Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

I'm Beginning To See The Light


R. S. Martin

Recommended Posts

Fundies really do live in an alternative reality and if I want to function I need to stick around people who acknowledge concrete reality as I experience it and as it is empirically provable by science. The invisible world of their fantasy is more real to them than the here and now of the physical world.

 

As a few of you know, I've been talking on a conservative Mennonite forum the past few weeks trying to deal with some old devils. Not too many exMennonites here to work through the stuff here and I can't really do this stuff face to face--don't have the guts or whatever and my church doesn't have a website so I found this forum.

 

I went there with the intention to be meek and humble like Mennonites are supposed to be. (You can be nasty and fight once you're established as really being meek and humble.) Seems I played my cards right. I read the rules, posted on a few threads about noncontraversial topics. I asked the manager in pm about posting stuff that challenges the faith but didn't get an answer for a week so I contacted a member who said it would be okay. So I posted a thread and started in slow.

 

The thread got more and more involved. Along the line I got an answer from the manager saying disagreements are okay but "there is a difference between coming onto a forum (Christian, or whatever) and having some questions or wanting some honest discussion, and coming onto a forum in order to correct everybody and start a riot."

 

Yeah, okay, I intend to be respectful of their right to believe as they see fit but I will disagree. However, what I want is honest discussion.

 

Things have happened that make me wonder if perhaps we define "honest discussion" differently.

 

A few people think I don't have peace. Fine. I think I do and I say so, but they don't have to believe it. I don't tell them about this last part because they will have their own opinions regardless of what I say.

 

The topic of my thread is questions about how the Plan of Salvation is supposed to work. People are having a hard time explaining it so that it makes sense to me and after the first two responses, which I basically refuted without effort, they have not really focused on the topic at all.

 

Finally I asked for life stories or experiences to show why they believe as they do, things that happened that convinced them that this or that was true.

 

The manager comes on and tells me that if I am an atheist we need first to establish that God exists before we can discuss the Plan of Salvation. He tells me that if I read the Bible I will see that God works differently with each person. He tells me that a three-year-old child cannot understand these things. Etc.

 

I don't know where the three-year-old child comes from. Maybe from my assertion that I've had these questions since I was a child. Butt-head! I would not be writing the posts on there that I am writing if I were still in the mentality of a three-year-old child. Maybe that is where he is stuck.

 

I'm beginning to think that for him an "honest discussion" means "a discussion that will convert the atheist."

 

The thing is, I'm giving them a chance and they're not taking it. I'm telling them how to do it and they're not following instructions. They keep telling me how I feel about God, and how hard I am trying to justify not believing in God. I am not sure where they get their information because it's just plain wrong. I see a lot of references to "most atheists."

 

I find it almost unreal how much more experience they have with the stereotypical atheist than I do. Given how they attribute wrong motives to me I guess they do the same to any other atheist. Is it possible that they call people atheist who are not? I wouldn't put it past them.

 

They call their fantasy world the spiritual realm. And when they speak, like Kratos does, about us people with a "natural mind" not being able to understand god and the bible I think it is because we refuse to continue the games of fantasy. I'm sure everyone else here knows that but it's an insight I just got due to my venture into fundyland.

 

So that makes a person an atheist. And they, in their heightened state of awareness, know exactly what really goes on in the mind of the atheist and what really motivates the atheist. They're just plain wrong and it's MADDENING!

 

It's impossible to talk with people like that. "Honest discussions" in such a situation are a joke!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's impossible to talk with people like that. "Honest discussions" in such a situation are a joke!

 

This reminds me of the old joke about trying to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of your time, and it just irritates the pig. (or something like that)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The world is two thirds morons...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now I looked to see if anyone has responded since my last post. One person has. Her last post had been a story about a car accident she had. God told her to do this and that and the other thing and she didn't listen right and so this and that went wrong, etc. She informed me how atheists would see it and why, which I took to mean me because I'm the only atheist within shouting distance.

