Are The Religious Moderates Better Than The Fundies?

[R. S. Martin]

Look at this article. When this infidel's life is in danger she's on her own--never mind that she was raised as one of their own. True, she's dealing with Islam. But are Christians better?

 

At the moment I cannot recall names and faces but I can recall voices and tones. I was hoping for support and sympathy at the way I got treated at my mother's funeral. The people took on the patronizing tone to explain that I had to see it from their perspective that they didn't mean it evil; they were just following their beliefs as they had been taught.

 

BULLSHIT!

[SilentLoner]

My personal opinion is that they are as bad if not worse. Pimarily becuas they provide cover for the fundies, saying that they're not "true" xtians and that the teachings of xtianity are comepletely different.

 

I dislike moderate xtianity also because it flat out makes no sense. Is biblegod a moderate when it comes to his laws? No. In the bible it says that being gay is an abomination, working on the Sabbath, and so on. Why don't moderates agree with their god then? They cherry pick the rules that seem reasonable but have no comment on the unpleasant ones.

[R. S. Martin]

My personal opinion is that they are as bad if not worse. Pimarily becuas they provide cover for the fundies, saying that they're not "true" xtians and that the teachings of xtianity are comepletely different.

 

I dislike moderate xtianity also because it flat out makes no sense. Is biblegod a moderate when it comes to his laws? No. In the bible it says that being gay is an abomination, working on the Sabbath, and so on. Why don't moderates agree with their god then? They cherry pick the rules that seem reasonable but have no comment on the unpleasant ones.

 

What hits me is the "no comment" re unpleasant or unreasonable rules. Some Christians were outraged at the treatment I got and some of these people are probably fundies or moderates. These were people who were with me right in the thick of it and they had nothing to lose.

 

For this Muslim apostate, when her life was in danger, the moderates who are so nice other times would have put their own livelihoods on the line right along with hers if they had stood by her. And the Christians who sided with my sibs--I don't think they knew that I deconverted from religion altogether but I really wouldn't know what all floats around town. The funeral was all over and done with I guess they figured I should just get over it or something.

 

That being the case, maybe they don't deserve to know anything about my background. People always want to know all about me and my relationship with my family when they find out who I am and that I am studying. Well, maybe if they are going to stick up with my sibs against me where it really counts, just possibly they don't deserve to know the juicy stuff to begin with.

 

Anyway, back to the "no comment" thing. No Comment is like "no commitment." Maybe that is why I have so much respect for my thesis supervisor. He raised the topic on his own. He told me that the passage in 1 Cor. 5 is meant to be used for a very specific situation and not to be extrapolated for other types of situations. I pointed out that this is exactly what my sibs and their church are doing. He said, "I know and that's not what it's meant for." Did that ever give me the fuzzies!

 

SOMEBODY CARES!

 

I suggested he tell my family. I thought they might take it from a Christian. He's the second Christian I've asked to talk with my family. He pointed out that a seminary prof would hardly be taken seriously and I realized how absolutely right he was. His education and position is such a huge demerit that it actually pulls him down to an "almost atheist" level.

 

He commented. He took time out of his schedule to do it. That mades all the difference in the world.

[Amethyst]

The problem with moderate Christianity is that it coerces people to be fake, not only to others but themselves as well. They're fake about their beliefs, usually cherry-picking what they like and throwing everything else out, regardless of whether or not their church actually teaches those things. They're also encouraged to be fake about their emotions, only being outwardly happy around others, no matter what they are really feeling. This is not emotionally healthy.

 

Why do people do it? Because they want the social status that comes with being a member of the popular religion -- Christianity. They want to be loved and accepted for being a member of that religion. Most likely, their own families either knowingly or unwittingly place conditions on being loved and accepted, and believing is one of those conditions. They probably never got the message that they were okay no matter what.

 

If only we as a society could get over this notion of conditional love and acceptance.

[R. S. Martin]

Continuing with the "no comment" line of thought....

 

This is from Open_Minded in Checkmate's CINO thread in the Lion's Den:

 

But.... I also know ... that because I made a concentrated effort to educate the more conservative members of our mainstream congregation one grandmother had a very long talk with one grand-daughter about what it means to be "Christian" and how hurtful her behavior towards another student had been. And, maybe, just maybe... someday this girl will question and learn from that incident.

