropy and contributing to the general public. 2) an organization which exists to help those in need or provide educational, scientific, religious and artistic assistance to members of the public. Charities are usually corporations established under state guidelines and require IRS approval in order for contributions to them to be deductible from gross income by donors.
See also: charitable contribution

The handy thing about the legal defintiion is, you can't run far afoul of the actual law with it. While charity can be religious, it does not have to be, and you would probably run afoul of the law if you demanded charity must be religious in nature.

Especially since to define "religious" would be to establish government standards for what "religion" is, and that would suck the state directly into every 'religion' - just the opposite of what any chuch-in-state people want.

evildave.Religion: "UNDEFINED".

The minute you start placing legal definitions on what religion "IS", you have all the world of what religion "IS NOT" to contend with. Suddenly, you have the government telling people their religion isn't a "religion" because it doesn't meet state or federal standards for being one. As anybody with a working brain knows, the definition of what "religion" is will vary from person to person, religion to religion. Would you like the Mormons to define it? The Baptists? The Jehova's Witlesses? Muslims? Those religious "standards" become extremely sticky, very fast. And people historically become very agitated when the "standards" do not match their own personal religion.

Christian

3rd March 2004, 07:47 PM

Loki wrote:

Why are you doing this? Are you frustrated or something. You are resorting to false statements and misinterpretations.

Okay - so you've changed you opinon? Like the way you've decided that the biblical flood is not a literal story, whereas two years ago you thought it might have been true?

I believe the flood is a literal story. I think the translation of the word earth should be land. With only that word change, the flood literally becomes a local flood, not a global flood. The text remains in tact.

You have certainly told me in the past that you believe that "in our heart of hearts" atheists know that truth of god's existence, but we are rebelling against this knowledge. I'll accept that you've changed your opinon on this if you say so (and you do).

Actually - I may be wrong. Your comment MIGHT have been in relation to those who have heard the gospels, and rejected them. So perhaps you are right and I have exaggerated. At the very least you have told me that I actually believe in god, but am living in denial of this core truth.

You are either confusing me with someone else, or you are intentionally or unintentionally saying something which is false. I don't hold this view.

So which is it :

1. All atheists know god, but deny him.
2. All those who call themselves atheists but have read the gospels know the true of god, but deny him. There are some atheists who are 'true atheists'.
3. There may be some athesits who actually believe and deny god, but there is no pattern to this.

None of the above. Let's set the record straight. I believe an athiest does not believe in any gods. I believe there is a conviction to this.

I believe the main driver of this conviction is rebellion. This is why the common theme to atheists (including you) is freedom.

No christian - I never said that "a secular organisation means that all it's members are secular" (which MAY be a fallaccy of division). But the discussion was in the context of "finding organisations that identify themselves as secular". When I did this, you reply "fallacy of division - that doesn't mean the members are secular!!" hHe sillyness of this comes from the context :

Of course, why were we looking for secular organisations in the first place? Because we were using the following logic :

1. Christians want to serve
2. The proof of this is organisations decicated to service, that identify themselves as 'christian'.

Let's look at the logic please. Organizations that identify themselves as Christian have as a requirement that you be a Christian in order to join the organization. Does that register?

It is fair assumption that a Christian organization is composed of Christians like it is a fair asssumtion that a Jewish organization is composed of Jews.

Jewish Organizations (http://www.swcp.com/~thelink/JFGA/jfgacom.htm)

This is your opening "proof" of the existence of 'christian service'. Fair enough, seems a reasonable grounds to me to work from. So I reply with the same proof :

1. Atheists want to serve.
2. The proof of this is organisations dedicated to service, that identify themselves as 'secular'.

Exactly. Do you see how it does not follow? Come on. No one can make the fair assumption that secular organizations have atheist members on the grounds of being labelled a secular organization.

Making that assumption, is a fallacy of division.

You reply "prove it - give me a list of such organisations!"

I give you a list.

No, no, no. This is not what happened. You did not state that that would be your proof (but so what if I dis say ok, and later brought out the objection, it is still valid.) You switched from atheist to "secular". The reasons are obvious.

You reply "Fallacy of division - I believe that most members of the listed organisations are christians!"

Absolutely not, I just showed you why it was a fallacy. I could have said, most members are Muslim, or Jewish. The point is you can't assume the composition of the group based on the "secular" label. That is the point.

The 'ground rules' of this exchange are contained in your opening 'proof'.

Absolutely. And the assumptions I make are absolutely valid. If I look up on the web Salvadoran organizations, I can make the fair assumption that the members won't be Australian. I can make the fair assumption that they wont be Mexican. I can make the valid assumption the members are Salvadoran.

The organization's label you presented does not allow me to make any such assumptions, which you have attempted to make.

You argued that "existence of organisation identifying themselves as christian" is proof of "christian service". When I use *exactly* the same proof as a counter, you invoke a 'logical fallacy'.

You have conceded nothing, you are being factitious at best. And you are smart enough to know I'm right.

I concede, Christian. You apply rules to suit, based upon your conviction that the conclusion is obvious.

I really have no chance with you, do I?

Evildave wrote
If someone uses a hammer to drive nails, and another uses a hammer to drive screws, the outcome is not the same, even though one is using "the same tools".

In this case, the tools are "communication", and the nails and screws are "definitions".

It took me 3 times to read this, to get it (maybe more). Am I stupid or what? Don't answer that.

Well, finally got it.

The metaphor attempts to drive home the point that our underlying definitions for terms for ideas conflict.

Yes.

Perhaps we need to add some notation to keep the words clear? Paint the nails and screws different colors so they're easier to tell apart?

christian.Christian: Christian's definition of 'Christian'
???

Someone who believes and claims that the central tenet of life is Christ dying on the Cross for his/her sins and on the third resurrecting from the dead to give him/her the gift of salvation and eternal life.

christian.Charity: Christian's definition of 'Charity'
???

-Provision of help or relief to the poor; almsgiving.
-Something given to help the needy; alms.
-An institution, organization, or fund established to help the needy.
-Benevolence or generosity toward others or toward humanity.

While charity can be religious, it does not have to be, and you would probably run afoul of the law if you demanded charity must be religious in nature.

I agree 100%

Those religious "standards" become extremely sticky, very fast. And people historically become very agitated when the "standards" do not match their own personal religion.

I agree 100%. Imagine that Evildave. ;)

Christian

3rd March 2004, 08:27 PM

Ruby wrote:
For instance, the Unitarian Universalists are not likely to make it easy for someone who is legalistic to flourish in any of their churches. While they might not censor what that person has to say, they would surely counter their remarks..open things up for debate......and re-emphasize the UU beliefs. Why would someone legalistic want to be in a UU church anyway? It would be way too liberal for them. They'd leave in disgust after only one visit.

But, isn't this the other side of the coin? Aren't UU's being legalistic about legalistic people. And how do you define legalism? Maybe we are not talking about the same thing. Could you be saying what I understand to be dogmatic?

It is when the leaders and/or originators of a group/church/religion are legalistic or abusive that you have trouble. The UPCI originators and leaders were/are very legalistic. This makes the entire org. legalistic. Most of the nondenominational Charismatic churches are legalistic, and that is why most Charismatic churches are legalistic.

Maybe that is what you mean. Because I find Mr. Randi to be very legalistic and intolerant. I would not call him abusive though.

I think that having a sense of belonging in important is life, period. I am thankful I still feel that.

Definitely, a sense of belonging is in our hirerchy of needs, no doubt about it.

Yes, I do feel that now I am truly seeing the "truth" and that I have been freed from a prison.

This is where I object. I do have trouble with that metaphore. You were not in a prison, you were free to choose. You were there voluntarily. You chose to be there those years. You were responsible, not the church leaders or members, right?

But guess what? I came to this truth all by myself. It was not a church or church dogma that crammed this down my throat. It was my own pursuit. It was my own questioning and searching. No one preached to me. When I asked questions on here, they were answered. I was free to make up my own mind...to look into things myself.....which I did. I was not told that a whole lot of people...billions upon billions ..were going to hell...if they did not convert to Atheism or Humanism etc.

Exactly. If you are responsible for you freedom you are also responsible for your prison, not the people at the church, right?

Oh, and now you have a new idea that replaces the old. Now, all humans, from all of history, from all time. Have and will disappear, cease to exist. This is more than billions and billions. All of us are destroyed forever. No one escapes this destruction.

I consider myself blessed to be set free from Christian dogma. It has changed my life so much for the better. Christianity never did half of what has occured in my life since de-converting.

For sure, your attitude has changed. That makes a big difference. Someone can be in a real prison and feel the greatest joy and someone can have all the luxuries of the world and feel miserable.

Yes, life....society...comes with rules. Many of those rules I am thankful for...like speed limits....no drinking and driving........rules against crime. There are also rules to protect against discrimination. These, and many others, are good rules. Many people have fought for these rules to be out into effect.

What I am talking about is a church org that has strict rules set up dictating to it's members on how they should dress or wear their hair. This church org. does not just look down on women who have short hair, but it looks down on a woman for just trimming her hair. It is considered sin to cut your hair, period. They claim that the bible teaches this.

Have you ever worked in corporate America? Lot's of orgs. have strict dress code rules. And they consider a "sin" many of comporable things you speak about. Conduct rules are everywhere, that's not the problem.

Society has moved forward concerning women, not backward. Women were given the right to vote, and then equal rights in the work place. Women are running for more political offices than ever. I don't see things for women becoming more restrictive. But, we have the UPCI with it's strict rules for women, and Charismatic Christianty with it's teachings on women being subservient to their husbands and not allowed to be Pastors or teach to men.

I'd say sociey is way ahead of the UPCI and Charismania. I'm glad that society allows women to be free,and to be equal to men.

Ok.

I'm clueless about this situation. The only abuse I had was from Dark Cobra...but he was a teen going through some rough stuff.

Indeed you are. But it has been a great thing in here. And you are because you focus primarily on the good around here, on the sunshine.

Whoa, wait a min. Something I have not got into yet is how I realized the UPC doctrine was wrong. There are many flaws in the UPC salvation doctrine. I am well aware that the passage does not explicitly citethat is it the way salvation occurs.

Good.

That is one of the very passages I used to use after I had left the UPC to debate Oneness Pentecostals online. It is a good counter argument against their tongues doctrine.....that is, their belief that everyone who is baptized with the Holy spirit wil speak in tongues as evidence.

Ok.

Well, of course, I do. Why do you think I left the org? Why do you think I studied the bible after that for myself and saw right through their doctrine. I found out that the "Holy spirit baptism" was not ever referred to as salvation in the bible. All the bible referrs to it as being is "empowerment".

Then there was Matthew 3:16-17 "After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased."

I read that passage and realized that the UPC doctrine "Oneness"...which claims that Jesus was literally the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, could not be true due to the above passage. How could Jesus be in the water, and the holy spirit above, with a voice coming out of the heavens, with the claim that Jesus was the holy spirit and the Father. Could Jesus project his own voice to tell himself "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased". There were other passages too that led me away from the oneness doctrine, but the Matthew one was the clincher. No one taught these passages to me. I studied and found them myself.

It confounded me that I had never seen or realized them while I was UPC.

If you have read NT from with the eyes of a Chrisitian, I'm curious to know. Why is it that you don't find many of the NT passages excellent for life, as a philosophy of life?

Loki

3rd March 2004, 08:58 PM

Christian,

All of us are destroyed forever. No one escapes this destruction
But this a morally neutral outcome, unlike the christian outcome.

Loki

3rd March 2004, 09:03 PM

Christian,

Why are you doing this?
Because I was stunned the first time you said this to me (back in the early days) - so much so that I clarified it with you, and you repeated it. You stated clearly that you believed I (and others) truly knew you were right, but we were just rebelling against this knowledge by claiming to not believe in the existence of god.

But the threads are long gone, so if you choose to deny saying this we'll have to just chalk this up to (a) my faulty memory or (b) you changing your mind. Either way, you've made your current position clear. Consider me updated.

Are you frustrated or something.
Only by Interesting Ian.

You are resorting to false statements and misinterpretations.
No, I'm repeating my clear memory of an earlier conversation. You're denying it, and I can't prove it (the thread is gone), so from now on I'll accept that you DON'T believe this. Done.

I believe the flood is a literal story.
Yes, but two years ago you were prepared to consider that it WAS a global flood. Then you changed and decided that it's definitely a local flood.

You are either confusing me with someone else...
No, the memory is clear. I remember being stunned by your comments. The arrogance implied in the comment was amazing, even for you.

..., or you are intentionally or unintentionally saying something which is false.
Well, despite the strength of my memory, it's (always) possible I'm mistaken. Either way, you've set the record straight.

I believe the main driver of this conviction is rebellion.
Need I repeat the theme of "prejudice" that keeps running through your posts?

This is why the common theme to atheists (including you) is freedom.
The fact that you prefer bondage remains your problem.

Organizations that identify themselves as Christian have as a requirement that you be a Christian in order to join the organization.
Can you support this? This is a blanket statement - you'll need to show that it applies to the vast majority of christian organisations. Off you go.

No one can make the fair assumption that secular organizations have atheist members
So the organisations I listed probably don't have atheist/secular members? So the majority are christians? Why then do christians, given a choice between two similar organisations, choose to join and support the secular one? Having joined, and being in the majority, why doesn't the organisation start to promote and advertise it's 'christian' nature?

I can show you two examples of organisations that began life as christian ones but have changed to become secular (dropping the 'christian' from their title, removing all references to god or religion from their mission statements). Can you show a secular organisation that has become christian?

Making that assumption, is a fallacy of division.
The reason I disagree is simple. A fallacy of division is when there is no valid reason to assume that an attribute of the whole can be applied to the parts. You and I think there is a good reason to apply the 'christian' trait to the mmebers of christian organisations. You and I disagree about secular organisations - I still think it's pretty damn weak of you invoke "no, its' different" only after being shown a list - and to present no evidence of this difference except you own assumptions. It's at that point I remembered that you always win - and I've conceded, to avoid delaying the inevitable.