 

Regarding her story, I said:

L___, do you understand the difference between judging the the reason
why
someone else did something and telling
what
happened?

 

When you tell me about the things God told you to do, you are telling me
what
you heard. When you tell me why I don't accept that it was God you are judging the reason
why
someone else did something.

 

What
is objective. Others can look at it and say, Look, that is exactly like this or that item. What makes you so sure it isn't this or that item? We need to analyze it and figure out exactly which item it really is.

 

Why
another person does this or that is subjective to the person doing it. Only the person doing it is qualified to speak on the reasons behind it. Others can only guess and their guesses may well be wrong.

 

So no, I am not at all doing to you what I asked you not to do to me. If you do not agree with this analysis now that it has been pointed out to you, further communication will probably not be productive.

 

I say this because you are attributing motives to me that are simply not true. I cannot communicate with people who do that.

She objects now that she meant atheists-in-general. Apparently that doesn't include me so I should not take that personally. Oh, okay.

 

She goes through all of my points and likewise refutes them all. Oh okay. I am, after all, on her territory.

 

But I find this one ludicrous:

Me:
What
is objective. Others can look at it and say, Look, that is exactly like this or that item. What makes you so sure it isn't this or that item? We need to analyze it and figure out exactly which item it really is.
Her:
AND MANKIND is SOOOOOO smart that they can analyze EVERYTHING and figure out EVERYTHING...... UMMM I don't buy into that.
The agnostics and atheists did NOT look at all the evidence concerning the cat my dad was driving and it sliding off of the edge of the pit into the water. They did not present any evidence that would disprove what happened to my dad.

And that's supposed to be a refutation? This is supposed to be "serious discussion"? Gramps, you're right, we've got morons galore, but this goes over the edge! When being smart and analyzing stuff and figuring stuff out--why is she not buying it?

 

And what's this about her dad and the cat and the pit and water? I thought she was talking about herself and her car on the road.

 

Why the change of topic in the middle of the argument?

 

I'm beginning to see why I never fitted into my own family. They operated by this kind of emotional logic. Cliches, irrational as they may be, to fill in the blanks. Switching topics to prove your point and maintain the emotional status quo.

 

YUP!!!! I think that is the rock foundation of fundamentalist religion--maintaining the emotional status quo. No matter what the cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's impossible to talk with people like that. "Honest discussions" in such a situation are a joke!

 

This reminds me of the old joke about trying to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of your time, and it just irritates the pig. (or something like that)

 

Sadly true. So the best I know to do is take an object lesson from it about how fundamentalist religion works. Because I'm determined to get at the bottom of how the fundamentalist mind works and I'm making progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that's supposed to be a refutation? This is supposed to be "serious discussion"? Gramps, you're right, we've got morons galore, but this goes over the edge! When being smart and analyzing stuff and figuring stuff out--why is she not buying it?

 

And what's this about her dad and the cat and the pit and water? I thought she was talking about herself and her car on the road.

 

Why the change of topic in the middle of the argument?

 

I'm beginning to see why I never fitted into my own family. They operated by this kind of emotional logic. Cliches, irrational as they may be, to fill in the blanks. Switching topics to prove your point and maintain the emotional status quo.

 

YUP!!!! I think that is the rock foundation of fundamentalist religion--maintaining the emotional status quo. No matter what the cost.

 

I think cat was a typo for car. R and T are next to each other.

 

But yeah. Fundies can be so narrowly focused on their own little world. That is why they are fundies. The church tells people that they are not smart enough to figure things out on their own as a method of controlling them. People believe this because they've been told it for years. If they started thinking for themselves, the church would not have as much power as they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that's supposed to be a refutation? This is supposed to be "serious discussion"? Gramps, you're right, we've got morons galore, but this goes over the edge! When being smart and analyzing stuff and figuring stuff out--why is she not buying it?

 

And what's this about her dad and the cat and the pit and water? I thought she was talking about herself and her car on the road.