 

This lady seems to be for real--not a "no comment" type of Christian. She is doing stuff that nonChristians can't do. If you read the whole story it might make more sense. This young girl got into major trouble with her school because she hassled an "unsaved" student. Her grandmother, a conservative member at Open_Minded's church, had picked up enough "liberal" theology from Open_Minded to talk with her granddaughter about how wrong her behaviour was.

 

Because Open_Minded is Christian she is trusted by people who would politely nod and dismiss us apostates.

 

She goes on to say:

 

I don't know.... there are no easy answers. But, Christianity is like anything else - it evolves over time and changes along with the times and the cultures which express it. Liberal Christians, are playing their own role in bringing Christianity out of the modern fundy dark ages.

 

I agree with her. There are no easy answers. It is a very complex situation. Maybe the best thing is for all of us to be real, in touch with our feelings. I think this is what you getting at, Amethyst. But not only in touch with our feelings, also in touch with our real selves, with who we really are deep down. We may have so many thick layers of hurt and anger that our real selves are buried beneath that just being in touch with these feelings will not be constructive or productive. This seems to cut right across the board and has nothing to do with religion or no religion. It is the human condition.

[Grandpa Harley]

To me, moderates are enablers... the respected and respectable face of an evil cult...

[Alice]

So much in life is subjective and I'm aware that this might be one such situation ... but

 

I'd say - yes, moderates are 'enablers' - but from quite the reverse position - I agree with O_M on this one. They enable a significant number of fundamentalists to moderate their views by demonstrating different ways of being 'christian'. Fundamentalist faith to non faith (whilst I accept some are able to do this) is often a step too far for some to accomplish in one step.

 

Maybe its a two way street and moderates recruit a percentage of people to liberal christianity that go on to become fundamentalists so this might cancel out what I see as an advantage ... but I'm not aware of it happening too often. Fundamentalists are skilled at taking in people with little or no Christian background - in fact they prefer it that way.

 

Gramps - don't you think maybe that the good ole' Church of England is one defence against the advance of fundamentalism in the UK? I know they are perhaps less universalist and liberal and more confused and biscuits but their 'accept everyone and just be nice' approach seems to contribute to the idea that the exclusiveness of fundamentalism just ain't cricket.

[R. S. Martin]

In my reading of James Barr, a Brit, I get the understanding that in the UK the fundies are just cliques within the larger church. But in North America they are separate denominations.

 

That being said, I know from my own experience of having been a Mennonite of two different denominations that the liberal/moderate branch (which is probably fundy in religious beliefs but moderate in culture) has actively "covered" for the radical conservative. The Mennonite Central Committee acted as advocates for the horse and buggy people to the government when the government wanted to pass laws that conflicted with the religious convictions of the horse and buggy people. That's a very concrete example of the moderate/liberal element being the enablers of the conservative element. But in what are they moderate? In culture. Hardly in beliefs.

 

Very complex so far as I can see.

 

Forbidding a person from living their inmost convictions violates my inmost convictions--so long as they don't hurt anyone. But at what point are people being hurt? And what constitutes "hurt"? What if people are convinced beyond question that hell is real? In such cases I think it is wrong to force them to forego their convictions. Yet I also think it is wrong to force people to conform to social norms that are incompatible with their nature on threat of hell. Hell is one hellish doctrine that should never have been invented. But it was invented and we are having to deal with it in our generation in all its ugliness.

[Grandpa Harley]

Al, not really, since the African Church of England is on the ascent in power and those lads are pretty Conservative - No women clergy, Gays are an abomination before the Lord. The Welsh Git had a chance to make a stand for a more Liberal view but came down on the side of the Bishop of York and his cronies about most thing, rather than risk a Schism... and that all but engendered the more Liberal New England Episcopalians leaving the communion. Lot of horse trading , and a lot of ground given up by the Liberal Anglo Catholic Communion later the church didn't split and the whole organisation was moved back to the 1950s.

 

The Liberals, to me, operate a lot like the damping rods in a nuclear reactor. The keep the runaway processes in check, and stop the whole edifice imploding then exploding. If you could pull the liberals out, the whole thing would fall apart as people left in droves and the Conservative's 'power base with them.

 

To use a different simile; the liberals are the elderly Aunt who continuously apologises for Great Uncle George, who farts loudly while cleaning his half denture (or popping out his glass eye ans sucking it clean) at the table and has a nasty habit of goosing or groping any female over the age of 12 and under menopause, thus preventing Great Uncle George for being castigated as the foul old creature he is...