The organization's label you presented does not allow me to make any such assumptions, which you have attempted to make.
If by 'label' you mean the name, then you may be right. But each of the organisations I listed for you, I read their mission statement, charter, and/or statement of the board before listing them. They ALL contain no mention of religion at all. Not one. For you to then argue that we can assume nothing about the religious nature of the organisation is IMO ridiculous. For you to go further and argue that you believe that most secular organisations are staffed by a majority of christians simply tells me it's time to leave this.

You have conceded nothing, you are being factitious at best.
No, I concede. You are correct. Only christians can do charity work, and you've proven it. I intend to simply stay here on this fourm with my selfish, non-charitable atheist compatriots and watch you save the world's poor. Now get to work, there's a lot that needs doing...

And you are smart enough to know I'm right.
I'm dumb enough to get sucked into debates with you. I'm smart enough to (eventually) realise you like the sound of your own arguments too much to make for a reasonable exchange.

evildave

4th March 2004, 12:52 AM

christian.Christian: Christian's definition of 'Christian'
???

Someone who believes and claims that the central tenet of life is Christ dying on the Cross for his/her sins and on the third resurrecting from the dead to give him/her the gift of salvation and eternal life.

This is good. Communication is happening.

What of followers who revere Christian teachings, but fail on one or more of your tests? It's certain that there are 'other.Christians' who have more stringent definitions of what a 'Christian' must be, and that you might fail on one or more of their points for. There are others who have a completely different set of points for their definitions.

From my (outsider) perspective, I can't really remove one Christian from another. The conflicting definitions have only one common denominator, and that's the label. I can only judge from the most liberal of standards for what constitutes a 'Christian'.

The definitions span from fairly neutral (Unitarian Universalist) UU.Christian definitions, to the (Rapture Ready) RR.Christian definitions, to some genuinely creepy people (GC.Christian?).

A few variables for illustration...

Door-To-Door vs Public Space Lurkers vs (for lack of a better term) 'Well Behaved'
Literal vs Interpreted
Liberalism vs Fundamentalism
'Doomsday' vs 'Judgment' vs 'Return'
Works vs Saved
Fate vs Choice

Perhaps this could be charted in some way that made it clear. I'm not sure how. People won't even agree on the categories that matter.

The notation is helpful, I think. Perhaps some better form of it could be derived?

How to tell what sort of 'Christian' it is we're really talking about, trivially?

christian.Charity: Christian's definition of 'Charity'
???

-Provision of help or relief to the poor; almsgiving.
-Something given to help the needy; alms.
-An institution, organization, or fund established to help the needy.
-Benevolence or generosity toward others or toward humanity.

But what of 'charities' which have other goals? There are organisations that fight for human rights, environment, etc. Most at least indirectly help the needy, by attempting to improve things for everyone.

Then there are further 'charities' that seek to reduce cruelty to animals (I'm thinking more SPCA than 'PETA' here, just for clarification). Doesn't really help 'people', unless we want to redefine 'people'.

evildave.people: "If it wants, it's people."

wollery

4th March 2004, 06:34 AM

Exchange between Loki and Christian

Loki
1. All atheists know god, but deny him.
2. All those who call themselves atheists but have read the gospels know the true of god, but deny him. There are some atheists who are 'true atheists'.
3. There may be some athesits who actually believe and deny god, but there is no pattern to this.

Christian
None of the above. Let's set the record straight. I believe an athiest does not believe in any gods. I believe there is a conviction to this.
I believe the main driver of this conviction is rebellion. This is why the common theme to atheists (including you) is freedom.Apologies for butting in, but I have to ask - Christian, what do you think atheists are rebelling against?

DanishDynamite

4th March 2004, 09:22 AM

Christian:What is the difference?

For starters, a codefied system of principles that have lasted for 2000 years.So the unfounded belief of the existance of the Christian god is superior because it's old? The belief that the Earth is flat is much, much older.

Or is it that unfounded belief of the existance of the Christian god is superior because a bunch of principles (whatever that means) were written down, based on this belief. If so, I can quickly make a bunch of principles based on the existance of Bigfoot. Or I could refer you to the "principles" of Scientology.
Yes, please show how one unfounded belief is superior to another.

You say unfounded, I say it is not. Christianity is superior to a belief in Bigfoot in many areas.Of course it is unfounded. Please show me otherwise.
BTW, is being a Christian superior to being a Scientologist? Or a Muslim? Or a Budhist?

Now, you are comparing oranges to oranges. By your question you are talking about individuals. We would have to compare a specific Christian to a specific Muslim or Budhist. And we would have to qualify un which way they are superior. One can't be absolutely superior to the other as a person.

Now, if you change the question to: is Christianity superior to Scientology or Islam or Budhism, then that is a different answer.And what, pray tell, is the answer if the question is thus changed?
So if everything is now clear, please tell me: Is believing in something for which there is no evidence perfectly reasonable as long as said belief isn't a disadvantage to the life of the believer?

It is reasonable to believe in things for which one has evidence. That others may not accept this evidence is another matter. The advantages come from the belief working in one's life.If the evidence isn't credible, it isn't evidence.

Oh, and please show me how being a believer is not only not a disadvantage but is actually an advantage.
I.e., is making stuff up (e.g. elves in Elvis outfits live at the center of Jupiter. They are all named Zem) and then believing it OK as long as it isn't detrimental to living a happy life?

You keep constructing this strawman. The answer is obvious and it is not the position I hold. You are attacking an interpretation of what you think I mean, not my position.I am addressing the actual situation. You have decided to believe in something which there is no reason to suspect is true. Is such a belief a rational and reasonable belief as long as it isn't detrimental to your life?
Is such a belief compatible with a search for truth about how the world works?

The problem is that you are constructing ideas that suit you for purpose destroying them later.

The model that I work with tells me that we both have limited access to what is real. We both go to the distance of what is possible to know. From that point on, you live in a world uncertainty. I live in a world of faith. That I’m deluding myself in that final mile, is inconsequential because, at the end, from your perspective, the outcome is a matter of probability, chance. So if I’ve done as much homework as you have, and at the end, kissing the dice before throwing them is, in your view, a waste of time, it can’t hurt me.

And I’m willing to argue that kissing the dice before throwing them has helped me immensely.No. You live in world where not knowing something is scary and you therefore decide to make up an answer which comforts you. I live in the real world and although it irritates me that I don't know the whole truth, I'm not willing or capable of inventing an answer which seems comforting and then actually believing it.
I know enough to know that Christianity's version is wrong.

What you believe to be Christianity’s version is wrong. Not the same.So tell me, what is Christianity's version?
So which parts of the Bible do you find are wrong?

None.That's impossible. Please read Genesis again.
Eh? An interpretation? Which bits of the Bible are up for interpretation, then?

A lot of parts. Why would you suspend the common rules of literature with the Bible. Some parts of the Bible are literal, some are allegorical, some need context to be interpreted, etc, just like any text that is voluminous.You must be kidding! Are you saying that the Holy Book itself isn't written in a clear and concise manner as one would expect from an omnipotent god? Are you saying that the bits which can be shown not to conform to reality were therefore clearly meant to be taken metaphorically? Can you show where it says they were meant to be taken thus? Where is the "interpretation protocol" stated? Given the many cults of Christianity which interpret the Bible as they see fit, I somehow suspect this protocol is missing.
Was Jesus really crucified? Or was this just a metaphor for his tax audit? Was he really the son of god? Or was this just a metaphor for his sharp dressing?

He was crucified and He is the Son of God.How do you know? Why is the stated fact that your god made the world in 7 days to be interpreted metaphorically while the "son of god" status of the carpenter isn't?
How is it a strawman?

Because I would have to defend a position you have constructed. You characterize my position as hard-core pragmatist. I don’t agree with that characterization. First show me that your characterization of me is correct, then I will defend my position.You already showed it yourself:
...I don’t see how being an atheist is better than being a believer? And if it is not better, why not be a believer? I don’t see any practical advantages to not believing.QED.
Which bits need the "proper interpretation" to make the slightest sense.

With the proper interpretation, all of it makes sense.With the proper interpretation, XCJHKTYGFRDTB makes sense.

Either your holy book makes sense as written or it doesn't.

BTW, haven't the bits which require "interpretation" changed throughout the years as new knowledge made it impossible even for true believers to defend their blind belief?
Because you have already decided how certain parts of work without any reason to suspect that what you have decided is true.

This is not true. I have reason to suspect that why I have decided is true.Give me a clue.
You have decided that humans have souls, without evidence. You have decided that the fate of these souls is determined by an invisible being.

But I do have evidence. It is not the type that can convince you, but it is sufficient for me.Provide it.
You have decided that wishing ferverently (praying) to this invisible being can magically influence things in the real world.

Yes, I have.Evidence, please.
You have decided that this being started the Universe. You have decided that life on this planet was likewise created by this magic being. All of this without the slightest evidence. How can you search for the actual truth if you have already decided what the truth is?

You speak of the truth as if it were a small object that one chases to catch. This is not the case.

Knowledge is so vast that, in your life time, you wont be able to even grasp an infinitesimal part of it. Not even an infinitesimal part, will you or I be able to grasp.

Your point is moot, from this perspective. And I suspect you don’t use any examples of the knowledge that is commonly useful to most humans because you will find that we are in equal footing.

That I believe those things to be true, does not impede from learning and acquiring knowledge. The areas of knowledge are so vast and we can’t be right about everything we think is true.

And remember, you still have to function in a world that is impatient an wont stop for you figure out through the scientific method, what choices to make.Give me a break. You have decided to believe in a random truth which comforts you. You are a believer. Being a believer in a random truth is incompatible with a desire to learn the actual truth, no matter what it is. In my opinion, and don't take this personally, believers are whimps who can't stand on their own two feet and face the world as it is.
Where did I say this? I said that such an unfounded belief would encumber the search for the truth. See above.

If I follow your line of argumentation, you are still wrong because an unfounded belief would encumber the search for a tiny miniscule infinitesimal part of knowledge, not the whole truth. An unfounded belief encumbers all searches for the truth. It is the antithesis of knowledge.
Presumably. I wonder how they reconcile their belief in a dictated truth and actually searching for the truth.

Wonder no more.Why, do you have an answer?
A couple of examples of what?

Show me specific examples how your life is better in this exploration.I already gave you an example. I'm not straighjacketed into a dictated view of how the world works. I can explore the world and base my understanding on what actually takes place.

Oh, and I don't need to pray or slaughter the infidels or other such nonsense.
There is no reason for me to expect otherwise. How is this a straightjacket?

(in relation to no other life but this one) You have a time limit to attain all the knowledge you can. This is infinitesimal. For you, this is a fact. Isn’t searching for the truth important to you? You will only find a miniscule part of it. And part of that infinitesimal part will be wrong.Having only one life (how many do you expect to have?) I'm in a hurry to learn as much as I can, yes. How is this a straightjacket?
There is no reason for me to expect otherwise. How is this a straightjacket?

(in relation to being free) Because you are not free, you have very limited freedom. You have very little say on what goes on in the your world. But you hold the illusion of freedom, which according to your standards is unfounded.I can say whatever I want. In what sense am I not as free as someone who believes in an invisible magic being?
No, as a matter of fact, I don't. Most people have a conscience.

(in relation to there are no consequences of negavite action that go unpunished by humans.) Why would you believe in something not physical, material. If someone kills another person and gets away with it. There are absolutely no consequences for this person for his actions. What is the physical rule that states that people will feel anything? What is a conscience? What are the related physical properties to negative actions that go undetected by humans?A conscience is the part of your brain setup which makes you feel bad if you have done something which you know is wrong. It is entirely physical.
Not sure what you mean. I believe most morals are genetically based.

(in relation to morality being relative to you and you alone.) I’m confused, you don’t choose your morals, they are determined by your genes?Most of them are, yes.
Why?

(in relation to accepting that other societies behavior are as legitimate as yours based on this last premise.) Well, who are we (from the atheist’s perspective) to dictate moral principles to other societies. For atheists, ethnocentricity is a no no.I don't need to dictate my morals onto those who have different ones. That is the job description of a missionary.
Obviously my view of what is right or wrong will result in me viewing some things as right and some as wrong.

Obviously. And that’s the point. You cannot impose your views of what is right or wrong to others. The Guarani, historically (not the only tribe either) have killed their children to survive. The mother performs this task. May tribes kill their children who are deformed. From the atheist’s perspective, I see no way you can judge this behavior as bad.I can judge it as bad if it doesn't conform with my morals, just as a believer can. In the case you describe (killing deformed offspring) it doesn't, though.
How is that a straightjacket in regard to searching for the truth about the workings of this Universe?

What is right or wrong? What is good? From where would you get the compass of what is right or wrong? Is monogamy right or wrong? If you speak to most women (atheist or not) they will say, that polygamy is not right for them. If you speak to most men (atheist or not, and if they are truly honest) they might have a different view.

Don’t go so far in the universe. The choices you make everyday, here on earth gives you your straightjacket.

If you believe you have no right to impose your morality on others, then you must let the Guaranis be.

The Catholic Church believed on imposing morality on others as do I. This gives a very different approach to life.

Now, before responding to my assertion (be outraged) that I believe on imposing morality on others, think about it.

From my relations to atheists, I have found that many like cursing a lot. (maybe is this false sense of freedom). Yet, morality was imposed on them right here on this website. I agree with this imposition. See, you are not free to curse in here. You have to follow others morality.

This is good. Once again, how is my view of what is morally right or wrong a straightjacket in the search for the truth?

The only way I can imagine is if we discuss experiments on living things. Well, forgive me for having empathy. And how is this a limit which believers don't have?

evildave

4th March 2004, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by wollery
Apologies for butting in, but I have to ask - Christian, what do you think atheists are rebelling against?

"What do you got?"
(Gratuitous movie quote of the day.)
.

Christian

4th March 2004, 08:16 PM

Evildave wrote:
What of followers who revere Christian teachings, but fail on one or more of your tests? It's certain that there are 'other.Christians' who have more stringent definitions of what a 'Christian' must be, and that you might fail on one or more of their points for. There are others who have a completely different set of points for their definitions.

From my (outsider) perspective, I can't really remove one Christian from another. The conflicting definitions have only one common denominator, and that's the label. I can only judge from the most liberal of standards for what constitutes a 'Christian'.

The definitions span from fairly neutral (Unitarian Universalist) UU.Christian definitions, to the (Rapture Ready) RR.Christian definitions, to some genuinely creepy people (GC.Christian?).

