Freaky, Freaky Friday - April 10Th

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

(snip)

 

I didn’t know about Sam’s life back then as I do know. I felt—feel-- bad for him. In fact, each time I reflect upon that fateful occasion, a slightly eerie feeling comes over me that Sam’s career and life had been intercepted somehow as he literally came face to face with a Higher Power.  I would like to think that Sam, in his last moments, perhaps saw Jesus saying to him, “I knew this surprise intervention would get your attention, and if you’re ready to be forgiven, then you can take my hand.” I can only hope that was the case. Ever since then, Sam’s story reminds me to stop, reflect on my life, and remember that God could surprise me too. (Although, I’m not really asking for that!)

 

http://www.biography.com/people/sam-kinison-424006

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid

 

Remember this, 2P?

 

**If tomorrow you offer up a convincing argument for Christianity, how can this be squared with the purpose of this site? 

**Rightly or wrongly I perceive that such an argument can only be opposed to the very purpose of this site.

 

That’s definitely a legitimate concern, I know, and out of respect for you guys, I wouldn’t want to challenge the purpose(s) of your website, or rock the boat. So, if the Lion’s Den is problematic, in what other sub-sections may a Christian post so as to avoid becoming entangled in a kind of Kobayashi Maru? Or is this problematic in your estimation all the way around?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Your post about Kinison (especially the last paragraph) is openly opposed to the purpose of this forum, 2P.

 

You are challenging the purpose of Ex-Christian.net - which is to bring Christians OUT of communion with Jesus.

 

You are proselytizing IN the name of Jesus.

 

You ARE rocking the boat!

.

.

.

Not exactly a faithful and honest man of your word, are you?

 

Well, 2P did mention in his post that he was exposing some of his "personal quirks".  As such, perhaps this is an honest attempt by 2P to pierce through the fog of his self-inflicted grandiosity to seriously question his theism.

 

 

I cannot agree sdelsolray.

 

2P's hypothetical scenario of the blasphemous Kinison's salvation by Jesus is a subtle appeal to the emotions of any lurking Christians who are considering deconverting and turning away from Christ.  By reading what he's written in this thread, their painful journey has been made that much more difficult.

 

Of course, we've touched on this topic before.  

Here... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/66839-lions-please-familiarize-yourself-with-2philovoid/#.VSgCB_nF8uk In # 16 the Midniterider neatly summed the tension between the express purpose of Ex-C and the permission given by the Mods for Christians to aggressively evangelize in the Den.  Any time a Christian writes anything that shows Christianity in a favorable light, that immediately contradicts the purpose of this forum.

 

However, in 2P's case, this is a moot point.

When he wrote that he wouldn't want to... "challenge the purposes of your website or rock the boat" ...he automatically waived his right to write anything that challenges the express purpose of this forum.

.

.

.

So, even if you are right about him sdelsolray and he is seriously questioning his theism, 2P should still hold good to his own words.  He should find a way of doing so that cannot be in any way be construed as challenging the purpose of Ex-C.  If that's an impossible condition for him to fulfill, then that's just tough.

 

Nobody's forcing him to be here and post here.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[mymistake]

If God took out Kinison with a drunk driver, I have to wonder what he did to your strippers.

 

You nasty boy!

 

We know the other side of that story.

 

http://d.justpo.st/images/2015/04/d37916dae20212f88037f10dc252c4d1.jpg

[florduh]

This is the section of the board where Christian opinions, arguments, sermons and so on will be more-or-less tolerated. Aggressive evangelism is permitted in this section, but aggressive evangelists should be ready to be met by equally aggressive resistance. 

 

[Guest Furball]

Sounds like the whole, god can bring something good out of something bad crap again. The problem i have with it, well the problem christians should have with it, is that god admits in the bible that HE IS the one who brings the bad into our lives, then if he feels like it, he will deliver us and that we should be grateful for it. Otherwise i am not sure why it was posted in this section, maybe the rant section instead? I get so pissed everytime a celebrity dies, the christians use the tragedy to preach their beliefs, or they use it to condemn the celebrity. The website:goodfight.org is all about this crap. Everytime a celebrity dies the guy on that website says that it was demons that finally got him etc. etc. blah blah. He blamed demons for robin williams death, and even said that demons drove kurt cobain to suicide. The whole website is devoted to "exposing" hollywood, musicians, and celebrities etc. Here is an example of katy perry and satan.