 

The problem with a battle between Liberal and Conservative forces in a construct like the church is that it's not possible to goodnaturedly tolerate a group who, if they thought the law would turn a blind eye, would stone you to death in the alley behind the parsonage.

[Alice]

We are back to subjective views are we not? My own experience is that the fundamentalists in my family were certainly tempered by their involvement in the C of E and they've all gotten more extreme outside of the influence of the C of E.

 

I'm not convinced that the African anglican churches would be less of a problem without the moderating influence of the C of E. I accept that the desire to keep the Anglican communion together ties the hands of the moderates in some respect.

[Grandpa Harley]

What is the benefit of exposure to Liberals? Effectively the modify the Conservative's behaviour just enough to make them acceptable in the General Population... when really they should be treated as what they are - the Toxic waste of our culture... to use a cancer analogy, just because all the cells ina tumour aren't able to metastasise doesn't mean they should be tolerated...

 

Thus, my subjective view is let the fundies wipe themselves out in a China Syndrome of prejudice, hate and incest... a moderate intestinal parasite is still an unwelcome guest in your colon, and to me, generally monotheist religions are monstrous filarial worm infections on our society... leaving it shuffling, moribund, dragging its Elephantiasised lower extremities along as governments have to accommodate their contagion...

[Alice]

Thus, my subjective view is let the fundies wipe themselves out in a China Syndrome of prejudice, hate and incest... a moderate intestinal parasite is still an unwelcome guest in your colon, and to me, generally monotheist religions are monstrous filarial worm infections on our society... leaving it shuffling, moribund, dragging its Elephantiasised lower extremities along as governments have to accommodate their contagion...

 

I guess I simply could not sign up to this as a solution. I do not see fundamentalists in the way that you do. I see a group of real people many of whom may spurt hate and predjudice but for the most part are confused, muddled, brainwashed, often born and raised - victims of a belief sytem that it pretty effective at hooking people in. Whatever their belief sytem I would not want to abandon anyone to such a fate. I think - in fact I know that the majority of fundamentalists can be rescued. Liberal christians are often the only ones who can get in with a life line.

 

I might have been a pickle inside - but I was a fundamentalist Gramps. I am grateful to every single moderate I encountered on my journey to freedom.

 

Going with your colon analogy - the liberals are better viewed as friendly bacteria.

[Grandpa Harley]

I view them as people... but like any person or animal, they should adapt or die. Bear in mind, I'm ruthlessly Darwinian enough to hold the opinion that there I have nothing in my gene pool worth passing on.

 

Hell, I don't blame someone for them suffering Ebola, but I wouldn't want them crashing (and bleeding out, and rupturing) in my living room... Fundamentalist, Conservative what ever one wishes to call them are a contagion as you point out. However, the Liberals hook folks IN as well as out... People who'd cross the road to avoid a fundie like a leper could easily be sucked into more hard line company by someone who seems almost 'normal'. Liberal Christianity is just another filovirus of a meme waiting to mutate into something Haemorrhagic and hard on the soft furnishings.

 

Thus, without the liberals acting like 'beards' at a Mega-church ministers' convention they get outed a lot quicker for what they are, and then either adapt or move out of the general population and stagnate in a long twilight of ever more extravagant genetic decadence and decline like the Amish, the Mennonite, the Plymouth Brethren etc... thus they become a dead race...

 

You got out. Cool. However, the door marked exit can also be used as an entrance. Thus I don't see the delineation between Liberal and Consrevative on that one... they have the same taint. Liberal Christians are no more happy to see you leave the flock than Fundies, they're just more polite about it. From this side of the fence they are certainly NOT running an underground railroad.

 

In O_M's post on the Grinch thread she mentions the story of the Grandmother... If the girl in question had been allowed to carry on in that view. well, in the end the sane would ostracise her, and the occasional back hander from a peer would be illustration enough in the error of her ways. In the end, some people only understand a punch in the mouth.

[Open_Minded]

OK .... it seems that my status as a liberal Christian seems to make some people very angry - why I don't know - but it does. Mr. Grinch explained himself quite well in the thread he started. And I am grateful for that - but, still there seems to be an element of anger in the sister thread Peanus, Err, Peanut Gallery For Checkmate's Cino, If you must ask.... http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=329922

 

And here in this thread....

 

Since I'm not allowed to post in the "Peanus, Err.... " thread I will post here.

 

1st to Address one issue that came up.....