A few variables for illustration...

Door-To-Door vs Public Space Lurkers vs (for lack of a better term) 'Well Behaved'
Literal vs Interpreted
Liberalism vs Fundamentalism
'Doomsday' vs 'Judgment' vs 'Return'
Works vs Saved
Fate vs Choice

Perhaps this could be charted in some way that made it clear. I'm not sure how. People won't even agree on the categories that matter.

The notation is helpful, I think. Perhaps some better form of it could be derived?

How to tell what sort of 'Christian' it is we're really talking about, trivially?

I have presented what the Bible says is the minimum requirement to be a Christian. I think most Christians would agree with that.

But what of 'charities' which have other goals? There are organisations that fight for human rights, environment, etc. Most at least indirectly help the needy, by attempting to improve things for everyone.

Then there are further 'charities' that seek to reduce cruelty to animals (I'm thinking more SPCA than 'PETA' here, just for clarification). Doesn't really help 'people', unless we want to redefine 'people'.

No definition can be perfect, but the general idea is helping others directly or indirectly. I do make a distinction on animals though.

wollery wrote:
Apologies for butting in, but I have to ask - Christian, what do you think atheists are rebelling against?

Mainly authority.

DanishDynamite wrote:
So the unfounded belief of the existance of the Christian god is superior because it's old? The belief that the Earth is flat is much, much older.

Because it remains relevant after all that time. The belief the earth is flat did not survive did it. Christianity is bigger than ever and more relevant than ever.

Or is it that unfounded belief of the existance of the Christian god is superior because a bunch of principles (whatever that means) were written down, based on this belief. If so, I can quickly make a bunch of principles based on the existance of Bigfoot. Or I could refer you to the "principles" of Scientology.

You would be so lucky as your writings pass the test of time. Consider only one such relevant issue as Israel.

Go ahead, choose a country, anyone you wish. Put it in your writings and say it will remain relevant to prove the writing correct. Then, wait 2000 years to see if the country (people) you chose are still around to make your writing relevant.

Of course it is unfounded. Please show me otherwise.

I see the force of Christian movement, its relevance as proof of its superiority. How many people can invent systems of belief but most don’t hold up to time or relevance.

The Bible, today, is the most printed and translated book of all times. Christianity is the most powerful force in human history, still today.

And what, pray tell, is the answer if the question is thus changed?

Well, if you speak about any statistics, Christianity is superior.

If the evidence isn't credible, it isn't evidence.

Credibility is a subjective matter. And many things that can’t be proven scientifically still are true.

Oh, and please show me how being a believer is not only not a disadvantage but is actually an advantage.

I’m not going to argue this position. The only position I’m going to argue is that we are at least in equal footing.

I am addressing the actual situation. You have decided to believe in something which there is no reason to suspect is true. Is such a belief a rational and reasonable belief as long as it isn't detrimental to your life?

You keep saying there is no reason to suspect is true. That is what’s not true.

No. You live in world where not knowing something is scary and you therefore decide to make up an answer which comforts you. I live in the real world and although it irritates me that I don't know the whole truth, I'm not willing or capable of inventing an answer which seems comforting and then actually believing it.

This is empty statement. It doesn’t mean anything. Where do I live, I an imaginary world? I live in the same real world you do. I don’t see how your life is any better than mine.

So tell me, what is Christianity's version?

There is a Creator, a first mover. That’s Christianity’s version.

That's impossible. Please read Genesis again.

Why impossible?

You must be kidding! Are you saying that the Holy Book itself isn't written in a clear and concise manner as one would expect from an omnipotent god? Are you saying that the bits which can be shown not to conform to reality were therefore clearly meant to be taken metaphorically? Can you show where it says they were meant to be taken thus? Where is the "interpretation protocol" stated? Given the many cults of Christianity which interpret the Bible as they see fit, I somehow suspect this protocol is missing.

Listen, if you can’t get the idea that the Bible contains tons of different styles of writing, I’m not going to spend time in showing you.

How do you know? Why is the stated fact that your god made the world in 7 days to be interpreted metaphorically while the "son of god" status of the carpenter isn't?

I didn’t say the creation story is metaphorical. It is very incomplete if you had wanted a science account, it is good enough for the purpose it served.

With the proper interpretation, XCJHKTYGFRDTB makes sense.

Either your holy book makes sense as written or it doesn't.

There isn’t a single voluminous complex book of any kind where all makes sense as written. Have you ever heard of context, reference, literally figures of speech. Read Proverbs, Psalms, Ecclesiastics.

You have decided that wishing ferverently (praying) to this invisible being can magically influence things in the real world.

Yes, I have.
Evidence, please.

I see my prayers being answered. I am witness to this.

Give me a break. You have decided to believe in a random truth which comforts you. You are a believer. Being a believer in a random truth is incompatible with a desire to learn the actual truth, no matter what it is. In my opinion, and don't take this personally, believers are whimps who can't stand on their own two feet and face the world as it is.

You know what, I do take it personally. You words are like balloons full of hot air. “Learn the actual truth” means nothing. It is just an empty expression. I face the world at least as good as you do, that at the very least.

An unfounded belief encumbers all searches for the truth. It is the antithesis of knowledge.

Now you give me a break. This is nonsense. Again, the truth to you is like a prize you are chasing. You speak like you can have even a glimpse of reality. If you have as much as that, you can consider yourself lucky.

I already gave you an example. I'm not straighjacketed into a dictated view of how the world works. I can explore the world and base my understanding on what actually takes place.
That means nothing. You can explore the world and base your understanding on what actually takes place. What does that mean? You actually go out and do some exploration, like Columbus or Marco Polo?

Having only one life (how many do you expect to have?) I'm in a hurry to learn as much as I can, yes. How is this a straightjacket?

The straightjacket is the notion that you believe that being in a hurry can make any difference.

I can say whatever I want. In what sense am I not as free as someone who believes in an invisible magic being?
No you are not free to say whatever you want. And you are not free to do many things you would want.
I didn’t say a believer is more free than you are.

A conscience is the part of your brain setup which makes you feel bad if you have done something which you know is wrong. It is entirely physical.

Keep wishing. If this were true, we wouldn’t need a punitive system. Jurisprudence shows time and again that most people who commit wrongdoings are only remorseful after they have been caught. Contrary to popular beliefs, most crimes go unpunished by the human legal system. I rather trust the system for my protection than anyone’s conscience.

Most of them are, yes.
Dream on, atheist morality is as diverse as individual atheists.

Once again, how is my view of what is morally right or wrong a straightjacket in the search for the truth?

If you believe something is morally wrong and a fellow atheist believes it is morally right. You have no way of assuring yourself any kind of protection from his/her actions. Because you don’t believe in imposing your morality on others, you are in constant danger. Or you are the constant danger.

wollery

5th March 2004, 10:12 AM

wollery wrote:
Apologies for butting in, but I have to ask - Christian, what do you think atheists are rebelling against?

Christian answered:
Mainly authority.

Whos authority? (or what authority?)

Christian

5th March 2004, 10:38 AM

wollery wrote:
Whos authority? (or what authority?)

That depends on each atheist, I guess. We have to know the personal story to answer that question.

The common theme is that now they are free, they have been liberated, etc.

They seem to speak about a journey from slavery to freedom.

wollery

5th March 2004, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by Christian
wollery wrote:
Whos authority? (or what authority?)

That depends on each atheist, I guess. We have to know the personal story to answer that question.

The common theme is that now they are free, they have been liberated, etc.

They seem to speak about a journey from slavery to freedom. I didn't ever believe in any form of God, so I haven't been on any journey. I'm not rebelling against anything. I've never been in a prison, mental, physical or otherwise. So how do I fit into your little world view?

Furthermore, what's wrong with rebellion? What if the Founding Fathers hadn't decided to escape the religious oppression of England? What if the colonists hadn't decide to throw crates of tea into Boston harbour? What if King John hadn't been forced to sign the Magna Carta? What if the Paris mob hadn't stormed the Bastille? What if Martin Luther King had thought, "You know what, we haven't really got it too bad."? What if Nelson Mandela had just decided it wasn't worth the effort?

Okay, so the analogies aren't too good, but I hope that you get my point. Sometimes people rebel for very good reasons.

Christian

5th March 2004, 11:38 AM

wollery wrote:
I didn't ever believe in any form of God, so I haven't been on any journey. I'm not rebelling against anything. I've never been in a prison, mental, physical or otherwise. So how do I fit into your little world view?

This isn't a physics axiom. Sure, there are always exceptions to the general rule. Ok, you are an exception, fine.

Furthermore, what's wrong with rebellion? What if the Founding Fathers hadn't decided to escape the religious oppression of England? What if the colonists hadn't decide to throw crates of tea into Boston harbour? What if King John hadn't been forced to sign the Magna Carta? What if the Paris mob hadn't stormed the Bastille? What if Martin Luther King had thought, "You know what, we haven't really got it too bad."? What if Nelson Mandela had just decided it wasn't worth the effort?

Okay, so the analogies aren't too good, but I hope that you get my point. Sometimes people rebel for very good reasons.

I never characterized it as good or bad. I agree, rebellion can be good.

My point was that this sentiment is a common characteristic I have seen among atheists.

Ruby

5th March 2004, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by Christian
Ruby wrote:
[b]For instance, the Unitarian Universalists are not likely to make it easy for someone who is legalistic to flourish in any of their churches. While they might not censor what that person has to say, they would surely counter their remarks..open things up for debate......and re-emphasize the UU beliefs. Why would someone legalistic want to be in a UU church anyway? It would be way too liberal for them. They'd leave in disgust after only one visit.

But, isn't this the other side of the coin? Aren't UU's being legalistic about legalistic people. And how do you define legalism? Maybe we are not talking about the same thing. Could you be saying what I understand to be dogmatic?

It does seem I am talking about a different "legalism" from you. I have always heard legalism being used in terms of a church that sets up strict rules for it's members. I had also seen it described in the dictionary a similar way.

The UU org. does not have strict rules. If it did, it would not allow legalistic Christians in it's churches. You can be of any belief and attend a UU church. When I say they would re-emphasize their beliefs if someone legalitic came in and spoke up during a service, I mean that they would say how as UU's they don't hold to any creeds or religions, and yet embrace all, and how they believe in the dignity and worth and every human being, and that how they believe that religious authority is not found in a book, or a person, or an institution, but in ourselves. They would not want a newcomer thinking we agree with the legalistic ideas of the Christian. The legalistic Christian would not be banned or made to conform to the UU's belief sytem, but I don't see that they'd want to stay. Legalistic Christians want legalistic churches.

It is when the leaders and/or originators of a group/church/religion are legalistic or abusive that you have trouble. The UPCI originators and leaders were/are very legalistic. This makes the entire org. legalistic. Most of the nondenominational Charismatic churches are legalistic, and that is why most Charismatic churches are legalistic.

Maybe that is what you mean. Because I find Mr. Randi to be very legalistic and intolerant....

Wow, do you really?

Yes, I do feel that now I am truly seeing the "truth" and that I have been freed from a prison.

This is where I object. I do have trouble with that metaphore. You were not in a prison, you were free to choose. You were there voluntarily. You chose to be there those years. You were responsible, not the church leaders or members, right?

Well, naturally, I did not expect you to agree with me. For a long time, I was sort of brainwashed, too controlled to ever feel like I could choose. When you have the threat of hell hanging over your head if you do one little thing wrong, you dare not make any choices for yourself. You seek the leaders because they hear from God much better than you do. That is one thing I was taught as a Charismatic Christian. I could not even get engaged to be married without the permission of the leaders of the singles ministry. I did not think I had a choice. I was taught it was God's way. I was afraid not to do it any other way.

When I heard of others who had rejected the advice/ruling of a leader, and had left the church to do their own thing, even if they went to another church, I looked upon them as being "rebellious" and "rejecting" "authority" because that is what I had drummed into me to believe. They rejected so easily because most of them had not been in the Charismatic org. very long. I did not even realize this until later on.

You don't seem know a thing about cults or how they trap people, but forgive me if I am wrong. It just seems you would blame the people in them for being there. They are innocent pawns. I was an innocent pawn when I was sucked into the UPC. Some call it a cult, some don't. I don't think it's a cult in the exact definition of one. But it is definitely very legalisitc and abusive.

My husband and his entire family were innocent pawns of a real cult that snatched them up when my husband was just five years old. What a mess it made of his life and one of his brothers.....and his mother too. All cults come off as being something new, exciting, and more biblically accurate with a charismatic leader who exudes warmth and power and appeal.

My husband's parents were highly intelligent bible school graduates who longed for the mission field....felt a "calling" to go. They came across a Christian community that trained people to go into the mission field. They were very impressed with it. There was nothng suspicious about it. They started going to the training. They did make the choice to go there, but it was based on what seemed like a true Christian community. They were drawn into this community. There were a lot of incredible things about it. It had it's own farm and slaugther house and it's own schools. It made and sold all sorts of products that went by the name of Jollyfarmer. You can still find these products today in Canada. That is where the cult moved.

Anyhow, my husband's parents stayed at Highview (the cult) and were totally taken in by it all. My husband was raised there along with his five younger brothers. They grew up apart from each other......separated into different rooms. They weren't even allowed to stay with their parents, let alone play with each other.

I won't go into everything about it. I'd be here all day. The thing is, you can make a choice, but not be in your right mind when you make it, or be in your right mind, but get sucked into something evil.....slowly being brainwashed over time without ven realizing it, you can be under heavy influence or pressure, and I don't think that makes a person culpable for that choice.

But guess what? I came to this truth all by myself. It was not a church or church dogma that crammed this down my throat. It was my own pursuit. It was my own questioning and searching. No one preached to me. When I asked questions on here, they were answered. I was free to make up my own mind...to look into things myself.....which I did. I was not told that a whole lot of people...billions upon billions ..were going to hell...if they did not convert to Atheism or Humanism etc.

Exactly. If you are responsible for you freedom you are also responsible for your prison, not the people at the church, right?