[FarflungWanderer]

Cat, where on earth do you find this stuff?

[bornagainathiest]

 

This is the section of the board where Christian opinions, arguments, sermons and so on will be more-or-less tolerated. Aggressive evangelism is permitted in this section, but aggressive evangelists should be ready to be met by equally aggressive resistance. 

 

 

 

Just so.

 

This is a freedom and a right permitted to the Christians, even though any and all opinions, arguments, sermons and evangelism they make for Christianity must (by definition) be against to the express purpose of Ex-Christian.net. 

 

However, as I made clear earlier, 2Philovoid has waived his right and freedom to any of the above when he wrote that he wouldn't want to do anything that challenges the express purpose of this forum.

 

So he therefore cannot do any of the above - because they are all activities which are contrary to the express purpose of Ex-Christian.Net.

[StJeffTheIncomprehensible]

 

 

This is the section of the board where Christian opinions, arguments, sermons and so on will be more-or-less tolerated. Aggressive evangelism is permitted in this section, but aggressive evangelists should be ready to be met by equally aggressive resistance. 

 

 

 

Just so.

 

This is a freedom and a right permitted to the Christians, even though any and all opinions, arguments, sermons and evangelism they make for Christianity must (by definition) be against to the express purpose of Ex-Christian.net. 

 

However, as I made clear earlier, 2Philovoid has waived his right and freedom to any of the above when he wrote that he wouldn't want to do anything that challenges the express purpose of this forum.

 

So he therefore cannot do any of the above - because they are all activities which are contrary to the express purpose of Ex-Christian.Net.

 

 

Hi BAA,

 

Point well made! I knew when Philo wrote that statement he'd later regret it--being a Christian on an ex-Christian forum is necessarily going to rock the boat. I appreciate the watchdog stance you've taken, even from the time of Philo's first posts, warning us of the danger he might pose. You feel deeply about keeping deconverts deconverted, as I do. We're definitely of one mind here.

 

But may I suggest that we give him some leeway? I have several reasons for wanting Philo to continue posting: first, I don't see him as a serious threat at all. I mean, his explanations and defenses of his faith are incredibly unconvincing--if anyone is led back to Christianity from reading his posts, they were already wanting to go back to begin with, and would have found some other excuse to return, like dogs to their vomit.  (Sorry, Philo, just being honest!)

 

Second, he has behaved himself pretty well, as Christians go--much better than most of the other professing believers here. In fact, it may be that our uncharitable reception of Philo may do more damage to our cause than Philo himself. I've had some nice conversations with him--he's shown himself able to take criticism without getting all bent about it, and that's essential to good communication. And he has a decent sense of humor, and knows how to take a joke. He's horribly wrong, of course, but at least he's not an ass about it. In other words, I like him. I don't have to agree with someone to like him or her. Sometimes it's even more fun that way.

 

Maybe Philo shouldn't have said that he wouldn't rock the boat or challenge the purpose of the forum. I really don't wish to hold him to it, though. I had my own early suspicions about him, and thought that he was probably trying to downplay his real reason for being here (converting the Lost and Undone). He still may be, I don't know. From one perspective, though, he's actually fulfilling the purpose of the forum--if we take the best arguments Christians can offer and reveal the feebleness of them, and do so in an engaging (and even winsome) way, I think it will serve our purposes quite well.

 

I do value your work here, BAA. If you don't agree with my perspective on this, that's fine too. I just think that if we run off all the Christians we'll have some hungry hungry Lions!