 

Why the change of topic in the middle of the argument?

 

I'm beginning to see why I never fitted into my own family. They operated by this kind of emotional logic. Cliches, irrational as they may be, to fill in the blanks. Switching topics to prove your point and maintain the emotional status quo.

 

YUP!!!! I think that is the rock foundation of fundamentalist religion--maintaining the emotional status quo. No matter what the cost.

 

I think cat was a typo for car. R and T are next to each other.

 

Now I get it. I remember the story from earlier. He was operating heavy machinery. Maybe it was a caterpillar--cat for short--and broke through the ice. Got trapped underneath and was "miraculously" saved from drowning.

 

Now I'll read the rest of your post. I was thinking dead animal. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The church tells people that they are not smart enough to figure things out on their own as a method of controlling them. People believe this because they've been told it for years. If they started thinking for themselves, the church would not have as much power as they do.

 

That statement is very true. It's the same with many organizations, too. The military is a classic example, but they, unlike the church, actually teach you something you can use and that will benefit you. The church doesn't want you to think. The church doesn't want to hear your questions. The church doesn't want anyone to be anything but a controllable droid. Anything out of that scope is dangerous for them.

 

The people you're trying to have a discussion with aren't prepared to "discuss". They're only prepared to regurgitate doctrine and to echo the sentiments and statements they hear from those they associate with. It's gives them safety and in responding like they do, they're keeping their own questions at bay. Perhaps it's safe to say that nearly all of us were once the same way. All you can do is continue trying or to let it go. Whatever you choose, I hope you find the answers that work for you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ruby,

 

I wrote a post long time back, over a year at least, called Alternate Reality of the Christian Mind. Or something like that. Basically, christians live in an alternative reality and there isn't anything we can do about that. We can't even try to speak to most of them about it, because they already have their pat answers to anything we might say. It is like there is a wall and we walk on one side and they walk on the other.

 

I'll have to look it up. The concept has definitely occurred to me. It IS an alternate reality. The problem is I can speak that language but I feel like a fake if I do. Besides, if they ever find out that I'm faking being a Christian, I'll get eaten alive. I can't do it with these but if I did it with another group.

 

I did post a response to her post. I used a strategy I learned from the Four Horsemen. I'll see how badly that backfires. Dennett mentioned a "bag of tricks" and used the word "con-artist." Here's what I posted:

 

Let's get this thread back on track.

 

Lark, you think you heard God talking to you about the car accident and that if you had listened closely enough it would not have happened. However, this is what you say about analyzing situations to be sure what actually happened:

 

ME: What is objective. Others can look at it and say, Look, that is exactly like this or that item. What makes you so sure it isn't this or that item? We need to analyze it and figure out exactly which item it really is. HER: AND MANKIND is SOOOOOO smart that they can analyze EVERYTHING and figure out EVERYTHING...... UMMM I don't buy into that.The agnostics and atheists did NOT look at all the evidence concerning the cat my dad was driving and it sliding off of the edge of the pit into the water. They did not present any evidence that would disprove what happened to my dad.

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that but I get the impression that cross-examination is off-limits.

 

This is the kind of behaviour one would expect from a con-artist or a fly-by-night sales person. A God that cannot stand up to scrutiny is not real. Truth can stand scrutiny no matter what.

 

Any Intelligent Designer that designed me would explain himself to me in a way that made sense to me. The very fact that I expect him to do so proves that I am willing for him to exist.

 

Now let's move on to the Plan of Salvation.

  • Adam sinned so everyone is evil by default.
  • Jesus died so everyone is made good by default.

Problem: To become evil, all we have to do is be born human. To become good we have to believe that Jesus' death makes us good but we are not allowed to know how it works.

 

God has until I die to answer that question. When I am dead it will be too late.