No, very wrong. The prison was what I lived in because of years of conditioning of the mind by church dogma and church leaders. I was held there for fear if I stopped believing, I would go to hell. I didn't sit back and say, oh this sounds good, I think I'll choose to beleive it. No, it was forced upon me, because I became a Christian out of desperation, as I did not think there was any other way to escape the torment I was going through at the time. I had not been looking for a church or anything. It was sheer terror that caused me to call the UPC. I did not know they were steeped in legalism. I was too desperate to care for awhile.

It was a long process to get away from the hold of legalism. Did the church leaders support me in my quest to get away from legalism? No, they did not. Not one Christian helped me. I was preached at through the years....... and last year especially, even recently by an old friend, but the hold of that mindset had left me. Being on JREF, getting some questions answered......finally seeing the light away from the influence and preaching of Christians, I found freedom. I had help, but I made it happen. I was finally able to stand on my own feet with my own thoughts and feelings, and not worry that hell was waiting for me or billions of others, or worry that God was not pleased if I did not do things just so....as the church preached.

Oh, and now you have a new idea that replaces the old. Now, all humans, from all of history, from all time. Have and will disappear, cease to exist. This is more than billions and billions. All of us are destroyed forever. No one escapes this destruction.

Ceasing to exist and burning in a pit of fire for eternity are two different things. One is merciful and painless. One is cruel and painful. I don't know if I believe we cease exist after death anyway. How can one know unless you have died and come back to tell..........and that has never happened.

I consider myself blessed to be set free from Christian dogma. It has changed my life so much for the better. Christianity never did half of what has occured in my life since de-converting.

For sure, your attitude has changed. That makes a big difference. Someone can be in a real prison and feel the greatest joy and someone can have all the luxuries of the world and feel miserable.

Yes, I have seen both these type of cases many times. When I talk about change, I am talking about how as a Christian, I was bound in so much fear that I could not drive a lot of places. I could not go a lot of places by myself. My husband had to take me to every Doctor visit, and go with me...in the examing room that is. I could not answer the phone or make phone calls. I would not fly on airplanes. Now, I can drive all over the place. I drive and go in to all my Doc appt's by myself. I can answer the phone and make phone calls. I have even been able to fly!! To me, that is miracle!! I had not flown in years, and had sworn I would never fly again, but I flew this past November and December on a trip to New England.

Yes, life....society...comes with rules. Many of those rules I am thankful for...like speed limits....no drinking and driving........rules against crime. There are also rules to protect against discrimination. These, and many others, are good rules. Many people have fought for these rules to be out into effect.

What I am talking about is a church org that has strict rules set up dictating to it's members on how they should dress or wear their hair. This church org. does not just look down on women who have short hair, but it looks down on a woman for just trimming her hair. It is considered sin to cut your hair, period. They claim that the bible teaches this.

Have you ever worked in corporate America? Lot's of orgs. have strict dress code rules. And they consider a "sin" many of comporable things you speak about. Conduct rules are everywhere, that's not the problem.

I've never heard of any company that says women can't wear make-up, cut their hair, or wear wedding bands. I can understand some companies having a dress code such as suits and dresses only. As a manager of an Engineering department, my husband rarely needs to wear a suit, but he certainly can't go into work dressed slouchy or in jeans. I don't know anything about corporate america....but I can imagine it's suits and ties and dresses. I don't have a problem with that at all. It's a job, not a religion. It's not condemning you to hell for how you dress. You might get fired, but you won't get condemned to hell and counted lost. Besides, most people would dress like a monkey if the pay is good!!

Well, of course, I do. Why do you think I left the org? Why do you think I studied the bible after that for myself and saw right through their doctrine. I found out that the "Holy spirit baptism" was not ever referred to as salvation in the bible. All the bible referrs to it as being is "empowerment".

Then there was Matthew 3:16-17 "After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased."

I read that passage and realized that the UPC doctrine "Oneness"...which claims that Jesus was literally the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, could not be true due to the above passage. How could Jesus be in the water, and the holy spirit above, with a voice coming out of the heavens, with the claim that Jesus was the holy spirit and the Father. Could Jesus project his own voice to tell himself "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased". There were other passages too that led me away from the oneness doctrine, but the Matthew one was the clincher. No one taught these passages to me. I studied and found them myself.

It confounded me that I had never seen or realized them while I was UPC.

If you have read NT from with the eyes of a Chrisitian, I'm curious to know. Why is it that you don't find many of the NT passages excellent for life, as a philosophy of life?

Perhaps some of them are.......some UU's use the bible in this manner. My husband sees some bible passages holding good moral messages. However, I have only been beaten with the bible. Not willing, might not ever be willing, to use it for a guide. But I don't mind debating from it, or using it as a source for something in a discussion. The only book in the bible I give some merit to is the Song of solomon. Perhaps that is due to the UPC being so upset about it being included in the bible. My Pastor said he never understood why it had been included. For many years, I never dared read it. I think it's quite lovely!:D

Ruby

5th March 2004, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Christian
From my relations to atheists, I have found that many like cursing a lot. (maybe is this false sense of freedom). Yet, morality was imposed on them right here on this website. I agree with this imposition. See, you are not free to curse in here. You have to follow others morality.

Forgive me, I have to comment. Although the UPC taught very much against using curse words, and so no one I ever met in the UPC used it, my close friends did incessantly call black people the "N" word, which to me, was a curse word. This upset me so much, but I was too afraid to say anything. :(

I did meet many Charismatics, and regular fundamentalist Christians who cursed......some pretty bad. It shocked me. They showed me the curse words in the old king James bible, and said it was not bad language, just a figure of speech. However, I did not entirely buy this. Although, I did think that some "curse" words were not as bad as others. I did not curse as a Christian, but yes, when I pulled away, I did curse, a sudden rush of emotion and feeling, and years of legalism, and in anger the words would come.

Yes, I've said a few "colorful metaphors" on here. But mostly, I have censored myself when it came to any really big time curse words. I have worked real hard not to come out with anything off color these days, but not because I thought a censor was in place........I have missed some goings on around here.......and I am now working in my own life to say an alternative word than a curse word when I get angry. This is easy really, I did it for a long time, so it's easy to fall back on.

I am doing this because I have a four year old and one year old and I don't want them copying me. Plus, I don't feel right cursing anyway. It's just my own inner conviction.

I also agree with the rule on here of no cursing. It would be awful and tacky if we were all cursing all over the place. It would bring the respectful level of this board down to a murky place.

I know some Athiests and agnostics in real life, and they have never cursed..............at least, not yet!

Ruby

5th March 2004, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by Christian

I see my prayers being answered. I am witness to this.

Ah, anecdotal evidence! Sorry, I could not resist!! :)

I am curious. When you say "Prayers answered" do you mean getting a "yes' "no" or "wait" answer? Or do you mean an actual positive event happening?

What percentage of your prayers are answered with a positive event happening, ones that you have not initiated yourself, or had a hand in?

When I was a Christian, I had about 10% of my prayers answers with an event to prove it...............and something that I did not have a hand in at all. 20% of my answered prayers were questionable due to having a hand in it. 70% of my prayers were never answered.

Now, as a non-believer, I have done a lot of "wishful thinking" or "wishful hoping".....just the sort of thing a lot of us do like "Gee, I wish I had that" or "I sure wish (fill in the blank) would happen".

About 40% of this wishing and hoping has come to pass....to actually happen, already, in the past seven months since I de-converted. 40% has come to pass by me doing something to iniate. 20% has not happened.

Things might slow down...even out, but so far, I'm getting better results than I did as a Christian. Even in the early days and weeks of being a Christian, I did not have these type of results.

Anyhow, these good results are not why I de-converted. I had no idea this would happen. It's a nice little bonus.

I had many Christian friends who wrestled over unanswered prayer. One friend I had was very dedicated to the church. She was very moral and upright. She served like crazy. She gave above the tithe. She did so much. Still, her prayers were never answered. She suffered in her life in many ways. I prayed and prayed for her...longing and hoping to see God bless her. She worked a very very hard job. She was single raising two teenage daughters. She had other troubles too. If anyone deserved help and relief, she did. I could only do so much to help.

After all these years, my friend still suffers, but she is sort of coping with it. She buries a lot of it inside. She pretends it's ok. She pretends that God has blessed her. I recently told her how my husband got a big promotion at work a couple of months ago. I know this upset her. I should be more careful what I say.

Anyhow, I know that many of my friends felt convinced that God had answered prayers, and were very comforted and excited about it. Sometimes, it is the comfort side of prayer that makes me think that it's ok. But the promise of God answering is not good, in my opinion. I have seen too many hurt, confused and beaten up people because of unanswered prayer.

It always seemed that if one prayer suddenly got answered, no matter how small, it made all the other unanswered prayers go dim for awhile. God was suddenly exclaimed to be a "prayer answering God".

I watched Christians get sick and die.....while prayer went on and on for them. I saw Christians remain in Chronic illnesses despite praying for healing over and over. I saw new strip joints being opened and heard of heavy prostition in town, as well as drug problems, despite all the heavy praying done for this city.

The biggest and most prevalent testimonies of supposed answers to prayer that I heard was when people got up in church and said that because they paid tithes faithfully, God had blessed them back, and they had been given a bonus or raise at work.

I had a problem with those testimonies, even as a Charismatic Christian. For one thing, my friend, who I mentioned above, worked very hard, paid above the tithe, and never got a bonus or benefits or insurance or anything. Her job paid well, but it was grueling work. She would be crushed when she heard these testimones. For another, I felt that those who got bonuses had to have done something good on the job to get them. I am assuming that a boss just does not hand out a bonus without a reason. A bonus or a raise is a reward for hard work.

I can't imagine how many people felt God did not love them or felt that maybe they were doing something wrong since they were not getting a bonus or raise, even though they tithed faithfully too.

Anyhow, I have rambled a bit too much. I need to go. I was really wanting to know how many of your prayers are being answered and in what way.

Christian

7th March 2004, 12:15 PM

Ruby wrote:
It does seem I am talking about a different "legalism" from you. I have always heard legalism being used in terms of a church that sets up strict rules for it's members. I had also seen it described in the dictionary a similar way.

It is my understanding that legalism has nothing to how strict the rules are. There are many strict rules in different organizations and that does not make them legalist.

Legalism is the term used (and particularly in jurisprudence) in the strict INTEPRETATION of the text. It is synonymous with literalist. So someone might be called a legalist if he/she invokes the rule in it’s strictest definition. A legalist could say, that “thou shall not kill” means one can’t kill anything, including a cockroach.

from dictionary.com

strict conformity to the letter of the law rather than its spirit

The UU org. does not have strict rules.

I’m sure they do have strict rules. If they don’t, they wouldn’t function as an organization very well.

If it did, it would not allow legalistic Christians in it's churches.

Maybe, that’s not one of the rules.

You can be of any belief and attend a UU church. When I say they would re-emphasize their beliefs if someone legalitic came in and spoke up during a service, I mean that they would say how as UU's they don't hold to any creeds or religions, and yet embrace all, and how they believe in the dignity and worth and every human being, and that how they believe that religious authority is not found in a book, or a person, or an institution, but in ourselves.

Do you see how strict that sounds?

They would not want a newcomer thinking we agree with the legalistic ideas of the Christian. The legalistic Christian would not be banned or made to conform to the UU's belief sytem, but I don't see that they'd want to stay. Legalistic Christians want legalistic churches.

Your use of the word throws me off.

Maybe that is what you mean. Because I find Mr. Randi to be very legalistic and intolerant....

Wow, do you really?

Oh, yes, I had several exchanges with him. He is very much intolerant of Christians. And have you read the protocols to his million dollar challenge, they have to conform to the strictest of literary interpretation. In no way am I implying that they are not fair.

Well, naturally, I did not expect you to agree with me. For a long time, I was sort of brainwashed, too controlled to ever feel like I could choose. When you have the threat of hell hanging over your head if you do one little thing wrong, you dare not make any choices for yourself. You seek the leaders because they hear from God much better than you do. That is one thing I was taught as a Charismatic Christian. I could not even get engaged to be married without the permission of the leaders of the singles ministry. I did not think I had a choice. I was taught it was God's way. I was afraid not to do it any other way.

When I heard of others who had rejected the advice/ruling of a leader, and had left the church to do their own thing, even if they went to another church, I looked upon them as being "rebellious" and "rejecting" "authority" because that is what I had drummed into me to believe. They rejected so easily because most of them had not been in the Charismatic org. very long. I did not even realize this until later on.

You don't seem know a thing about cults or how they trap people, but forgive me if I am wrong. It just seems you would blame the people in them for being there. They are innocent pawns. I was an innocent pawn when I was sucked into the UPC. Some call it a cult, some don't. I don't think it's a cult in the exact definition of one. But it is definitely very legalisitc and abusive.

My husband and his entire family were innocent pawns of a real cult that snatched them up when my husband was just five years old. What a mess it made of his life and one of his brothers.....and his mother too. All cults come off as being something new, exciting, and more biblically accurate with a charismatic leader who exudes warmth and power and appeal.

My husband's parents were highly intelligent bible school graduates who longed for the mission field....felt a "calling" to go. They came across a Christian community that trained people to go into the mission field. They were very impressed with it. There was nothng suspicious about it. They started going to the training. They did make the choice to go there, but it was based on what seemed like a true Christian community. They were drawn into this community. There were a lot of incredible things about it. It had it's own farm and slaugther house and it's own schools. It made and sold all sorts of products that went by the name of Jollyfarmer. You can still find these products today in Canada. That is where the cult moved.

Anyhow, my husband's parents stayed at Highview (the cult) and were totally taken in by it all. My husband was raised there along with his five younger brothers. They grew up apart from each other......separated into different rooms. They weren't even allowed to stay with their parents, let alone play with each other.

I won't go into everything about it. I'd be here all day. The thing is, you can make a choice, but not be in your right mind when you make it, or be in your right mind, but get sucked into something evil.....slowly being brainwashed over time without ven realizing it, you can be under heavy influence or pressure, and I don't think that makes a person culpable for that choice.

Ok, we don’t agree. But let’s introduce some outside reference to our views. I say you are 100%, responsible, you say not.

Suppose they had asked you to commit a crime. Since you are not responsible for your actions, I would have to assume, that you would commit crimes, right?

Two possible ways you can go with that.

1. You say you would never commit crimes by the inducement of others.

If you go this way, you are accepting that you are responsible, you can make distinctions of what you will do and what you wont. The matter is settled.