[sdelsolray]

 

 

 

(snip)

 

I didn’t know about Sam’s life back then as I do know. I felt—feel-- bad for him. In fact, each time I reflect upon that fateful occasion, a slightly eerie feeling comes over me that Sam’s career and life had been intercepted somehow as he literally came face to face with a Higher Power.  I would like to think that Sam, in his last moments, perhaps saw Jesus saying to him, “I knew this surprise intervention would get your attention, and if you’re ready to be forgiven, then you can take my hand.” I can only hope that was the case. Ever since then, Sam’s story reminds me to stop, reflect on my life, and remember that God could surprise me too. (Although, I’m not really asking for that!)

 

http://www.biography.com/people/sam-kinison-424006

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid

 

Remember this, 2P?

 

**If tomorrow you offer up a convincing argument for Christianity, how can this be squared with the purpose of this site? 

**Rightly or wrongly I perceive that such an argument can only be opposed to the very purpose of this site.

 

That’s definitely a legitimate concern, I know, and out of respect for you guys, I wouldn’t want to challenge the purpose(s) of your website, or rock the boat. So, if the Lion’s Den is problematic, in what other sub-sections may a Christian post so as to avoid becoming entangled in a kind of Kobayashi Maru? Or is this problematic in your estimation all the way around?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Your post about Kinison (especially the last paragraph) is openly opposed to the purpose of this forum, 2P.

 

You are challenging the purpose of Ex-Christian.net - which is to bring Christians OUT of communion with Jesus.

 

You are proselytizing IN the name of Jesus.

 

You ARE rocking the boat!

.

.

.

Not exactly a faithful and honest man of your word, are you?

 

Well, 2P did mention in his post that he was exposing some of his "personal quirks".  As such, perhaps this is an honest attempt by 2P to pierce through the fog of his self-inflicted grandiosity to seriously question his theism.

 

 

I cannot agree sdelsolray.

 

2P's hypothetical scenario of the blasphemous Kinison's salvation by Jesus is a subtle appeal to the emotions of any lurking Christians who are considering deconverting and turning away from Christ.  By reading what he's written in this thread, their painful journey has been made that much more difficult.

 

Of course, we've touched on this topic before.  

Here... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/66839-lions-please-familiarize-yourself-with-2philovoid/#.VSgCB_nF8uk In # 16 the Midniterider neatly summed the tension between the express purpose of Ex-C and the permission given by the Mods for Christians to aggressively evangelize in the Den.  Any time a Christian writes anything that shows Christianity in a favorable light, that immediately contradicts the purpose of this forum.

 

However, in 2P's case, this is a moot point.

When he wrote that he wouldn't want to... "challenge the purposes of your website or rock the boat" ...he automatically waived his right to write anything that challenges the express purpose of this forum.

.

.

.

So, even if you are right about him sdelsolray and he is seriously questioning his theism, 2P should still hold good to his own words.  He should find a way of doing so that cannot be in any way be construed as challenging the purpose of Ex-C.  If that's an impossible condition for him to fulfill, then that's just tough.

 

Nobody's forcing him to be here and post here.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Maybe he changed his mind.  If so, you can't hold him to his earlier statement.  And, since you didn't rely on that statement to your detriment, you can't call him a welcher.  All you could do is observe that he changed his mind.  At least that's the way things roll on planet Earth.

 

Of course, if he didn't change his mind, then he is acting inconstantly and you are correct to point out the contradiction.

 

Still, your interpretation of this sub forum's rules appear constrained.  Although the general purpose of the entire forum is to promote leaving Christianity behind, that general rule appears modified in the Lion's Den to allow Christians to "make their case".  Indeed, I would argue that when Christians do that they are typically expose the hollowness of their various positions, which, ironically, support the general purpose of this forum and (again ironically) help those leaving Christianity behind more than it hurts them.

 

Add to that freedom of speech, for what that's worth.

[duderonomy]

 

 

I didn’t know about Sam’s life back then as I do know. I felt—feel-- bad for him. In fact, each time I reflect upon that fateful occasion, a slightly eerie feeling comes over me that Sam’s career and life had been intercepted somehow as he literally came face to face with a Higher Power.  I would like to think that Sam, in his last moments, perhaps saw Jesus saying to him, “I knew this surprise intervention would get your attention, and if you’re ready to be forgiven, then you can take my hand.” I can only hope that was the case. Ever since then, Sam’s story reminds me to stop, reflect on my life, and remember that God could surprise me too. (Although, I’m not really asking for that!)