 

 

DevaLight: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=331136

 

Agree that people can call themselves whatever they want to. In regular life out on the street, we wouldn't question them about their beliefs at all unless they brought it up. That would be rude. However, if they want to come on a discussion site that says "ex-christian" seems like they ought to be prepared to defend or explain why they continue to call themselves "christian," in whatever sense.

 

Deva - you don't know me - so I'm going to explain a few things.

 

1st - the reason I participated in Mr. Grinch's thread is because I am prepared to "defend or explain" why I call myself Christian. You just don't like my explanation. There is a difference you know - why all the anger on your part? Have you ever taken time to get to know me as a person??????

 

If you had, if you had taken the time to become acquainted with me then you might have learned WHY I came to ex-christian.net to begin with - instead of jumping to conclusions at least get the facts. You may find the facts here:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=119200

 

Hello Everyone:

 

By now I hope you all know that I am an open-minded Christian. I have a problem I'm hoping you can help me with. Am not sure which discussion to post in - if this is the wrong place just let me know where I'm suppose to move the topic and I'll comply.

 

Problem in short:

 

Our home is full of teenagers, most of the time joyous, giggling, happy girl teenagers. Our teens are your average well rounded teens brought up with a deep respect for all the world's religions and respect for all people in general. But, many of their friends have not and that is where the problem is.

 

Right now there are two teen girls - 15 and 16 who are in our house on a daily basis. They are good friends of our own 15 year old daughter.

 

Both of these girls come from dysfunctional families and have fallen prey to the local 180 youth group at a very fundamentalist church.

 

One of the girls I am particularly worried about. Her parents love her the best that they can. They are generally good people, but they are alcoholics. This child is having thoughts of suicide and the particular brand of Christianity that she has gotten pulled into is exasperating the problem.

 

Please trust me here... whatever I can do to help this child I will. If becoming agnostic, or atheist, or Buddhist, or whatever is what she needs for health, I will do whatever I can to help her. I DON"T CARE WHAT RELIGION A PERSON IS - or IS NOT (for all you atheists and agnostics out there). But, right now I just have to find a way to help her see how negative, destructive and fearful her current church is.

 

What I need from all of you are the titles of some books that a very vulnerable 15 year old girl can read. The books you suggest cannot go after Christianity in a hard-core way. She couldn't handle it right now. She needs reading material geared at a young-adult female, giving her permission to trust herself. Giving her permission to read the bible differently and look at God differently than she does now.

 

Please keep in mind that she is a female being told by her youth pastor that any major decisions she makes in her life she must talk to him about because she is just a weak female. The first thing I have to do is convince her that she can walk away from that.

 

I am open to any advice you have to offer and titles of any books geared towards a very vulnerable young teen. Thanks in advance.

 

One last thing - I put this post in the Rants and Raves section because I'd truly love to rant about the church she's involved with, but right now I'm just simply worried.

 

Grandpa Harley:

 

You got out. Cool. However, the door marked exit can also be used as an entrance. Thus I don't see the delineation between Liberal and Consrevative on that one... they have the same taint. Liberal Christians are no more happy to see you leave the flock than Fundies, they're just more polite about it. From this side of the fence they are certainly NOT running an underground railroad.

I've only one response to that blanket assumption - read the thread I linked to earlier - in particular notice this quote - from me - to this board....

 

Please trust me here... whatever I can do to help this child I will.

If becoming agnostic, or atheist, or Buddhist, or whatever is what she needs for health, I will do whatever I can to help her.

I DON"T CARE WHAT RELIGION A PERSON IS - or IS NOT (for all you atheists and agnostics out there). But, right now I just have to find a way to help her see how negative, destructive and fearful her current church is.

 

Don't sit there and make blanket judgments about Liberal Christians, that makes you no different than the fundies who make blanket assumptions about Atheists. You don't know me, or a lot of other liberal Christians. You don't know what motivates us, why we move through life the way we do.... you don't know enough of us to make an assumption like that - with no basis in fact. The fact is - I came to this board to learn how to actively assist a young girl who was caught up in fundamentalism. The fact is - I didn't give a hoot whether her being "saved" from fundamentalism would mean that she'd end up as agnostic or atheist. The fact is - and you don't know this about me because you've never bothered to ask, or learn, I don't give a shit what anyone calls themselves - which is why I can't understand why it bothers you so much what I call myself.....

 

 

In O_M's post on the Grinch thread she mentions the story of the Grandmother... If the girl in question had been allowed to carry on in that view. well, in the end the sane would ostracise her, and the occasional back hander from a peer would be illustration enough in the error of her ways. In the end, some people only understand a punch in the mouth.