2. You say you would commit crimes by the inducement of others.

If you go this route, most of the modern legal systems (if not all ) would not accept this. They would say, No, no, you are responsible for your crimes, you must pay. (remember the Charles Manson accomplices)

So, either way you go. You are responsible for your actions. This is a very important distinction to make. As a matter of fact, in the country you live in, personal responsibility is one of most important principles that guide your society. All of the rules set up in your country regarding rights and obligations have this principle as a given.

No, very wrong. The prison was what I lived in because of years of conditioning of the mind by church dogma and church leaders. I was held there for fear if I stopped believing, I would go to hell. I didn't sit back and say, oh this sounds good, I think I'll choose to beleive it. No, it was forced upon me, because I became a Christian out of desperation, as I did not think there was any other way to escape the torment I was going through at the time. I had not been looking for a church or anything. It was sheer terror that caused me to call the UPC. I did not know they were steeped in legalism. I was too desperate to care for awhile.

This argument seldom flies. (even the battered woman syndrome defense is very hard to prove, that being one of the few exceptions where personal responsibility is lifted. Another is insanity.)

It was a long process to get away from the hold of legalism. Did the church leaders support me in my quest to get away from legalism? No, they did not. Not one Christian helped me. I was preached at through the years....... and last year especially, even recently by an old friend, but the hold of that mindset had left me. Being on JREF, getting some questions answered......finally seeing the light away from the influence and preaching of Christians, I found freedom. I had help, but I made it happen. I was finally able to stand on my own feet with my own thoughts and feelings, and not worry that hell was waiting for me or billions of others, or worry that God was not pleased if I did not do things just so....as the church preached.

You admit that FINALLY your were able (by your own effort) to find freedom. (in my opinion, the freedom you always had.). You had the choice all the time, right?

Ceasing to exist and burning in a pit of fire for eternity are two different things. One is merciful and painless. One is cruel and painful. I don't know if I believe we cease exist after death anyway. How can one know unless you have died and come back to tell..........and that has never happened.

Atheists contend that after death, there is nothing. I’ve heard many people here say that if this God exists and if this is the punishment, then they wont worship such a God and prefer Hell. If this God is real and this is the punishment, you are entitled to have whatever opinion of Him you want. He gives you this right.

My opinion is that He is a loving, merciful God.

Yes, I have seen both these type of cases many times. When I talk about change, I am talking about how as a Christian, I was bound in so much fear that I could not drive a lot of places. I could not go a lot of places by myself. My husband had to take me to every Doctor visit, and go with me...in the examing room that is. I could not answer the phone or make phone calls. I would not fly on airplanes. Now, I can drive all over the place. I drive and go in to all my Doc appt's by myself. I can answer the phone and make phone calls. I have even been able to fly!! To me, that is miracle!! I had not flown in years, and had sworn I would never fly again, but I flew this past November and December on a trip to New England.

I’m confused. I don’t see a connection between the fears you describe and being a Christian. Why did Christianity cause you to fear flying of answer the phone?

I've never heard of any company that says women can't wear make-up, cut their hair, or wear wedding bands. I can understand some companies having a dress code such as suits and dresses only. As a manager of an Engineering department, my husband rarely needs to wear a suit, but he certainly can't go into work dressed slouchy or in jeans. I don't know anything about corporate america....but I can imagine it's suits and ties and dresses. I don't have a problem with that at all. It's a job, not a religion. It's not condemning you to hell for how you dress. You might get fired, but you won't get condemned to hell and counted lost. Besides, most people would dress like a monkey if the pay is good!!

My point is that every organization has rules, and many have very strict rules. The rules is not the problem.

Forgive me, I have to comment. Although the UPC taught very much against using curse words, and so no one I ever met in the UPC used it, my close friends did incessantly call black people the "N" word, which to me, was a curse word. This upset me so much, but I was too afraid to say anything.

The following of rules must come from a place of conviction, not legalism right? Not cursing but calling black people the N word, is hypocrisy. I know you agree with me on this.

I did meet many Charismatics, and regular fundamentalist Christians who cursed......some pretty bad. It shocked me. They showed me the curse words in the old king James bible, and said it was not bad language, just a figure of speech. However, I did not entirely buy this. Although, I did think that some "curse" words were not as bad as others. I did not curse as a Christian, but yes, when I pulled away, I did curse, a sudden rush of emotion and feeling, and years of legalism, and in anger the words would come.

What is right is right. Cursing is wrong, Christian or not. Why would you want to change something that is right?

Yes, I've said a few "colorful metaphors" on here. But mostly, I have censored myself when it came to any really big time curse words. I have worked real hard not to come out with anything off color these days, but not because I thought a censor was in place........I have missed some goings on around here.......and I am now working in my own life to say an alternative word than a curse word when I get angry. This is easy really, I did it for a long time, so it's easy to fall back on.

In here, you don’t have a choice, but it is good that you are censoring yourself. It amazes me that many people don’t understand why cursing is wrong.

I am doing this because I have a four year old and one year old and I don't want them copying me. Plus, I don't feel right cursing anyway. It's just my own inner conviction.

Good.

Ah, anecdotal evidence! Sorry, I could not resist!!

Ah, you are paying attention. LOL

Seriously, there are some things that happen for which there is no other kind of evidence. Testimonial evidence is suspect at best, but it is the only one I have to give in this area. And I would not ask anyone to accept it as evidence for them. I can only say it is evidence for me and for me, in this area, is sufficient.

I am curious. When you say "Prayers answered" do you mean getting a "yes' "no" or "wait" answer? Or do you mean an actual positive event happening?

I mean a positive event.

What percentage of your prayers are answered with a positive event happening, ones that you have not initiated yourself, or had a hand in?

When I was a Christian, I had about 10% of my prayers answers with an event to prove it...............and something that I did not have a hand in at all. 20% of my answered prayers were questionable due to having a hand in it. 70% of my prayers were never answered.

I see where you are coming from. The paradigm you are working with is very common. I’m surprised that you even 10% of your prayers answered.

I could think of a scenario where I would get 0% of my prayers answered. If I prayed for things that were clearly not God’s will, I would get nothing. I could ask that I return to the age of 15. I could ask for levitation powers or seeing through walls. I have none of these ability, and the world God has set up for me, clearly shows He did not intend for me to have this wishes granted.

There must be congruence between what I pray for and what God wants. Don’t judge my answer just yet. Hold on for the rest of the explanation.

Now, as a non-believer, I have done a lot of "wishful thinking" or "wishful hoping".....just the sort of thing a lot of us do like "Gee, I wish I had that" or "I sure wish (fill in the blank) would happen".

About 40% of this wishing and hoping has come to pass....to actually happen, already, in the past seven months since I de-converted. 40% has come to pass by me doing something to iniate. 20% has not happened.

This sound logical. The things you used to pray for was stuff you wanted in your life to happen, right? Now that you are doing something about the things that you want (which you should have been doing all along), you are getting results.

We don’t need to pray to God for things we can get on our own, and we can’t expect God to bend the rules He has placed on us to get those things we can get on our own.

Things might slow down...even out, but so far, I'm getting better results than I did as a Christian. Even in the early days and weeks of being a Christian, I did not have these type of results.

Anyhow, these good results are not why I de-converted. I had no idea this would happen. It's a nice little bonus.

If you are taking responsibility for your results this is a good thing.

I had many Christian friends who wrestled over unanswered prayer. One friend I had was very dedicated to the church. She was very moral and upright. She served like crazy. She gave above the tithe. She did so much. Still, her prayers were never answered. She suffered in her life in many ways. I prayed and prayed for her...longing and hoping to see God bless her. She worked a very very hard job. She was single raising two teenage daughters. She had other troubles too. If anyone deserved help and relief, she did. I could only do so much to help.

After all these years, my friend still suffers, but she is sort of coping with it. She buries a lot of it inside. She pretends it's ok. She pretends that God has blessed her. I recently told her how my husband got a big promotion at work a couple of months ago. I know this upset her. I should be more careful what I say.

This paradigm is very different from what I have learned as a Christian. Praying for material things or for a better life has absolutely no effect to an individual.

Your friend does need to pray to get a better life. She can do that on her own. If she struggling financially, that can easily be fixed in time. God has set up specific rules for the accumulation of wealth. She just need to learn and apply these rules.

Anyhow, I know that many of my friends felt convinced that God had answered prayers, and were very comforted and excited about it. Sometimes, it is the comfort side of prayer that makes me think that it's ok. But the promise of God answering is not good, in my opinion. I have seen too many hurt, confused and beaten up people because of unanswered prayer.

They should be confused and hurt. That is the consequence of ineffective prayer.

It always seemed that if one prayer suddenly got answered, no matter how small, it made all the other unanswered prayers go dim for awhile. God was suddenly exclaimed to be a "prayer answering God".

Picking and choosing the hits only proves that the laws of probability are in place.

I watched Christians get sick and die.....while prayer went on and on for them. I saw Christians remain in Chronic illnesses despite praying for healing over and over. I saw new strip joints being opened and heard of heavy prostition in town, as well as drug problems, despite all the heavy praying done for this city.

God’s will and final decisions can’t be overturned.

The biggest and most prevalent testimonies of supposed answers to prayer that I heard was when people got up in church and said that because they paid tithes faithfully, God had blessed them back, and they had been given a bonus or raise at work.

This is as swallow as can be. The problem is that there isn’t an understanding of how God has set up the system. They don’t understand how the system works. And you are a testament that the way they do it does not work.

I had a problem with those testimonies, even as a Charismatic Christian. For one thing, my friend, who I mentioned above, worked very hard, paid above the tithe, and never got a bonus or benefits or insurance or anything.

Of course, because working hard has nothing to do with the accumulation of wealth. If they were interested in making money, they didn’t need to pray, they needed to study the principles of wealth building.

Her job paid well, but it was grueling work. She would be crushed when she heard these testimones. For another, I felt that those who got bonuses had to have done something good on the job to get them. I am assuming that a boss just does not hand out a bonus without a reason. A bonus or a raise is a reward for hard work.

The type of bonus a person gets for “hard work” are miniscule. If this is her preoccupation, she could work less hard and make much more money.

I can't imagine how many people felt God did not love them or felt that maybe they were doing something wrong since they were not getting a bonus or raise, even though they tithed faithfully too.

Anyhow, I have rambled a bit too much. I need to go. I was really wanting to know how many of your prayers are being answered and in what way.

Ok. I have to first show where I’m coming from.

(you probably know all this but I will explain it anyway)

The Bible teaches that God showed his love for us in that we did not choose Him but he chose us.

Now, this choosing business means something. What did he chooses for? And this were the whole Christian life makes sense. As I said before, the central part of Christian life is service, so God has chosen us for service.

So, I believe we were put here on earth for a purpose, a mission. Each one of us has a mission. Of course, this mission will have many visions, many specifics goals and projects to accomplish, and maybe the mission will change according to time and place.

God gave us specific talents and skills. These give as evidence of our mission.

Ok. So God shows us our purpose in life, we then pursue goals or vision God puts before us. The prayers that God answers are in relation to these goals. The miracles and extraordinary feats we see come from watching how His will comes to pass. (none of the I want I corvette kind of prayers)

Let me show you where I see God. I heard and saw one of Mel Gibson’s interview. He claimed he was compelled by God to make the movie.

Everyone around told him not to do the movie. No studio would carry (distribute) his film. No one would give him financing. He has to put all the money himself.

I’m sure now that the movie is grossing more the $200 million in weeks, most everyone finds it logical that it would.

I don’t. I see the hand of God in it. I see Gibson’s prayers answered.

In my life, I see this all the time. Ministry after ministry defy the odds and spectacular things occur. People go into projects the calling of God and see the power of God in such projects.

If you were every with Christians that had visions (I don’t mean mirages or apparitions) of God for work in service, you could see prayers answered.

I’m sad that the church and congregation you speak of, you mention nothing of this. You mention a lot of behavioral codes and proselytizing, but you don’t mention service work. And I don’t mean church activities like the choir or ministries of social building amongst church members. I mean groups of people organizing projects of service.

Ruby

10th March 2004, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by Christian

Sorry to keep you waiting for a reply. I am SO busy right now...sometimes, being a homemaker can get like that. Anyhow, I am working on a response in my spare moments and hope to post it soon.

Thanks!!

Ruby:)

Skytalker

11th March 2004, 12:20 AM

Hello Christian. I am a good friend of Ruby and so have been kept abreast of this discussion since its beginning. Ruby has finally prevailed upon me to post to you myself.

In the combined interests of clarity and brevity, I will try to quote only enough of your post to identify the particular section(s) to which I respond and spare you the need to wade through that post all over again. I hope this will work acceptably.

Christian
Legalism is the term used (and particularly in jurisprudence) in the strict INTEPRETATION of the text. It is synonymous with literalist. So someone might be called a legalist if he/she invokes the rule in it’s strictest definition. A legalist could say, that “thou shall not kill” means one can’t kill anything, including a cockroach.

Then you provided the dictionary.com definition of legalism, viz., "strict conformity to the letter of the law rather than its spirit".

You, of course, have precisely made Ruby's point for her. Many churches set up rules to which they strictly adhere, many times even in contradiction of clear scriptural content to the contrary. Though it has become almost cliche in my experience, I cite as an example the strict official stance against the drinking of alcohol of any kind or quantity by many church denominations, local assemblies, and affiliated educational institutions. This position is held in spite of 1) Psalm 104 which attributes to the Christian God the provision of "wine which makes man's heart glad." (v 15); or 2) Jesus's making wine from water at the wedding in Cana (John 2); or 3) the apostle Paul exhorting Timothy (a pastor) to use a little wine for his health (advice remarkably consistent with today's medical research). Sure the Bible warns against the dangers of too much wine, and the NT flatly prohibits drunkeness, but to turn the prohibition against drunkeness into a prohibition against drinking at all is legalism exactly as defined by dictionary.com. And so on it goes to varying degrees with all sorts of issues.

Christian
quoting Ruby: The UU org. does not have strict rules.

I’m sure they do have strict rules. If they don’t, they wouldn’t function as an organization very well.

