Slamming the Christians

[Merlinfmct87]

It was a very good post.

 

I want to add this, maybe it was what you were looking for:

 

Even if I would be able to remove religion from a person, it doesn't end the problems. Why? Because some people just need something to believe in, and if you show them "Religion X is wrong because of so and so..", they will only jump on to the next train, the next religion.

 

Exactly my point. Simply attacking the theology yields next to nothing. When you come across a true militant nutcase, you have to respond with every weapon you can... but simply saying that "Christianity is a false and harmful doctrine" leaves the person wide open to be sucked into another cult - or to create his own.

 

You have to kill the whole poisonus tree - theology, apathy, cognative dissonance, the whole package.

 

There is a reason why religion evolved in us humans. Whatever reasons (I have my theories), you can't undo what caused the drive to make a religion in people.

 

So if you remove one religion, a new one will pop up.

 

Exactly right again... which is why you have to give them the tools to not fall for the same bull twice. They have to be able to say "No, I heard that story before, I won't kill a person because of xyz."

 

Therefore I take the approach to make an attempt to get a religious person to accept a smoother, nicer and less dangerous version of their religion, instead of aggresive and obnoxious.

 

I wish that everyone in the whole world would understand the beauty of not having a religion, but it's just an ideal utopia that is not possible today.

 

Hopefully in some near future, humans have evolved away from the need of religion and can move on in a mature and solid fashion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nice to imagine, isn't it?

 

I'm fairly certain that was an attack on the person......not the book.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's exactly - EXACTLY how I feel about evangelism. It's some utter PIG coming to MY door telling ME that I don't understand the world, that all I believe is wrong, AND THAT YOU HAVE THE ANSWER.

 

It's an insult to the person you are evangelizing. Not to mention amazingly transparent.

 

However...

 

*sigh*

 

This has been something that has been bothering me like crazy for the past few weeks. I've been bending a lot of people's ears about it, and giving it a lot of thought.

 

There is no doubt that behaviour that harms others needs to be stopped. Their rights end where mine(and others) begin. Yes, you can believe in creationism all you damn well please. The moment you try to bing that into a classroom is where I step in with the clue-by-four charged and ready.

 

i'm utterly against telling another person that their beliefs are wrong. You seek truth your way, I'll seek it mine.

 

But if the only way to stop the harm is to destroy the belief system... do we really have a choice in the matter?

 

In other words, if the only way a Nazi will stop killing is if we take all religious, political, and moral justification for his actions, can we honestly kill the last two but leave the first alone?

 

Dogmatically Challenged, I am glad to see you have added, "EX-XIAN EVANGELIST" underneath your avatar. I don't think I could agree with you more, as you've posted throughout this thread and in many other places around this forum.

 

I understand where you are coming from and I want to restate that we have every right to evangelize and I will continue to do so, regardless of whether others understand our reasons or not. Christianity harms people in a myriad of ways. One problem is that Christians have aligned themselves with a God who has determined to toss all of us into hell for all eternity if we aren't able to buy into ("believe") his program. So Christians are effectively saying, "That kind of God is ok by me." Now, if that kind of thinking is healthy, please, SOMEBODY, tell me how you've arrived at that conclusion. If you love my enemy and stand with him, how can you love me at the same time?

 

*sigh*

 

I never said it was healthy. I never said it helped the believer. I said that as long as the belief stays inside the church, we have no right to judge.

 

Something you are doing a damned good job of chipping away at, I might add.

 

When I was a Christian, I was in ministry and I had a heart for evangelism. As an unashamed, unabashed (redundancy intended for impact) atheist, I still have a heart for evangelism. I've seen too many lives ruined by Christianity contrasted by a paltry few who were helped by it. I have no intention of pulling out peoples' crutches for those who need them but I remain actively involved in helping people find wholeness outside of the cult mindset. I don't plan on changing what I do. I am who I am; I'm an evangelist.

 

Merlin, thank you for explaining yourself, but I don't think you quite see it like I do and that's ok. Maybe, in time, you will. You're young and you have time. Every decade of your life will see significant changes in your views so you can expect to continue to evolve and grow. You're already wise beyond your years.

 

That's exactly what I've been told... it's a naive belief not supported by facts. Maybe they are right. Maybe the world is wrong and everybody is lost but me!(hey, I can hope)

 

I do feel like I'm basing my judgments on altered/distorted facts... which is something I desperately want to correct if at all possible.

 

As a parting comment regarding my evangelism towards my children, I've found Christianity to be impotent and worthless in some ways, yet harmful in others and because my children are still slightly attached to it, there is a bit of a barrier between us. I want the wall down between me and my children and so I'm taking it down, one brick at a time. No one will stop me from this work. My children are worth the pain and the trouble. I want them to own their lives freely and not invest themselves in a pursuit that is not worthy of them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Go for it Reach. Nothing should stand between a parent and his/her child.

 

Give them a hug for me, ok?

 

One last thought for you:

 

When you 'evangelize...' do you speak of the glories of atheism, or do you stop at saying Christianity is utterly false and harmful? In other words, do you try to make people think and believe as *you* do, or do you simply try to stop a harmful belief?