 

I'm probably cutting my own throat. Sometimes I wonder why I can't just leave things alone, but then, I notice there's others on here who are just as adamant on pushing things. Maybe that's why we're ex to begin with. :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I go and yell at them? :scratch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Madame, I read your thread about Alternative Reality of a Christian Mind. Excellent insights--your OP and the responses. Here's a quote from the OP:

 

Giving Us Their Castoffs

 

On that train of thought, I am tired of Christians trying to keep the church's reputation pristine by handing us their cast-offs. A Christian is a true Christian until they do something that is evil or embarrasses the church. Then they are relegated to "unbeliever" status. Thus they continually ptu their bad members into the "those outside the church group. Thus we are lumped into the same group with their bad people, and get the blame for bad behavior that should rightly fall on christian side. Kind of like playing a ball game with corrupt referrees.

 

A lot of the people on that forum keep talking about "most atheists" as though they run into atheists every day. They seem to know more about atheists than I do after a year and a half here on exC and reading articles on places like Internet Infidels. I just get the feeling I've gotten all my life--that I'm not quite with it. BUT. This paragraph tells me why they know so much about atheists. They invent the atheists.

 

That fits exactly with the experience I had with my little sister. From my post in Is Atheism a Religion:

 

I've been trying to forget it but you should have heard the telephone conversation my sister had with me. The things she accused me of believing were just plain amazing.

 

Here's the information she had:

 

1. I don't believe in the Bible God of Israel.

2. I was investigating Paganism

 

Conclusion: Ruby is an atheist.

 

She proceeded to tell me what I believed.

In the Four Horsement Daniel Dennett said something I found really empowering:

Somebody plays the faith card and says "Look, I'm a Christian and we Christians just have to believe this. That's it." At that point, the polite thing to say is, "Well if that's true, you'll just have to excuse yourself from the discussion because you've declared yourself incompetent to proceed with an open mind. If you really can't defend your view, sorry but you can't put it forward. We're not going to let you play the faith card. Now if you want to defend what your hold book says in terms that we can appreciate--fine! But because it says it in the holy book that doesn't cut any ice at all. And if you thin it does--

 

First of all, that is just arrogant. It is a bullying more and we're just not going to accept it."

I find it empowering because it tells me I have the right not to take the flak anymore. I have the right to my own beliefs and I don't have to apologize for them, either. In fact, the person who should be apologizing is the Christian.

 

Hitchens explained why he thinks all religion is dangerous: It shuts down the mind, the only thing we've got. This woman not only shuts down her mind--she glorifies in doing so and ridicules those who use their mind.

 

Yet her inerrant god-inspired infallible Bible condemns people for burying their talents. IT MAKES NO SENSE!!!

 

Like Hitchens and Dennett say, there was a time when they had the power to kill us--and to take days to do it--and they forget that the rules have changed. They will play out the psychological torture with self-righteous impunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I go and yell at them? :scratch:

 

Here's the url http://www.holdeman.org/forums/showthread....p=1776#post1776, but I think you have to sign up in order to get in to read and post.

 

NOTE: My post looks like I'm yelling because there's a lot of bolded stuff. That's because of the software program I copied the quote from. I tried changing it but it didn't work. But yes you have my permission to go and yell. I'd prefer not to be named, though. They might see it as starting a riot if they knew I was connected with a yelling person, if you get what I mean. I don't think you're serious?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That statement is very true. It's the same with many organizations, too. The military is a classic example, but they, unlike the church, actually teach you something you can use and that will benefit you. The church doesn't want you to think. The church doesn't want to hear your questions. The church doesn't want anyone to be anything but a controllable droid. Anything out of that scope is dangerous for them.

 

The people you're trying to have a discussion with aren't prepared to "discuss". They're only prepared to regurgitate doctrine and to echo the sentiments and statements they hear from those they associate with. It's gives them safety and in responding like they do, they're keeping their own questions at bay. Perhaps it's safe to say that nearly all of us were once the same way. All you can do is continue trying or to let it go. Whatever you choose, I hope you find the answers that work for you!