How can you say that? How do you know? Are you a Unitarian Universalist? Have you studied that organization or participated in their activities? You flatly contradict, without substantiation, a statement Ruby has made by first hand knowledge. Shame on you. How can you possibly expect to win her or anyone else to your side of the argument when all you say is "you're wrong"? You haven't proven a thing!

Christian
quoting Ruby: You can be of any belief and attend a UU church. ...[T]hey believe that religious authority is not found in a book, or a person, or an institution, but in ourselves.

Do you see how strict that sounds?

No, I don't. But you are clearly twisting the clear meaning and intent of Ruby's statements so as to effectively redefine legalism with connotations it simply does not have in this context. That is dishonest debate. And that in spite of her further clarification, which you kindly included in your reply. Read on.

Christian
quoting Ruby: They would not want a newcomer thinking we agree with the legalistic ideas of the Christian. The legalistic Christian would not be banned or made to conform to the UU's belief sytem, but I don't see that they'd want to stay. Legalistic Christians want legalistic churches.

Your use of the word throws me off.

Come on, Christian! You are smarter than that! Are you trying merely to silence Ruby, or do you wish to really convince her of the righteousness of your view and the error of hers? (In the evangelical spirit of NT Christianity, I assume you would believe God would have none perish in error, but all come to eternal life through knowledge of the true truth. Perhaps my assumption is wrong.) Playing the dumb/confused card is one of your frequently used tactics, evidently intended to confuse your opponent in the debate.

Christian
Oh, yes, I had several exchanges with him [James Randi]. He is very much intolerant of Christians.

I would not be surprised if this claim were true as you interpret intolerance of Christians. In my experience there are few Christians who know how, and perhaps fewer who are willing, to honestly, rigorously, and thoughtfully present an argument for anything. James Randi has spent years exposing weak, sloppy thinking, religious charletans, frauds, and other such ilk. He can hardly be expected to look favorably on the feeble, emotional, and frequently fear-mongering presentations of so-called Christians.

Christian
Suppose they had asked you to commit a crime. Since you are not responsible for your actions, I would have to assume, that you would commit crimes, right?

Two possible ways you can go with that.

This examply is a case of the common either-or fallicy, and makes no allowance for the shades in between. Besides, the example of crime is far from the only example one could use. Among the many other possibilities are the choices of where to work, where to live, where to send one's children to school, or where to go on vacation. There are few, if any, laws against the greater part of the spectrum of options these choices present. Yet many of these very decisions slowly, by degrees, come under first the influence and then the control of both unscrupulous and well-meaning leaders. True enough, at first at least, control is ceded and authority given and/or accepted by exercise of personal responsibility. But in the end, the person becomes controlled and truly loses the ability to make their own choices. I know this; I've lived it. I am glad to be able to say I was taken out of that environment.

Christian
[You admit that FINALLY your were able (by your own effort) to find freedom. (in my opinion, the freedom you always had.). You had the choice all the time, right?

Technically, yes, you might say that. But I ask you, what good or use is having a choice if you a) don't know you have it, or b) don't have any idea how to exercise that choice? Between these two conditions and really not having a choice there is no functional difference, unless (and this is key) some outside agent acts to reveal that a choice does exist and further, how to exercise that choice.

So the mindset fostered and promoted, explicitly or implicitly, by the Christian church in Ruby's experience nurtured the "no choice" option for all practical purposes. It may have been a misrepresentation based on misunderstanding of Christian truth, but it a) required leaving the church in order to perceive the deception or misunderstanding, and b) leaves another vacancy of understanding as to how to reintegrate the newly found (if long existing) freedom(s) with a "correct" view of Christianity.

It was Christianity which seemed heretofore to have been responsible for denying or preventing the discovering of that freedom. My opinion is that if this clarity of reintegration does exist, you have yet to effectively demonstrate that it does. If you believe that it does, I challenge you to get on and show it.

Christian
My opinion is that He is a loving, merciful God.

So now we know your opinion. So what?! What evidence, what proof, what reason can you proffer to convince Ruby, or anyone else, that your opinion is better or more valid that anyone else's?

Christian
I’m confused. I don’t see a connection between the fears you describe and being a Christian. Why did Christianity cause you to fear flying of answer the phone?

Of course Christianity didn't cause the fears, but it didn't resolve them either. Neither its proclaimed means of dealing with them (prayer and confession, to name two) nor its proscriptions against the fear ("...but the fearful and unbelieving...shall have their part in the lake of fire..." Rev 21:8) did anything to ameliorate the fear. However, by getting away from all the "shoulds", it became possible to face the fears head on and begin to overcome them.

It's useless to argue that this is a case where God's answer was that the suffering was for some higher purpose or other nonsense like that. Every time that someone came to Jesus for healing during his human incarnation, He healed that person. And the Bible is simply bursting with references to God being our healer for physical as well as spiritual ills. And since the medical knowledge now exists to effectively deal with many if not all of my wife's afflictions, how could it possibly make sense for God to prevent us from exposure to that knowledge. That's not Jehovah's Witnesses denying blood transfusions to save a life (which human courts have condemned), that's Jehovah Himself preventing healing.

Christian
My point is that every organization has rules, and many have very strict rules. The rules is (sic) not the problem.

No, the rules are not the problem. The problem is the inaneness of the rules, the pettiness, the commitment to rules themselves without consideration for context or motivation. Ruby effectively made this point in the portion of her post for which the above quote from you is your reply. As smart as you seem to be, you must realize that, yet you seem unwilling to admit it.

Christian
The following of rules must come from a place of conviction, not legalism right? Not cursing but calling black people the N word, is hypocrisy. I know you agree with me on this.

Christian!! Don't do this! Now you want to adopt precisely the use of legalism that Ruby has been employing all along and which you have previously tried to deny her. Now that it is convenient for your purposes, you adopt a different shade of meaning. This is intellectual dishonesty.

Christian
What is right is right. Cursing is wrong, Christian or not. Why would you want to change something that is right?

Who says cursing is wrong? Why is it wrong? Assume for the sake of argument that I don't know. I bet you can't convincingly defend why it's wrong to curse. God, and many of His key people in the Bible, cursed things and people. Anyway, very often what Christian culture has identified as cursing is in reality merely vulgarity. And there is a real difference.

Christian
Let me show you where I see God. I heard and saw one of Mel Gibson’s interview. He claimed he was compelled by God to make the movie.

Everyone around told him not to do the movie. No studio would carry (distribute) his film. No one would give him financing. He has to put all the money himself.

I’m sure now that the movie is grossing more the $200 million in weeks, most everyone finds it logical that it would.

I don’t. I see the hand of God in it. I see Gibson’s prayers answered.

So what. The same kind of compelling results can be seen in almost every case where diligent, usually passionate, people dare to risk greatly. This way of action is the stuff from which legends grow. And it is found in people all over the world regardless of religion or creed. Examples are available from business, education, military endeavors, and even the relative anonymity of thousands of individual lives. The principles work. They are universally admired, at least in the long run, with or without specific reference to the Christian God. I did not watch any interview with Gibson, but I'm certain that he would not have experienced God compelling him to make the movie if he wasn't already convinced it was a good script. Perhaps that claim was just the cover he needed to handle what he knew would be the media storm once his project became public knowledge. That's fine with me; it's just not proof that prayer is effective.

Well, that's it for now. It's 2:20 am, and I have to be at work at 7:30 am. Good night.

Christian

11th March 2004, 08:56 AM

Skytalker,

You have written a lot. I'm not going to address any of it here (one exception). If you care to join me in a moderated thread then we can have a conversation. Your ad homs make it impossible for me to engage you.

Exception: When your Spanish is better than my English I'll be impressed at your correction of grammar.

wollery

11th March 2004, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by Christian
Skytalker,

You have written a lot. I'm not going to address any of it here Why not? Everything he wrote is perfectly relevant to this thread.

If you care to join me in a moderated thread then we can have a conversation. Your ad homs make it impossible for me to engage you.What ad homs? And why a moderated thread?

Christian

11th March 2004, 09:37 AM

wollery wrote:
Why not? Everything he wrote is perfectly relevant to this thread.

I agree. There is a new kind of threads being started here. And I'm completely enamorated by it. I get real protection from a moderator. I would have never been able to start the gay marriage thread without moderation. It is perfect. I don't know if I will go back to posting to unmoderated threads in any hard debate.

What ad homs? And why a moderated thread?

The ones he posted. I have usually put up with all the ones that come up from posters, but now that I don't have to, why should I?

A moderated thread has a third party calling the shots, there is a third person who is an impartial judge.

Skytalker really thinks he has scored big point and believes he coming in like the heavy weight. He is coming to supposely protect the weak from the bully.

Well, a judge can determine that I'm not the bully and will keep check on the noise, on what is just noise.

Skytalker

11th March 2004, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by Christian
Skytalker,

You have written a lot. I'm not going to address any of it here (one exception). If you care to join me in a moderated thread then we can have a conversation. Your ad homs make it impossible for me to engage you.

from www.m-w.com (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

2 entries found for ad hominem.

Main Entry: 1ad ho·mi·nem
Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

Main Entry: 2ad hominem
Function: adverb
: in an ad hominem manner (was arguing ad hominem)

Christian,

Since you charge me with arguing ad hominem, please enlighten me with any two (2) examples from my post. My contention is that you will not find any real examples.

I accused you of dishonest debate. That is a statement about your debating, not an attack on you personally.

Your response is insubstantial and cowardly, in my opinion. Did I really so utterly destroy your arguments that the only way you will contenance making a meaningful reply is to retreat behind a moderator? I stayed on topic, I have not defamed your character, I have not called you names or any such thing. I don't think so much of my own skill in reasoning and debate as to assume you could be silenced by one post.

Come on, give me a real response.

Respectfully,
Skytalker

Christian

11th March 2004, 11:27 AM

Come on, give me a real response.

Oh, I see. So, if I show you the ad homs, I suppose you are going to say: Oh, yes I see. I understand now.

Or are we going to argue wherther you did or you did not? I say you did, you say I didn't so, are we really going to get anywhere?

Why would you not accept a moderator anyway. If you are right and I'm wrong, that would be more power to you, right?

Is that are real response?

Oh look out, another ad hom coming.

Your response is insubstantial and cowardly, in my opinion.

Ruby

11th March 2004, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by Christian
Skytalker,
You have written a lot. I'm not going to address any of it here (one exception). If you care to join me in a moderated thread then we can have a conversation. Your ad homs make it impossible for me to engage you.
Exception: When your Spanish is better than my English I'll be impressed at your correction of grammar.

wollery wrote:
Why not? Everything he wrote is perfectly relevant to this thread.

I agree. There is a new kind of threads being started here. And I'm completely enamorated by it. I get real protection from a moderator. I would have never been able to start the gay marriage thread without moderation. It is perfect. I don't know if I will go back to posting to unmoderated threads in any hard debate.

What ad homs? And why a moderated thread?

The ones he posted. I have usually put up with all the ones that come up from posters, but now that I don't have to, why should I?
A moderated thread has a third party calling the shots, there is a third person who is an impartial judge.
Skytalker really thinks he has scored big point and believes he coming in like the heavy weight. He is coming to supposely protect the weak from the bully.
Well, a judge can determine that I'm not the bully and will keep check on the noise, on what is just noise.

Christian,

I don't think you are a bully....and I have not portrayed you to Skytalker as a bully. I say this despite past history where you criticized my posts as not having hardly any intellectual reasoning in them, and saying one of my responses to a post in particular was very basic and straight forward. Plus, you refused to believe that I left Christianity for intellectual reasons even though I stated otherwise....which is just as good as calling me a liar. You have accused me of intellectual laziness and using cop-out answers.............even when I cited Fibromyalgia as effecting me sometimes in a cognitive manner.

Anyhow, yes, I was upset about those things, and had a problem with them. I felt like they were ad hom attacks. It took awhile for me to understand your reasoning on some of those statements and how they were not attacking me personally. I finally did see what you were saying. That's one reason I found it easier to debate in this thread with you after it had already started. This is not to say I accepted all your statements as not being ad hom............but I've let the others go. It's not like me to hold a grudge.

I bring it up now in light of Skytalker's post and your accusation to him of using ad hom's. Just like you were not using Ad hom's with me, he is not using them with you.

Why are you afraid all of a sudden?

I don't want this thread moderated or a new topic started and moderated. The subject that started this thread has changed, but it changed before Skytalker came on. You and I sort of went with the flow of where it was taking us. I don't mind that it has happened like that.

This is not a "Hard debate".

I have a reply to your last post almost finished. I hope you will respond to Skytalker's post. He was a Christian all his life......grew up in a religious cult, but got out when he was about fifteen. He did not "choose" to go into that cult, he was only around five when his parents joined the cult not seeing it for waht it was. He also did not "choose" to leave when he was fifteen. He was kicked out for liking a girl in the cult.

He spent a lot of his adult life in regular fundamental churches, and then went into charismatic churches. Now like me, he has de-converted. He has been interested in this forum for a long time. Your posts have really interested him. That's one reason he jumped in here. He knows me better than anyone else does.

He is my husband!

:)

Ruby

11th March 2004, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by Christian
[b]Come on, give me a real response.

Oh, I see. So, if I show you the ad homs, I suppose you are going to say: Oh, yes I see. I understand now.

Or are we going to argue wherther you did or you did not? I say you did, you say I didn't so, are we really going to get anywhere?

Well, you and I went though this same thing over the things you said to me that upset me, but we still ended up in a nice debate!

Oh look out, another ad hom coming.

"Your response is insubstantial and cowardly, in my opinion."

He did not say "YOU" were insubstantial and cowardly. He said "your RESPONSE" was!

Why was is ok for you to critisize my posts with their "lack of intellectual reasoning" and saying that my response to a post was "very basic and straightforward". Plus accusing me of "intellectual laziness" and "using cop-out answers"....but not ok for anyone else to make any similar comments back? Heck, he hasn't even called you intellectually lazy or such as that.

I'm sorry this sounds cruel, I don't mean it be, but wanting to suddenly hide behind a moderator when someone new comes on this thread who has it more together intellectually than I do, does seem like a cowardly response. I am sure you are not a coward.

My husband, Skytalker, just wants you to reply to his post. Forget the alleged ad hom's....please?

Christian

11th March 2004, 12:08 PM

Ruby wrote:
He is my husband!