 

http://www.biography.com/people/sam-kinison-424006

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid

 

Philo, you can rest assured that Sam is now singing "Wild Thing" with Elvis in Heaven! Just kidding.

 

I've actually been thinking about this post of yours all day. I have several responses, would you like to hear a few? Good! Here goes...

 

1)

 

April 10, 2016. I can't believe its been a whole year since I posted that Sam Kinison thing, and almost two months since I deconverted. I can't believe that I used to squirm at what he said. He was a little loud, but still, damn those drunk drivers.

 

April 10, 2017.  I can't believe I made up so many excuses for an all powerful "God" back in the day. I'm feeling so much more free and positive now that I can face life on its and my own terms as they really are. I'm going to start using Duderonomy"s term, "Imaginary Friend".  Well, he says it is his term, and who am I to argue, right? He owns the place now.

 

April 10, 2018...

 

2)

 

Philo, do I need to bring up scripture that seems to point to anyone that puts their hand to the plow and then looks back isn't worthy of the Kingdom of God?

That includes Sam Kinison.  Fuck him. According to Hebrews 6:4-6, he has crucified Christ afresh by publicly shaming him. No one gets to make fun of Jesus and get away with it.  Jesus won't flood the Earth again with a flood, this time he will burn all the unbelievers with fire!

Should we look beyond my quote mining and non-expertical interpretation of these verses and discuss the entire Book of Hebrews? I'd say Nah, because even everybody admits that this book in the Bible is written by...who knows who. 

You are making up your own religion as you go along Philo. I wondered about this in the "and so we wait" thread, #219.

 

3)

 

Is this a joke, Philo? We asked you to be pithy. We didn't ask you to be an Ironhorse wannabe. 

 

 

Edited to add link.  Look for # 219.  http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/66413-and-so-we-wait/page-11

[Fweethawt]

Damn... ^^^

[Fweethawt]

April 10, 2020 --

 

Username change from 2Philovoid to VoidPhildx2.

[EyesOpened]

April 10, 2020 --

Username change from 2Philovoid to VoidPhildx2.

LOL, very creative.

[bornagainathiest]

To Sdelsolray.

 

Oh well, I figured that I wouldn't be able to make it stick - but it was worth trying.

Thanks for keeping me honest.  Anyway, we can now see the transition 2P's made from his earlier position and perhaps we were right to be suspicious of him from get go.

.

.

.

To St.Jeff.

 

In Christianese we'd probably say that you and I have a 'burden' for the deconverted and the deconverting, right?

 

Btw, Yes. I agree that he's behaved better than other Christians in this forum.  Except for this instance.  

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/67396-something-for-2philovoid/#.VSkNUvnF8uk (# 13)

"Well, at least I had you spooked there for a moment at the beginning. That in itself is meaningful to me."

 

To which I responded...

"If you obtain meaning from spooking those who are here to help others... what does that say about your spiritual fruit, 2P?"

.

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

[mymistake]

According to Hebrews 6:4-6, he has crucified Christ afresh by publicly shaming him. No one gets to make fun of Jesus and get away with it.  Jesus won't flood the Earth again with a flood, this time he will burn all the unbelievers with fire!

Should we look beyond my quote mining and non-expertical interpretation of these verses and discuss the entire Book of Hebrews? I'd say Nah, because even everybody admits that this book in the Bible is written by...who knows who. 

 

It was so nice of the author of Hebrews to help Jesus out.  You see Jesus is God the Son who never lies and knows all things.  Jesus said that all sins are forgivable except attributing the power of the Holy Spirit to Beelzebub.  Silly Jesus.  That is why the author of Hebrews had to correct this mistake of Jesus.  I know what you are thinking - that the theology was made up as they went along.  But God only made it look that way to test our faith.  Because Hebrews is the word of God.  And it's your fault if it doesn't make sense to you.  You know, God is perfect and all that.  It helps to not think about it.

 

 

(/sarcasm)

[2PhiloVoid]

To Sdelsolray.