 

I missed this post. You must have posted while I was writing. The church pretends to provide answers for all of life's circumstances. Now if only it can figure out how to make the answers work, it might actually be of value. That day has yet to dawn and I don't anticipate it happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, this week's pet peeve about dealing with religionbots is their utter cluelessness about standards of proof.

 

A believer has no problem taking personal anecdotes and strong emotions as proof of all kinds of supernatural shenanigans: the existence of god, the interaction of god in their life, what have you. Truth is, personal anecdote and strong emotion don't constitute proof at all - they don't even make good evidence, much less proof. Believers don't seem to get that, and they don't seem to understand why their claims require better evidence than what they have to offer. They don't seem to think that something as potentially important as religious belief should require stringent evidence in its favor before people believe it.

 

It also cheeses me off when believers drop out of an argument with the whole "Nobody can prove the existence of god, and I can't prove anything to you, you wouldn't believe it anyway" cop-out line. Whiskey tango foxtrot?? I don't need proof, I've never needed proof - all I've ever wanted is good, hard, convincing evidence. Not some 2000-year-old text and an unverifiable anecdote about how Jeezus changed somebody's life.

 

Yeah, sorry - there's a reason hearsay and anecdote are crap evidence. There's a reason why they're not good enough for me. There's a reason why I demand rigorous standards for what I'll accept as evidence. It isn't to piss believers off, either, though they sure seem to take it personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem for me is that without "church" (however defined) and with the "bible" how would these people *KNOW* their "god?" If they all tossed these things, before too long, they would walk about believing some hodge-podge of incompatible nonsense. Their *proof* is *in* their book and *in* their church.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The world is two thirds morons...

 

Wow, GH only two thirds, I never took you as the optomistic type. ;)

 

I'm little Mary Sunshine me... just like the Bee Girl!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is like there is a wall and we walk on one side and they walk on the other.

 

I wouldn't mind that if they weren't such fucking noisy neighbours...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that they cannot have what we know to be a reasonable discussion stems from their warped conclusions on what reason is.

 

To wit, they start with an unsupported, and sacred premise that god exists (i.e., it's outside the rules to be able to challenge the premise).

 

Now if you or I were deranged enough to accept a sacred premise that the earth was flat, then the ramblings of us round-earthers would be subject to attack as not reasonable. Well, Ruby, we know the earth is round because of overwhelming evidence: we've mapped the surface and we routinely send satellites in orbit. So if I came out insisting the earth was flat, we'd both insist the other was not capable of a reasonable argument, only you would be right. But there's a good reason why you'd be right: you would not have held a premise as beyond challenge, but instead you would have looked at the evidence. You would have used the evidence to blow my flat earth argument away and then moved on. If any new evidence for a flat earth or flaws in how you arrived at your conclusion came to light (unlikely for something so well established) then it would be incumbent on you to revisit the evidence and either stand on your conclusion, modify it, or abandon it depending on what we learned.

 

This is all very elementary to you and me, but it is totally beyond the religionists with whom you debate. It explains, I think, their mind numbing and frustrating aversion to entertaining a reasonable argument.

 

The conclusions they draw about you on your behalf are hilarious, and as you say, maddening. Presuming to know what goes on in the mind of an atheist (which they have never examined, of course). Concluding that you don't have peace. It reminds me of how people used to insist to me that I was gay before I ever got married or had an obvious girlfriend. In light of how overzealous and self assured their assertions were, it's almost even more annoying that nobody has suggested I'm gay within the last ten years. Your group members' conclusions as to whether you have peace or not are just as flimsy and no more valid. I can only share your sense of incredulity and bang my head with you.

 

:banghead:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I'm determined to get at the bottom of how the fundamentalist mind works and I'm making progress.

 

Ruby, you may find this book of interest. It's written by a Jewish Psycologist who went born-again for a few years, then wised up and de-converted. Being a Psycologist , he goes through and details each and every trick they play to get your brain to shut down.