Listen, both.

This has gotten way out of hand.

I can see how this has affected you.

This situation seems completely unreal to me. Going at it with husband and wife in a public forum about the wife is something I would not want to get involved with.

I think it is nice that your husband cares enough to join you here about this.

My personal opinion on your situation does not allow me to continue.

I had a private conversation with Loki (expressing my opinion which I thought would be kept private). He admitted he PMed you about me. I'm not sure what he told you, but I suspect it was more than what he told me he told you.

I hope you are not dissapointed by my response.

To me, coming here, is mostly for entertainment value. I don't invest much emotionally. (I forget this is not the case for others)

I don't think it is fair that I'm making you invest more than I in this situation.

If I offended you, I'm sorry. Please accept my apologies, it will never happen again.

Loki

11th March 2004, 12:54 PM

Christian,

I had a private conversation with Loki (expressing my opinion which I thought would be kept private).
Which it has been.

He admitted he PMed you about me.
As a matter of courtesy, so you wouldn't feel you were being discussed "behind your back".

I'm not sure what he told you, but I suspect it was more than what he told me he told you.
You suspect incorrectly ... but that doesn't surprise me. The whole evil world's out to get the poor righteous christians, isn't it? Of course you suspect I'd lie to you, and conspire with Ruby via PM's. Oh well, think what you will....

Ruby

11th March 2004, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Christian
Ruby wrote:
He is my husband!

Listen, both.

This has gotten way out of hand.

I can see how this has affected you.

This situation seems completely unreal to me. Going at it with husband and wife in a public forum about the wife is something I would not want to get involved with.

I think it is nice that your husband cares enough to join you here about this.

My personal opinion on your situation does not allow me to continue.

I had a private conversation with Loki (expressing my opinion which I thought would be kept private). He admitted he PMed you about me. I'm not sure what he told you, but I suspect it was more than what he told me he told you.

I hope you are not dissapointed by my response.

To me, coming here, is mostly for entertainment value. I don't invest much emotionally. (I forget this is not the case for others)

I don't think it is fair that I'm making you invest more than I in this situation.

If I offended you, I'm sorry. Please accept my apologies, it will never happen again.

Huh? I am totally lost here! What happened?

Loki did send me a PM, but I don't recall him ever saying anything bad or secretive about you. He certainly NEVER shared any opinion that you had about me or anyone else. I kept his PM to myself...told no one....not even Skytalker...never would have ever said a word about it to anyone. I still won't. It was private.

I am bewildered that you would ditch this debate just because my husband joined in. We used to debate together in the past and never had anyone complain........but perhaps people on JREF will react differently to that. I shall have to find that out. I can't exactly go around pretending he's not my husband. He should be free to debate in the same thread that I do if he wants. I'm sorry this bothers you.

Christian

11th March 2004, 01:18 PM

Loki wrote:
Which it has been.

If you say it has, then I accept this as true.

As a matter of courtesy, so you wouldn't feel you were being discussed "behind your back".

I was being discussed behind my back. That you told me I was, does not change that.

If you had posted about me on the open forum, then it wouldn't have been behind my back.

And I suppose there was a reason why you didn't post about me in the open forum.

You suspect incorrectly ... but that doesn't surprise me. The whole evil world's out to get the poor righteous christians, isn't it? Of course you suspect I'd lie to you, and conspire with Ruby via PM's. Oh well, think what you will....

Again those prejudices. If my suspicions are wrong, then it is just me being wrong, that all.

And, who said anything about conspiring?

Christian

11th March 2004, 01:32 PM

Huh? I am totally lost here! What happened?

I wasn't expecting this response.

Loki did send me a PM, but I don't recall him ever saying anything bad or secretive about you.

He told me differently.

I am bewildered that you would ditch this debate just because my husband joined in.

Really?

We used to debate together in the past and never had anyone complain........but perhaps people on JREF will react differently to that.

You used to debate about your life with other posters (he defending you)? This didn't happen here on JFEF, right?

I can't exactly go around pretending he's not my husband.

Well, your husband did.

He should be free to debate in the same thread that I do if he wants.

This is a given.

I'm sorry this bothers you.

It is more than weird to me. I think it is inappropriate. I don't want to debate your husband over you.

And believe me when I say, man I feel tempted to just go at it, but no, sorry.

Loki

11th March 2004, 02:03 PM

Christian,

I was being discussed behind my back. That you told me I was, does not change that.
True enough. I guess what I mean to say is that any such conversation was not intended to ambush you in anyway. I'll try to remember not to have any personal conversations about you in any way with any one ever from now on.

And I suppose there was a reason why you didn't post about me in the open forum.
Yep - I didn't want to get into an argument with you about certain subjects that I wanted to discuss with Ruby. Subjects that I knew you would wish to argue about if I posted them publicly.

(Ruby wrote) : Loki did send me a PM, but I don't recall him ever saying anything bad or secretive about you.

(Christian wrote) : He told me differently.

I told you differently? I told you that I'd sent 'bad' or 'secretive' informatoin to Ruby? Well, since it's my PM, I'm not breaking any confidentially if I reprint the relevant portion of my PM to you am I?

Here's what I said regarding my PM to Ruby :
By the way, in the interests of full disclosure - I don't want you thinking I'm working behind your back - I also PM'd Ruby yesterday. The main point of my PM to her? Basically, since she was getting into a discussion with you, I wanted to let her know that (a) you're not just an educated christian, but an educated fundamentalist christian (no surprises there); (b) you're relentless in your debating style, so she needs to be prepared for a long haul; and (c) you do care about her, even if she doesn't share you point of view.
Now, which of those three points do you consider to be "secretive" or "bad"? I guess that (a) might be considered 'bad' if you think that 'fundamentalist' is a perjorative. I guess that (c) might be 'secretive' in that I'm offering an opinion on how you might feel.

Now, could I ahve said those above 3 points publicly? Yes, I guess so, but they were made in the context of a longer PM that didn't JUST revolve around you, Christian, and the longer PM certainly contained elements I would not want to discuss publicly.

Anyway, feel free to continue your suspicions...

Christian

11th March 2004, 02:32 PM

Loki wrote:
True enough. I guess what I mean to say is that any such conversation was not intended to ambush you in anyway. I'll try to remember not to have any personal conversations about you in any way with any one ever from now on.

Oh boy!

Yep - I didn't want to get into an argument with you about certain subjects that I wanted to discuss with Ruby. Subjects that I knew you would wish to argue about if I posted them publicly.

I see.

told you differently? I told you that I'd sent 'bad' or 'secretive' informatoin to Ruby? Well, since it's my PM, I'm not breaking any confidentially if I reprint the relevant portion of my PM to you am I?

Here's what I said regarding my PM to Ruby :

You sent bad information to Ruby about me and it was sent in a secret fashion. I didn't protest because you constantly are characterizing me in a bad light and most times I don't care you do.

Now, which of those three points do you consider to be "secretive" or "bad"?

Why do you have to warn a poster via a private message? Isn't that secretive in nature?

And what is this business of educated Christian? Why the label? Why the fundamentalist label? Have I ever said I'm a fundamentalist? Have I ever agreed with you labeling me?

You know it is a pejorative term in this forum. People constantly make fun of those they label as fundamentalist.

And what is this business that she is going to be in it for the long haul? Is this a neutral comment? Don't I know exactly what you say about me regarding that?

Oh, are you know going to post another "I'm stupid enough to argue with you" followed by the "I'm smart enough"?

Now, could I ahve said those above 3 points publicly? Yes, I guess so, but they were made in the context of a longer PM that didn't JUST revolve around you, Christian, and the longer PM certainly contained elements I would not want to discuss publicly.

Fine.

Anyway, feel free to continue your suspicions...

No, not necessary. Send any PM's lately?

Skytalker

11th March 2004, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Christian
Come on, give me a real response.

Oh, I see. So, if I show you the ad homs, I suppose you are going to say: Oh, yes I see. I understand now.

Or are we going to argue wherther you did or you did not? I say you did, you say I didn't so, are we really going to get anywhere?

Why would you not accept a moderator anyway. If you are right and I'm wrong, that would be more power to you, right?

Is that are real response?

Oh look out, another ad hom coming.

If I am wrong, I can accept correction. What I do not accept is that I am wrong simply because you say I am. You, or anyone else in a similar place, myself included if the roles are reversed, must explain/show why the other person is wrong, not just merely make the claim.

Now it appears that your real reason for not answering me is a perceived loss of power. You don't mind a public debate as long as you perceive the balance of power to be in your favor?

I believe I presented you with fair, informative objections. It seems your response is to take cover behind a moderator. I have no fear of a moderated debate. However, I have no interest in playing games with you. You are very good at incrementally reframing arguments to keep your opponent off balance and feeling out of control. But it appears that the minute you feel out of control you are unwilling to debate any further.

Christian, I was a christian for 35 years. I know the Bible. Hey, I used the Bible to answer you. I walked in your home court. I don't see too many other people doing that with you. If you really have truth that I'm now missing, I'd like to know it. That's partly why I posted to you. So don't run away now. Here's your evangelical opportunity, in the JREF lions' den.

Loki

11th March 2004, 03:00 PM

Christian,

I can see from you last reply that you would like to me to limit my JREF conversations (to anyone on the planet) to the following rules :

1. If public, then say anything I like about Christian (within the boundaries established by the forum, of course)

2. If private, then say nothing about Christian unless the comment is 'neutral' in every possible way. In particular, I must refrain from expressing ANY opinions about you.

By extension, I assume you would also like me to refrain from any 'non-neutral' comments about you in any private conversation, such as to my wife?

Anyway, I decline the offer to follow these rules. Personal exchanges will remain personal exchanges, and honest opinions will continue to be a part of such conversations.

I admit that I find it somewhat confusing that my characterisation of you as a fundamentalist, determined, caring christian is causing you concern. Which one of those would you like me to change? Oh, I forgot, you don't want me change my opinion, you just don't want me to share my opinion. Oh well...

Skytalker

11th March 2004, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by Christian
This situation seems completely unreal to me. Going at it with husband and wife in a public forum about the wife is something I would not want to get involved with.

To me, coming here, is mostly for entertainment value. I don't invest much emotionally. (I forget this is not the case for others)

I don't think it is fair that I'm making you invest more than I in this situation.

What!? "I have a personal stake in" arguing with Ruby about this--something like that. You remember that, a few weeks back. That's your level of entertainment value? I don't think so.

The argument is not about my wife. The argument is about ideas! You have been content to unrelentingly argue against her for weeks; maybe you felt that you could really manipulate the arguments with her, and that was entertaining to you.

But you are here now, in the middle of a discussion that you started, at significant emotional cost to Ruby, and now you want to ditch the whole thing because apparently we are taking you too seriously and it's no longer entertaining to you. I thought Christians, at least in theory, believed that they needed to convince, or at least tell, people of the truth so that they would not spend eternity in hell. And this telling in order to rescue the lost was more important than the entertainment value of the process.

Christian

11th March 2004, 03:20 PM

Skytalker wrote:
Now it appears that your real reason for not answering me is a perceived loss of power. You don't mind a public debate as long as you perceive the balance of power to be in your favor?

You really believe this don't you.

I believe I presented you with fair, informative objections. It seems your response is to take cover behind a moderator. I have no fear of a moderated debate. However, I have no interest in playing games with you.

You are playing a game. It's called " I can spit farther than you can".

You don't want a moderator fine.

You are very good at incrementally reframing arguments to keep your opponent off balance and feeling out of control. But it appears that the minute you feel out of control you are unwilling to debate any further.

So now you, as a formidable opponent, are going to teach me a lesson?

Listen, I already apologized to your wife. I already said I didn't want to debate you over her.

Christian, I was a christian for 35 years. I know the Bible. Hey, I used the Bible to answer you. I walked in your home court. I don't see too many other people doing that with you. If you really have truth that I'm now missing, I'd like to know it. That's partly why I posted to you. So don't run away now. Here's your evangelical opportunity, in the JREF lions' den.

Now, you come and you post this. Now, my ego and flawed human nature does not allow me to back down from a challenge.

Ok, sir you got your wish. I will respond to your original post. And no moderators (well if you curse I can't help them coming in ;) )

The lions den? Run away? Man, the metaphors.

What!? "I have a personal stake in" arguing with Ruby about this--something like that. You remember that, a few weeks back. That's your level of entertainment value? I don't think so.

The argument is not about my wife. The argument is about ideas! You have been content to unrelentingly argue against her for weeks; maybe you felt that you could really manipulate the arguments with her, and that was entertaining to you.

But you are here now, in the middle of a discussion that you started, at significant emotional cost to Ruby, and now you want to ditch the whole thing because apparently we are taking you too seriously and it's no longer entertaining to you. I thought Christians, at least in theory, believed that they needed to convince, or at least tell, people of the truth so that they would not spend eternity in hell. And this telling in order to rescue the lost was more important than the entertainment value of the process.

I wanted to ditch this discussion many times. I told Ruby that. I thanked her for sharing and told her I didn't need any more information. She continued and engaged me (just like any other poster).

There is nothing I can tell you that you have not already heard. This place is not a place for Christians to proselitize.

And what do you think is going to happen?

I''l tell you exactly whats going to happen. I'm going to post, you are going to post, and so on. Until one of us gets tired of posting.

That's all thats going to happen.

Loki wrote:
Christian,

I can see from you last reply that you would like to me to limit my JREF conversations (to anyone on the planet) to the following rules :

1. If public, then say anything I like about Christian (within the boundaries established by the forum, of course)

2. If private, then say nothing about Christian unless the comment is 'neutral' in every possible way. In particular, I must refrain from expressing ANY opinions about you.

By extension, I assume you would also like me to refrain from any 'non-neutral' comments about you in any private conversation, such as to my wife?

Anyway, I decline the offer to follow these rules. Personal exchanges will remain personal exchanges, and honest opinions will continue to be a part of such conversations.

I admit that I find it somewhat confusing that my characterisation of you as a fundamentalist, determined, caring christian is causing you concern. Which one of those would you like me to change? Oh, I forgot, you don't want me change my opinion, you just don't want me to share my opinion. Oh well...

You have the right to post and speak a lot of things Loki. I respect this right.

But you know what? I have exactly the same right. Isn't that something.