 

Oh well, I figured that I wouldn't be able to make it stick - but it was worth trying.

Thanks for keeping me honest.  Anyway, we can now see the transition 2P's made from his earlier position and perhaps we were right to be suspicious of him from get go.

.

.

.

To St.Jeff.

 

In Christianese we'd probably say that you and I have a 'burden' for the deconverted and the deconverting, right?

 

Btw, Yes. I agree that he's behaved better than other Christians in this forum.  Except for this instance.  

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/67396-something-for-2philovoid/#.VSkNUvnF8uk (# 13)

"Well, at least I had you spooked there for a moment at the beginning. That in itself is meaningful to me."

 

To which I responded...

"If you obtain meaning from spooking those who are here to help others... what does that say about your spiritual fruit, 2P?"

.

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

To Everyone:

 

Good gracious, guys! No one told me a celebrity roast would be held in my honor! I feel like an ‘almost’ celebrity. Almost.

 

Obviously, my “Friday, April 10^t”h post isn’t receiving any rave reviews, but that’s alright. I didn’t really assume it would. It was simply meant to express some ideas I had bouncing around in my head this previous week.

 

To those of you who responded amiably, even if in a critical way, I thank you. I really do. Furthermore, please know that I also appreciate any additional gestures of congeniality, forbearance, and/or insight you may have expressed on my behalf. You didn’t have to do that, and you know who you are.  

 

To BAA:

 

While I surmised that reactions to my post would be somewhat negative, what I didn’t expect was to see you become concerned, especially after a previous post in which you told me that you were confident that I “can’t and won’t.”  Apparently, you’re definitely concerned now. Your moderating response expresses that much at least. Yet, I must admit that when reading it I still had to do a double-take to understand the nature of your complaint, because at first it wasn’t clear to me as to what you were specifically getting at. However, after my initial surprise subsided, I thought it best for me to re-read this website’s “Mission Statement,” just to see for myself if your complaint has cogency.

 

So, after having re-read the ‘Mission Statement,’ and having gained some additional clarity on its meaning and full intent, I came to the realization that I’d have to go “by the book,” and take this into the Mutara Nubu-lounge (as per the directive of the Terms and Conditions). This means that I will be sending you a PM to discuss my “apparent” breach of conduct, although it may be a few days or so before I get it to you.

 

In the meantime, I’ll desist in posting anything further until this issue has been addressed, and whether or not I need to say, "Open the pod bay doors, Hal." Thank you.

 

Peace and Honesty

2PhiloVoid

[bornagainathiest]

Deleted

 

Deleted

[sdelsolray]

...

Good gracious, guys! No one told me a celebrity roast would be held in my honor! I feel like an ‘almost’ celebrity. Almost.

 

...

 

Narcissism is a learned behavior.  It can be self-identified and treated, usually with the help of others.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

 

To BAA:

 

While I surmised that reactions to my post would be somewhat negative, what I didn’t expect was to see you become concerned, especially after a previous post in which you told me that you were confident that I “can’t and won’t.”  Apparently, you’re definitely concerned now. Your moderating response expresses that much at least. Yet, I must admit that when reading it I still had to do a double-take to understand the nature of your complaint, because at first it wasn’t clear to me as to what you were specifically getting at. However, after my initial surprise subsided, I thought it best for me to re-read this website’s “Mission Statement,” just to see for myself if your complaint has cogency.

 

So, after having re-read the ‘Mission Statement,’ and having gained some additional clarity on its meaning and full intent, I came to the realization that I’d have to go “by the book,” and take this into the Mutara Nubu-lounge (as per the directive of the Terms and Conditions). This means that I will be sending you a PM to discuss my “apparent” breach of conduct, although it may be a few days or so before I get it to you.

 

In the meantime, I’ll desist in posting anything further until this issue has been addressed, and whether or not I need to say, "Open the pod bay doors, Hal." Thank you.

 

Peace and Honesty

2PhiloVoid

 

 

If you really are writing in peace and honesty 2P, then don't PM me.

 

I've nothing to hide from my fellow members.

 

Have you?

 

Keep what you have to say out here in the open please.