 

I should warn you, this book was highly responsible for bringing on my anger phase. However, prior to reading this book, I held the view that the church is just outdated, and for the most part, benign and misguided. Then I saw how similar brainwashing and religious indoctrination are.

 

In the end chapter he tells about his work helping others leave the fold and he said that most everyone, upon figuring out the sham, goes on a mission to read everything they can about science, history, and the like. He says it is almost like we are trying to catch up and fill in the gapeing holes in our knowledge that the church dug. Like we finally woke up and realized how thirsty we are.

 

The Mind of the Bible Believer, by Edmund D. Cohen ISBN# 0-87975-495-8

 

http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Bible-Believer-...6773&sr=8-1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all your support. Shackled, the banging head metaphor fits well. I was going to let them stew in their own sweat but curiosity got the best of me and I saw a new voice on the thread. After some confusion I figured out it's the police officer I've been corresponding with. Not even he can actually address the questions of the thread. He is more articulate and clear-headed than the uneducated housewives but when it comes to the faith he's as fundy as the rest. Here's my response to him:

 

First of all, you sidetrack and derail the thread and don't answer my questions. Obviously you don't know the answers. Must be that your faith is blind and God doesn't exist. It is amazing how people try to convert the atheist with empty witness, and by avoiding the real questions. This violates Jesus' command in the NT.

 

He says to always be prepared to talk about the hope that is in you. I have yet to find Christians who can actually do that persuasively and convincingly. They would have to provide the evidence and proof that what they are saying manifests in real life in a way that means something in my own life, that makes my life better than it already is. Obviously, no one is better qualified than the individual to judge how good his or her life already is.

 

On to your questions:

 

Originally Posted by Farmer viewpost.gif Tender,

1. Why do you try to make God into your next door neighbor or a college professor? Why does God own anyone any explanation? God created us and has granted us the gift of salvation and eternal life if only we believe in Him, accept the gift of the sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ, and turn our lives in obedience and worship to Him. Is that asking too much of us?

 

Before you can make that statement you need to prove that he exists.

 

People say things like "my God would never condemn anyone" or "The God I would worship would never allow suffering" well take a look in the Bible, there is only one God the Bible is where you will find him.

 

Before we can take the Bible as authoritative we have to find a standard outside the Bible by which to prove that it is true.

 

He doesn't personalize Himself to each of us like some kind of "made-to-order" birthday cake! Furthermore, if God were to make everything "sugar plums and happiness" with no bad things or illness or sin or bad choices allowed to occur, you would have no free will to exercize, and isn't free will the right you demand when you choose not to believe in God and go your own way?

 

I have a question. I read in some of your posts that you have been having some pretty serious problems in your own life--lost a barn to fire, lost friends who would have supposedly been helping rebuild the barn but didn't because they disagreed that you should be married to the man you're married to because his first wife is still alive, and children have left the faith in the turmoil. If you are unable to read the humans in your own life well enough to live in harmony with them, on what grounds do you claim to know this much about a Being who, according to the Bible, has thoughts and ways so far above your own as the heavens are above the earth?

 

A major human misreading I see is the church you and your husband had chosen. I forget which posts or threads contain which information but I know I read somewhere on the public forums that he works as a military or police officer and that the church you had been with was a Mennonite church. I was a Mennonite so long as I went to church (nearly 50 years), and I know Mennonite theology inside out. I don't know too much about what all police officers do but I think they bear arms and swear the oath. So far as I know, those two things are forbidden by all Mennonite Confessions of Faith.

 

Mennonite Confessions of Faith are written in human language and preached in human language. How can you, who understand human language, somehow fail to understand that yet claim to know the inner workings of God's mind?