Your response has all the compassion of a fundamentalist Christian, congratulations...

 

Again, if you'd bothered to think with your brain rather than your anger you would realize this young girl was raised within fundamentalism. She had no freaken choice - her parents took her to a fundy church. She was merely spewing forth the hatred she'd been taught in that church when she got into trouble at school. And quite frankly, I've much more sympathy for the teens and young adults coming into my life who make erroneous assumptions about other people because of what they've been taught then I do for full grown adults who make erroneous assumptions simply because they are filled with anger and don't want to take the time to get to know a person as an individual.

 

Your callous attitude towards this young girl says much about you Grandpa Harley - and none of it good. In the past - I've enjoyed reading many of posts throughout this board. I've enjoyed your wit - but, never again will I be able to freely enjoy your wit without remembering how callous you were towards a young girl.... You don't know her, you don't know her grandmother and you don't know me and yet you feel you have the right to sit in judgment. You are a fundamentalist at heart - just Darwinian that's all......

[Vigile]

OM, for some reason I feel like you are closer to us than say a Current Christian. Personally I like both you guys, but I haven't seen you cherry pick the way he does. It may be irrational, but a lot of us get a bit irritated with cherry picking as it seems intellectually dishonest. I'm still not entirely sure why you choose the label you do, but from what I've seen, you seem to be pretty intellectually honest.

 

I think you just like to be a rebel; even here

[Alice]

I have to back O_M on this one. When I arrived on these boards it was in the incarnation of 'Hesitent', (which reflected my position about leaving Christianity as well as my poor spelling ability).

 

As I worked through my feelings and views one of the people who gave me her full support in respect to the path I decided to travel - and who expressed heartfelt joy when I took - what was a positive step for me and left the label 'Christian' behind - was O_M, because she recognised the personal benefits for me and applauds positive personal development whatever outward form it takes ... I could say a lot more - but nuff said I think.

 

The amazing thing about evolution is that empathy and love have started to evolve - as has our capacity to learn and to be 'reformed' - we no more have to be slaves to ancient instincts than we have to be slaves to ancient Gods.

 

O_M - I would say. 'be cautious with your use of 'I will never again ...' although I agree that 'adapt or die' when used by Gramps in this context leaves a horrid fundamentalist flavour in my mouth also - uck.

[Deva]

Mr. Grinch explained himself quite well in the thread he started.

 

Well since I said I basically agreed with him, where is the misunderstanding?

 

Deva - you don't know me - so I'm going to explain a few things.

 

1st - the reason I participated in Mr. Grinch's thread is because I am prepared to "defend or explain" why I call myself Christian. You just don't like my explanation. There is a difference you know - why all the anger on your part? Have you ever taken time to get to know me as a person??????

 

Obviously, as you say, I don't know you. My post, which you seem to be so upset about, was directed to FirstintheDance, not you. FirstintheDance was the one that said, or implied, that Christians were not obligated to explain themselves. All I said was that I thought due to the nature and title of this web site, I thought they were. Sorry if you and others don't like it but I am also entitled to air my views.

[Open_Minded]

I think you just like to be a rebel; even here

you know me too well Vigile

 

Alice... thanks for your support - I mean that.

 

O_M - I would say. 'be cautious with your use of 'I will never again ...'

I stand corrected - I will be able to enjoy Grandpa Harly's wit again, when - and if - he also displays compassion for other human beings. ....

 

DevaLight

 

Obviously, as you say, I don't know you. My post, which you seem to be so upset about, was directed to FirstintheDance, not you. FirstintheDance was the one that said, or implied, that Christians were not obligated to explain themselves. All I said was that I thought due to the nature and title of this web site, I thought they were. Sorry if you and others don't like it but I am also entitled to air my views.

Yes you are DevaLight - you are entitled to air your views... following is your whole post...

 

Thought Checkmate did a fine Opening post, but am sorry to see he has departed from it and is now saying the label doesn't fit because Open_Minded because she is "too good" for it. Maybe he had something in those 20 posts he didn't write that we wish he would have come out with.

 

Agree that people can call themselves whatever they want to. In regular life out on the street, we wouldn't question them about their beliefs at all unless they brought it up. That would be rude. However, if they want to come on a discussion site that says "ex-christian" seems like they ought to be prepared to defend or explain why they continue to call themselves "christian," in whatever sense.

 

You are right, we don't have to like it, or agree with it -- and we don't.