 

BAA

[2PhiloVoid]

 

 

 

 

 

 

To BAA:

 

While I surmised that reactions to my post would be somewhat negative, what I didn’t expect was to see you become concerned, especially after a previous post in which you told me that you were confident that I “can’t and won’t.”  Apparently, you’re definitely concerned now. Your moderating response expresses that much at least. Yet, I must admit that when reading it I still had to do a double-take to understand the nature of your complaint, because at first it wasn’t clear to me as to what you were specifically getting at. However, after my initial surprise subsided, I thought it best for me to re-read this website’s “Mission Statement,” just to see for myself if your complaint has cogency.

 

So, after having re-read the ‘Mission Statement,’ and having gained some additional clarity on its meaning and full intent, I came to the realization that I’d have to go “by the book,” and take this into the Mutara Nubu-lounge (as per the directive of the Terms and Conditions). This means that I will be sending you a PM to discuss my “apparent” breach of conduct, although it may be a few days or so before I get it to you.

 

In the meantime, I’ll desist in posting anything further until this issue has been addressed, and whether or not I need to say, "Open the pod bay doors, Hal." Thank you.

 

Peace and Honesty

2PhiloVoid

 

 

If you really are writing in peace and honesty 2P, then don't PM me.

 

I've nothing to hide from my fellow members.

 

Have you?

 

Keep what you have to say out here in the open please.

 

BAA

 

 

 

BAA,

 

Are you sure you want me to post that here and not in private?

 

2PhiloVoid

[duderonomy]

Philo, you aren't trying to run down a rabbit trail and take us with you, are you?  

 

I know you have limited time here, and I was wondering why you haven't been back to here  http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/66663-why-does-gods-voice-only-speak-to-the-mentally-ill/page-8#entry1037475  or here  http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/67145-the-nature-of-faith/ 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hailing BAA!

 

I see you’re still concerned with my presence on this forum. Could I really have that negative of an impact? I guess if I were in your position, I could be concerned too. However, I’m surprised you’re concerned at all, particularly since your I.Q. is probably a good 20 or 30 points higher than my own (maybe more), and surely you could deflect any imposition I might make, if I were so inclined to impose (which I’m not). Well, whatever it is that worries you, I hope you know I respect your intelligence and ability to be concise, exact, and cogent, thing that I don’t consistently achieve, although I try. Sometimes I err, maybe more than sometimes…

Regretfully, you’ve been suspecting me of having ulterior motives since I signed-up here, but truthfully, I cannot affirm your worries on this. From my perspective, I have been attempting to seriously abide by the guiding principles and protocols you have presented to me. In fact, up until lately, I was under the impression that my efforts to express a friendly demeanor and refrain from quoting Scripture or preaching sufficed to keep me getting tossed into the blameworthy category. Apparently, those efforts were not enough. At first, I wondered how this could be, but after going back over the ground we covered at the beginning, and doing a little analysis, I think I understand why now.

First off, I don’t think we mutually clarified at the beginning what each of us specifically meant by the term, ‘proselytize.’ As a matter of analysis and investigation, I questioned my own understanding of this term, and I asked myself, “Did I miss something? Did I fully apprehend and comprehend what BAA said or requested of me?” In answer—I’m not sure.

In this case, I think we talked past each other in our attempt to reach a mutual understanding regarding my plan of conduct here. And there lies part of the problem. Here’s why. My operative thinking on proselytizing has been primarily influenced by my own Christian assumptions, that what constitutes proselytizing is clear and specific teaching of Biblical concepts and theology, and that, in a Christian context, this basically means to attempt to overtly ‘recruit’ converts to the Christian faith. Thus far, I don’t think I’ve done that here, and I do not think my Kinison post came anywhere near this kind of influence.