 

2. Why do you use such inflamatory language to describe a "Plan of Salvation"? Adam and Eve's fall and expulsion from Eden brought sin into the world. Man becomes a sinful being not "evil" as you describe. The sacrifice of Jesus Christ does not render man automatically "good" but becomes the ultimate sacrifice for our sinfulness and removes the burden of the Law. "How it works" is explained in the Bible. But of course you already know this, I think, but are for some reason deliberately misstating things, perhaps you feel the need to make us look deeper in our faith (which I congratulate you for if that is the case) or to cause us to question and hopefully reject our faith and follow you into atheism (which I would hope is not true as that would be doing the work of Satan).

 

I think inflamatory is the wrong word. I used strong language. Why? Because I had to do something to get attention. No one is answering my question. You, too, are deflecting the question.

 

 

Might I add that the continual assault on Christianity by atheists is amusing (can you say "Evangelical Atheists") but might I ask, do atheists also attack Muslim or Hindu or other pagan beliefs? Why does it seem that Christianity is the main target of Atheists? Do they fear "The Light" that much?

 

Just some Sunday thoughts to stir discussion! :)

 

It seems you are misinformed and that you imagine things that are not so:

 

1. Atheists do not focus on one religion only. I can direct you to information that denounces all religion.

 

2. I have been seeking answers, NOT attacking religion. If anyone sees my answers as attacks on religion it is their own imagination. I have explained my position and disagreed with things others have said. That does not constitute attack. If you disagree please provide the evidence.

 

APOLOGY: I see I mistook you for Farmer's Wife, married to Brent R, as I learned via the thread about Breaking Up Family. Sorry. I don't know who you are. All the same, that story shows how little humans understand each other yet they presume to understand God.

 

edit: I looked at your profile now. I guess you are Brent R. but changed your name or something. Whatever, my post still stands. I don't think it contains anything not stated on the public forums.

 

I think this is the "inflamatory language" part he's referring to:

 

Now let's move on to the Plan of Salvation.
  • Adam sinned so everyone is evil by default.
  • Jesus died so everyone is made good by default.

Problem: To become evil, all we have to do is be born human. To become good we have to believe that Jesus' death makes us good but we are not allowed to know how it works.

 

Perhaps he can interpret the law well enough to identify inflamatory language but I think this is subjectively defined, esp. when it comes to religion. And the line between "evil" and "sin" tends to keep shifting as is convenient for the fundy's purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God not wiping out Satan let evil into the world...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he actually is Brent R, the man himself who bears arms and swears oaths for his office as police and wants to be a Mennonite at the same time, I think my argument is pretty strong. He fails to understand human language. Or maybe he thinks he can over-rule or bully his way into the Mennonite church. Sorry sir, in a land of religious freedom and democracy there are things that even the military and police can't do.

 

This is when it feels pretty good being a Mennonite by culture. He's Lutheran by culture. There was a time when his kind killed my kind for not believing the right things.

 

What I was saying, this guy who can't get his head around human language thinks he can speak for God!?!!?!?

 

I think that's a pretty strong argument. I also think the fact that all these christians have to gang up on one single atheist and cannot prevail against the atheist proves something pretty significant for their "faith."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why Pogroms always worked in the final analysis, and the reason I think that the 'religious' impulse selctivly bred into our species by our species... In some respects, the book I Am Legend by Matheson, and the final realisation of Neville in the book sort of applies to the atheist in a 'Christian' Culture... they'll work together to kill the outsider, before they turn on each other as unable to co-exist...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been my observation that they just take time out from their infighting to turn on the outsider.

 

Before I made a prominent appearance, the ladies were ripping each other apart as to whether God prefered them to wear dresses or pant suits, and whether god preferred cut their hair on women or long hair that was put up covered with a veil. Another issue of contention was how much skin should be covered and the meaning of modesty. They agreed that burqas were definitely not required. I think we can use this guy :lmao: to describe their attitude toward women who think burqas are required for true modesty.

 

However, when I appeared with my "foreign" beliefs, suddenly they were staunch allies on the same side of the battle lines.

 

One thing you gotta get straight: These ladies are world authorities on modesty and morality.

 

Don't laugh.

 

:grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.