Christian

11th March 2004, 03:26 PM

Skytalker,

And what is this coward business?

Let me deflate this stuff right now.

What can you do to me? Absolutely nothing. What am I suppose to be afraid of?

This is just macho nonsense.

Ruby

11th March 2004, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by Christian
I'm sorry this bothers you.

It is more than weird to me. I think it is inappropriate. I don't want to debate your husband over you.

And believe me when I say, man I feel tempted to just go at it, but no, sorry.

Tell you what, I will bow out of this thread for awhile. Then it will just be Skytalker in a debate with you. That way you won't have to feel uncomfortable about a husband and wife debating together....with the husband seeming to defend me.

My husband was very interested in conversing with you according to things you were saying in your posts. He does not think of himself as some great debater or great intellectual giant, (although, I do, and most people around him do.):D

Christian

11th March 2004, 03:57 PM

Ruby wrote:
Tell you what, I will bow out of this thread for awhile. Then it will just be Skytalker in a debate with you. That way you won't have to feel uncomfortable about a husband and wife debating together....with the husband seeming to defend me.

Ok.

My husband was very interested in conversing with you according to things you were saying in your posts. He does not think of himself as some great debater or great intellectual giant, (although, I do, and most people around him do.)

I hold egalitarian views. I don't consider myself very smart. I'm just a diligent hard worker.

And I don't think intelligence give people an edge (only in IQ tests) I usually score 90 something on them.

But, I do study a lot. So, since there is no time limit on answers, eventually I find the correct answer.

This place equalizes everyone because of that. It levels the playing field for everyone. I like that.

Ok, I will respond to your husband tomorrow.

Ruby

11th March 2004, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Christian
My husband was very interested in conversing with you according to things you were saying in your posts. He does not think of himself as some great debater or great intellectual giant, (although, I do, and most people around him do.)

I hold egalitarian views. I don't consider myself very smart. I'm just a diligent hard worker.

And I don't think intelligence give people an edge (only in IQ tests) I usually score 90 something on them.

But, I do study a lot. So, since there is no time limit on answers, eventually I find the correct answer.

This place equalizes everyone because of that. It levels the playing field for everyone. I like that.

Ok, I will respond to your husband tomorrow. [/B]

Well, I do think you are very smart. I don't think IQ tests are worth much either.

I enjoyed debating with you, even if things got a bit muddled.

Skytalker is really a very nice guy. I hope you guys can reach mutual respect.

Maybe you will want to start a new thread...but that's up to you and Skytalker.

Bye for now,

Ruby

Christian

11th March 2004, 09:14 PM

Ruby wrote:
Well, I do think you are very smart. I don't think IQ tests are worth much either.

Thank you.

I enjoyed debating with you, even if things got a bit muddled.

I'm glad to hear that.

Skytalker is really a very nice guy. I hope you guys can reach mutual respect.

I'm sure he is a very nice guy. We are off to our pissing (can I say that? sorry if that is not allowed) contest. I know who you will be rooting for.

Maybe you will want to start a new thread...but that's up to you and Skytalker.

Bye for now,

Ruby

That's ok, here is fine.

Skytalker, here we go.

Christian
Legalism is the term used (and particularly in jurisprudence) in the strict INTEPRETATION of the text. It is synonymous with literalist. So someone might be called a legalist if he/she invokes the rule in it’s strictest definition. A legalist could say, that “thou shall not kill” means one can’t kill anything, including a cockroach.

Skytalker wrote:
Then you provided the dictionary.com definition of legalism, viz., "strict conformity to the letter of the law rather than its spirit".

You, of course, have precisely made Ruby's point for her.

No, I did not.

I will explain.

Many churches set up rules to which they strictly adhere, many times even in contradiction of clear scriptural content to the contrary.

Here you present the idea that churches set up strict rules but do not cite exactly where this rule is written as to reference it. (and you add that many contradict each other, which is irrelevant to the point of what is the correct usage of the word legalist.)

Though it has become almost cliche in my experience, I cite as an example the strict official stance against the drinking of alcohol of any kind or quantity by many church denominations, local assemblies, and affiliated educational institutions. This position is held in spite of 1) Psalm 104 which attributes to the Christian God the provision of "wine which makes man's heart glad." (v 15); or 2) Jesus's making wine from water at the wedding in Cana (John 2); or 3) the apostle Paul exhorting Timothy (a pastor) to use a little wine for his health (advice remarkably consistent with today's medical research). Sure the Bible warns against the dangers of too much wine, and the NT flatly prohibits drunkeness, but to turn the prohibition against drunkeness into a prohibition against drinking at all is legalism exactly as defined by dictionary.com.

All of this explanation is irrelevant because you are citing an example of the contradiction between the church’s rules and the Bible. In any case, this would be an example of a clear misinterpretation of this particular church and the Bible.

Turning a prohibition of drunkenness into a prohibition against drinking would not be called legalism, it would be called distortion. (distorting the law is also a common subject in jurisprudence)

Adhering to the letter of the law and not the spirit would be to actually take your eye out or chop your hand off to avoid sinning, for example.

Me
I’m sure they do have strict rules. If they don’t, they wouldn’t function as an organization very well.

How can you say that? How do you know? Are you a Unitarian Universalist? Have you studied that organization or participated in their activities? You flatly contradict, without substantiation, a statement Ruby has made by first hand knowledge. Shame on you. How can you possibly expect to win her or anyone else to your side of the argument when all you say is "you're wrong"? You haven't proven a thing!

I don’t need to study the organization to conclude they have strict rules. All organizations have strict rules. Why shame on me? I can cite a few without having any more knowledge of the organization than a website search. And me knowing this beforehand was not a great feat, not by a long shot, just plain inductive reasoning.

Let me present 3 strict rules:

1. No UU member is allowed to use the NAME and CORPORATE SEAL of the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, Inc. to promote their particular agenda without the expressed permission of the Committee.
2. No part of the net earnings or receipts of funded property of the Corporation shall inure to the benefit of any officer, private individual, member of the Corporation, employee or substantial contributor
3. and that the Corporation shall not participate in nor intervene in any political campaign on the behalf of any candidate for public office.

From http://www.uusc.org/info/bylaws.html

And take a look at membership:

Membership is open to all persons who support the mission and the programs of the Corporation. Membership in the Corporation shall be for twelve (12) months, with dues payable annually.

So, if people don’t pay, they can’t be members. Oh and they must support the mission and programs of the Corporation. Maybe a Ku Klux Klan sympathizer isn’t welcome.

No, I don't. But you are clearly twisting the clear meaning and intent of Ruby's statements so as to effectively redefine legalism with connotations it simply does not have in this context. That is dishonest debate. And that in spite of her further clarification, which you kindly included in your reply. Read on.

Am I twisting the clear meaning? And here the adhom, you accuse me of dishonest debate. So, if I’m dishonest then my arguments have no merit.

from datanation.com
Attacking the Person
(argumentum ad hominem)

Definition:
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to
gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.

Me
Your use of the word throws me off.

Come on, Christian! You are smarter than that! Are you trying merely to silence Ruby, or do you wish to really convince her of the righteousness of your view and the error of hers?

All these are ad homs. What does my intelligence have to do with the argument, or my righteousness?

If she is using the word incorrectly to make her case, I will have trouble making my case using the same word with a different meaning. (as I clearly pointed out)

(In the evangelical spirit of NT Christianity, I assume you would believe God would have none perish in error, but all come to eternal life through knowledge of the true truth. Perhaps my assumption is wrong.)

This is another ad hom.

from infidels.org
Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"; there are two varieties.
The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. For example:
"You claim that atheists can be moral -- yet I happen to know that you abandoned your wife and children."
This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted by some other easily criticized person. For example:
"Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have agreed with you.

Playing the dumb/confused card is one of your frequently used tactics, evidently intended to confuse your opponent in the debate.

And the hits keep on rolling.

I would not be surprised if this claim were true as you interpret intolerance of Christians. In my experience there are few Christians who know how, and perhaps fewer who are willing, to honestly, rigorously, and thoughtfully present an argument for anything.

It is good that you say “in my experience”, because I know many Christian who can. That’s the problem with generalizations and labeling. People can or can’t present good argumentation based on religious affiliation. But, I will stand corrected if you can back up this claim. And can you specify if you only mean correlation or are you extending it to causation.

James Randi has spent years exposing weak, sloppy thinking, religious charletans, frauds, and other such ilk. He can hardly be expected to look favorably on the feeble, emotional, and frequently fear-mongering presentations of so-called Christians.

Do I understand this as your pejorative opinion of all Christians, or are you just referring to those who claim to be but are not “real Christians”?

This examply is a case of the common either-or fallicy, and makes no allowance for the shades in between.

First of all, this is not a fallacy. I’m presenting a premise and I’m constructing an argument based on that premise then presenting a conclusion based on that. That is perfectly logical. If you want to attack the logic, attack the conclusion or how the logic is flawed (how the conclusion does not follow from the logic). You can’t attack the premise for the logic, it is premise. Here, let me give you the syllogism again:

Premise : You are not responsible for your actions (crimes)
Premise : People that are responsible for their actions (crimes) are punished.
(Therefore,) Conclusion: you are not punished for you actions (crimes)

Technically, yes, you might say that. But I ask you, what good or use is having a choice if you a) don't know you have it, or b) don't have any idea how to exercise that choice? Between these two conditions and really not having a choice there is no functional difference, unless (and this is key) some outside agent acts to reveal that a choice does exist and further, how to exercise that choice.

Ah, but you must show you don’t know you have it or don’t have any idea how to exercise it. The burden is not on me to disprove your “very hard to believe” claim.

So the mindset fostered and promoted, explicitly or implicitly, by the Christian church in Ruby's experience nurtured the "no choice" option for all practical purposes. It may have been a misrepresentation based on misunderstanding of Christian truth, but it a) required leaving the church in order to perceive the deception or misunderstanding, and b) leaves another vacancy of understanding as to how to reintegrate the newly found (if long existing) freedom(s) with a "correct" view of Christianity.

This is an extraordinary claim.

It was Christianity which seemed heretofore to have been responsible for denying or preventing the discovering of that freedom. My opinion is that if this clarity of reintegration does exist, you have yet to effectively demonstrate that it does. If you believe that it does, I challenge you to get on and show it.

The opposite is true. You are making an extraordinary claim. You are saying she was, for all intent and purposes, brainwashed and lost all volition. This happened just from attending church.
All evidence I know of, require much much more than that to accomplish what you are describing. It goes against all that is common knowledge. Even in the extreme circumstances, society doesn’t accept this. I cite the Patty Hearst case.
So, it is you who has the burden of proof, not I.

So now we know your opinion. So what?! What evidence, what proof, what reason can you proffer to convince Ruby, or anyone else, that your opinion is better or more valid that anyone else's?

That depends on the opinion I’m presenting. In this case, your opinion is as valid as mine.

Of course Christianity didn't cause the fears, but it didn't resolve them either. Neither its proclaimed means of dealing with them (prayer and confession, to name two) nor its proscriptions against the fear ("...but the fearful and unbelieving...shall have their part in the lake of fire..." Rev 21:8) did anything to ameliorate the fear. However, by getting away from all the "shoulds", it became possible to face the fears head on and begin to overcome them.

ok.

It's useless to argue that this is a case where God's answer was that the suffering was for some higher purpose or other nonsense like that. Every time that someone came to Jesus for healing during his human incarnation, He healed that person. And the Bible is simply bursting with references to God being our healer for physical as well as spiritual ills. And since the medical knowledge now exists to effectively deal with many if not all of my wife's afflictions, how could it possibly make sense for God to prevent us from exposure to that knowledge. That's not Jehovah's Witnesses denying blood transfusions to save a life (which human courts have condemned), that's Jehovah Himself preventing healing.

I hear you.

No, the rules are not the problem. The problem is the inaneness of the rules, the pettiness, the commitment to rules themselves without consideration for context or motivation. Ruby effectively made this point in the portion of her post for which the above quote from you is your reply. As smart as you seem to be, you must realize that, yet you seem unwilling to admit it.
You are still missing the point. The rules did not create her problem.

Me
The following of rules must come from a place of conviction, not legalism right? Not cursing but calling black people the N word, is hypocrisy. I know you agree with me on this.

Christian!! Don't do this! Now you want to adopt precisely the use of legalism that Ruby has been employing all along and which you have previously tried to deny her.

No, no. Not true. I’m using my terminology.

Now that it is convenient for your purposes, you adopt a different shade of meaning. This is intellectual dishonesty.

Hey, that you misunderstand is not my fault.

Who says cursing is wrong? Why is it wrong? Assume for the sake of argument that I don't know. I bet you can't convincingly defend why it's wrong to curse. God, and many of His key people in the Bible, cursed things and people. Anyway, very often what Christian culture has identified as cursing is in reality merely vulgarity. And there is a real difference.

Why is cursing wrong? Let me count the ways.
1. It is illegal in public where children are present
2. It shows a lack of respect for those around you (it is antisocial behavior)
3. It teaches children that there are no verbal boundaries, limits.
4. It is hurtful to those who have to endure it.

And I hope you don’t ask me why boundaries and limits are good for children.

So what. The same kind of compelling results can be seen in almost every case where diligent, usually passionate, people dare to risk greatly.

Actually, this is completely wrong. Most diligent, passionate people who take risks fail. Most films bomb, most books fail, most startup businesses go under. There are far more failures than successes. Far more.

This way of action is the stuff from which legends grow. And it is found in people all over the world regardless of religion or creed. Examples are available from business, education, military endeavors, and even the relative anonymity of thousands of individual lives.

Really? From this logic, only Gibson has attempted to make a Jesus film. Most people fail at their endeavors. For every successful actor, there are tens of thousand who were as talented who never made it. In the materialist-atheist view, success is a matter of chance, mathematical probabilities, it is a numbers game. Someone is going to win the lottery.

The principles work. They are universally admired, at least in the long run, with or without specific reference to the Christian God.

Tell that to the tons of millions of people who where born in Africa and not the US. Tell them that in the long run, if they are diligent, passionate and take great risks they will succeed. Or is the universality only related to admiration?

Well, that's it for now. It's 11:22 pm, and I want to be at work at 8:00 am. Good night.