However, to your credit, and in studying the issue above a little further, I found another denotation for ‘proselytize’ which seems to fit with your concern and has further informed my own understanding. This other denotation apparently involves the utilization of ‘inducement’ as a central part in an attempt to convert other people to Christian faith. Well, if ‘inducement’ of whatever shape or implication provides the context for meaning in this case, then I can see how you would be concerned. However, in my thinking, this option of meaning is inappropriate. This is because any presentation of religious ideas, philosophical statements, or theological innuendos, however subtle or overt they may be, can be cited as an a form of “inducement,” and that to me is just way too loose of a definition to have much of any practical application for discernment; it is a net that catches too many fish. If inducement is the central and operative concept by which you appraise the potential danger of my words, then even though you may have a warrant to do so, I will balk at that insistence since it isn’t the only or final criterion to consider. It may be good for you, (convenient is a more like it), but it seems to me to be little other than a defensive posture bordering on a kind of hyper-communitarian strategy, letting everything agreeable out and it, but nothing disagreeable in.

The second thing I’d like to touch upon is the TOS and Community Rules, in which the statement exist…
       "These forums exist for the express purpose of encouraging those who have decided to leave religion behind."

This seems to me to be a fair and straightforward statement, but, oddly enough, you imply that the applicable meaning of the above statement is some a little different:
       “So, in terms of Christianity, that would be helping Christians to leave Christianity behind.”

 

I don’t mean to be a killjoy, but I don’t think your interpretation above parallels or reflects the meaning of the former statement. From what I can tell, the verb tense displayed in the mission statement, that is, the one describing a person’s act of departure from Christianity, (i.e. “those who HAVE DECIDED”), is in the PRESENT PERFECT verb tense, indicating that the decision to no longer be a Christian has already been completed; thus, that statement applies to person who have finished with their decision to leave Christianity and are no longer, AT THAT POINT, Christian. As it is articulated, the mission statement means that this website is here to assist and facilitate the lives of those who are already ex-christian persons. However, your follow-up explanation seems inconsistent with this, and it instead focuses on “helping those who are yet still Christian” make a later decision to leave Christianity. Your paraphrase is not an offer for catharsis, but rather one for conversion. Which is it? If it’s both, shouldn’t it be clearly and succinctly stated as being such?

 

I’m sorry, but while I respect the fact that this is your website, you guys need to be very clear as to what your purpose or mission is before: A) getting incoming Christians to agree to your protocols, and claiming that your website represents itself as operating within the ethical parameters of integrity. Otherwise, someone might become suspicious that Ex-Christian.net, or one of its leading members, is guilty of sophistry or subterfuge. This kind of thing is not something I would like to have to point out to anyone. Surely, no one here is inclined to resort to these purely unethical tactics, right?

 

As for myself, I would instead like to give everyone here the benefit of the doubt, especially since it would be interesting to see the extent to which the relinquishment of Christianity affords opportunities for building and maintaining nobler attitudes, for achieving higher levels of integrity, and for working within a freer domain, all of which further enable the expression of intelligence. Surely, this is the case here, correct?

 

Thirdly, if a Christian is ‘prohibited’ from proselytizing, even at the level of ‘inducement,’ then how can a Christian even answer a question in a section of Ex-Christian.net that falls outside of the Lion’s Den? For instance, I see questions posed to Christians in the “General Christian Theological Issues” section. But if a Christian can’t open up beyond a mere ‘squeak’ in that section, or other similar sections, what is the use of directing questions toward Christians? Is it a rhetorical strategy? Just wondering.

 

Fourthly, if posts can be ‘censored’ for not being “productive” toward the goal of disbelief, then how is the act of censoring not against the other operative guideline for allowing freedom of expression, which also seems to be present in the TOC? Again just wondering.

 

You guys have an interesting sight here, but the smell of Klingon seems to be emanating from some the quadrants of the site.

 

Respectfully,
The Real Dr. McCoy

 

McCoy: Where are we going?
Kirk: Where they went.
McCoy: Suppose they went *nowhere*?
Kirk: Then this will be your big chance to get away from it all.

[bornagainathiest]

It is human to err, 2P.   I erred.  There, let that be the end of this.  

 

Thanks for your response.

 

BAA.

[2PhiloVoid]

It is human to err, 2P.   I erred.  There, let that be the end of this.  

 

Thanks for your response.

 

BAA.

 

 

Ok. I'm done.

 

Peace -  BAA