We think ALL forms of xianity are poison and we still think it is a bit dishonest to identify oneself with a church with accepted tenants of belief and not agree with them.

You noticed that I was upset by your post - the reason I am upset is because you were making assumptions....

 

Notice the text in red. Who is the WE in "we think ALL forms of xianity are poison"? Because if the "we" is every ex-christian - that is a MAJOR assumption.

 

And the statement "ALL forms of xianity are poison"?????? How bias is that statement??????? ALL forms of Christianity????

 

That covers every Christian who has ever lived or who will ever live .... that's a pretty wild statement even on the most objective level.

 

How is that statement different from a Fundy saying "we think ALL forms of atheism are poison"????

[Grandpa Harley]

What the fuck is a member of the debate doing on here? Mods???? Clean up in Aisle 3, dummy and baby food spat all over the shop! Histrionics at their finest...

 

and damned right I'm fucking callous... I learned it from Christ followers... I suggest you deal with a "fruit of the spirit" that sprouted in me... The weed of Christ bears bitter fruit...

[Open_Minded]

What the fuck is a member of the debate doing on here? Mods???? Clean up in Aisle 3, dummy and baby food spat all over the shop!

 

and damned right I'm fucking callous... I learned it from Christ followers... I suggest you deal with a "fruit of the spirit" that sprouted in me... The weed of Christ bears bitter fruit...

 

(sigh).....

 

I rest my case - the evidence speaks for itself......

 

 

(sigh) (shaking head)

[Grandpa Harley]

Oops this isn't the peanut gallery.... my deepest apologies to the mods... dummies can be spat here.

[Deva]

You noticed that I was upset by your post - the reason I am upset is because you were making assumptions....

 

Notice the text in red. Who is the WE in "we think ALL forms of xianity are poison"? Because if the "we" is every ex-christian - that is a MAJOR assumption.

 

OK - change "we" to "I" Happy now?

 

And the statement "ALL forms of xianity are poison"?????? How bias is that statement??????? ALL forms of Christianity????

 

That covers every Christian who has ever lived or who will ever live .... that's a pretty wild statement even on the most objective level.

 

Yeah it may be a wild statement, but that's the way I feel, I'm entitled to say it and I stand by it, whether you or anyone else likes it or not.

[Alice]

What the fuck is a member of the debate doing on here? Mods???? Clean up in Aisle 3, dummy and baby food spat all over the shop! Histrionics at their finest

 

Hey - I think these two threads are so similar I'm confused as to what is supposed to be where .... we've pretty much as a group been participating in both threads ... Gramps - O_Mis perfectly entitiled to be in this one but O_M, I think you have cut from one thread and answered in the other which may not be in the spirit of the set up (and is a real drawback for debaters who participate in the closed threads)

 

and damned right I'm fucking callous... I learned it from Christ followers... I suggest you deal with a "fruit of the spirit" that sprouted in me... The weed of Christ bears bitter fruit...

 

But Gramps I call you on this. 'you learnt it from Christ followers' ... I didn't take you for one who'd play the blame game. Its your deal Gramps - no one elses.

 

You've decided because you've decided you've decided.

[Grandpa Harley]

Basically I have to start out be forging people for being Christian at the outset. To me, Liberal Chrsitianity cannot be simply viewed of as the methadone of hard liners, since it also acts as a gateway drug.

 

and apropos the girl, who is O_M to ajudge her 'worth saving'? 'I know the girl' isn't really a saving grace, since they're all in the same cult... and her parents (and thus her grandparents one level removed) had clearly done a sterling job of indoctrination...

 

So, how does one pick the lesser evil?

[Alice]

Notice the text in red. Who is the WE in "we think ALL forms of xianity are poison"? Because if the "we" is every ex-christian - that is a MAJOR assumption.

 

O_M, I think when Deva used the 'we' it was part of her response about taking the same line as Mr Grinch, so it was 'we' as in Deva and Checkmate. (I misread this also and Deva had already clarified for me) I think our posts are all crossing over at the moment,

 

Just to add to the confusion I've edited a couple of mine after other people had responded, but before I'd seen their replies ...

 

Deva,

 

I hear what you are saying ...

 

Yeah it may be a wild statement, but that's the way I feel, I'm entitled to say it and I stand by it, whether you or anyone else likes it or not.

 

I don't think that anyone is intending to imply that you have such an entitlement. It can be useful to talk around and discuss the reasons we hold the beliefs that we do and generally the most enlightening conversations happen when people are able to do just this.