 

Merlin

[Merlinfmct87]

Merlin, I feel the same way as you on this ... it makes me very hesitent as well (!!!),

 

Good to know I'm not alone.

 

I think maybe it does come down to personality or 'style' - and I would agree with Reach's comments about some people being 'evangelists'. I was never comfortable with 'evangelism' when I was a fully paid up believing christian, (although I was always being told that somehow that meant I wasn't a 'proper' christian or that I didn't really believe ... I think it was just a difference in personality)

 

If your hesitency is about age, and likely to change in a decade or so - then the same could be said for the 'evangelists' on this board ... maybe they'll 'grow out' of their evangelistic approach.

 

Hahaha! That would be ironic, wouldn't it?

 

I went for lunch today with a friend of mine from my last church. She is one of the few who didn't drop me when I left. She is one of the world's beautiful people. Her childhood was marred by the horrible sexual abuse she suffered. She ran away at 15 and lost the next ten years to drugs and prostitution. She emerged again, when in her words 'God rescued her' - and to her mind she felt loved for the first time.

 

Her faith is really important to her- she has found purpose and direction and solace and she spends her time working with the homeless and her compassion and concern and committment is amazing.

 

She thinks I am mistaken about God, but she asks me about my wanderings and listens to my questioning - even though I think it is painful to her, she prays for me daily - and I don't mind that she does, because I love her I guess.

 

I will never try to 'deconvert her'.

 

EXACTLY.

 

What good would it do?

 

But DC - I appreciate your comments as well - I have been challenged very deeply to think about my 'approach' and as to whether 'nice' christians perpetuate the harm done in the name of 'christianity' through their continued alliegence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's a question that is worth addressing, though I do disagree with his assessment.

 

Dogmatically_Challanged:

 

I tried. I really tried. I tried very hard to reply to your posts, to make sense of the bullshit logic you were using. The only reply that would come is "You're a fucknugget." Lokmer

 

Maybe you will make sense in the morning. But all I see in your posts is a man who hates blindly based on a label. I get the strong impression that if an atheist started spewing the same hate you wouldn't even notice.

 

Merlin

[dogmatically_challenged]

Merin

Exactly my point. Simply attacking the theology yields next to nothing. When you come across a true militant nutcase, you have to respond with every weapon you can... but simply saying that "Christianity is a false and harmful doctrine" leaves the person wide open to be sucked into another cult - or to create his own.

 

You have to kill the whole poisonus tree - theology, apathy, cognative dissonance, the whole package.

Thats a tall order Wizard. Is this what you meant by being short sited? If so then I agree. Sorry.

 

 

Exactly right again... which is why you have to give them the tools to not fall for the same bull twice. They have to be able to say "No, I heard that story before, I won't kill a person because of xyz."

I figured if you can show problems with the bible the rest will follow. But with some people is it possible that moral contradictions and realizing bigoted scriptures is the way to go first with some people? People of quality? Yes? No?

 

 

HanSolo

Therefore I take the approach to make an attempt to get a religious person to accept a smoother, nicer and less dangerous version of their religion, instead of aggresive and obnoxious.

 

I wish that everyone in the whole world would understand the beauty of not having a religion, but it's just an ideal utopia that is not possible today.

 

Hopefully in some near future, humans have evolved away from the need of religion and can move on in a mature and solid fashion.

Many of the Liberal Christians give the bible just as much power as fundies do. The bible is a bigoted book. But for some peope this is probably the only option like you say, " ..attempt to get a religious person to accept a smoother, nicer and less dangerous version of their religion, instead of aggresive and obnoxious."

 

This makes sense, but there are people who says that it is all or nothing. So for some people this will not work. Maybe a Christian is all or nothing in the beggining, but later they can change thier mind, this is true, but some will always be all or nothing. And for those kinds of people it would be best to try and dispell the illusion that that book is the word of a god.

 

Still....I'd wager most are all or nothing when it comes to religion. Those folks who left thier religion for another harmful relgion probably never really talked to a freethinker either.

 

Merlin

That's exactly - EXACTLY how I feel about evangelism. It's some utter PIG coming to MY door telling ME that I don't understand the world, that all I believe is wrong, AND THAT YOU HAVE THE ANSWER.

 

It's an insult to the person you are evangelizing. Not to mention amazingly transparent.

 

However...

 

*sigh*

 

This has been something that has been bothering me like crazy for the past few weeks. I've been bending a lot of people's ears about it, and giving it a lot of thought.

 

There is no doubt that behaviour that harms others needs to be stopped. Their rights end where mine(and others) begin. Yes, you can believe in creationism all you damn well please. The moment you try to bing that into a classroom is where I step in with the clue-by-four charged and ready.

 

i'm utterly against telling another person that their beliefs are wrong. You seek truth your way, I'll seek it mine.

 

But if the only way to stop the harm is to destroy the belief system... do we really have a choice in the matter?

 

In other words, if the only way a Nazi will stop killing is if we take all religious, political, and moral justification for his actions, can we honestly kill the last two but leave the first alone?

First off I will not go door to door. I find your comparison insulting Wizard. There is a big difference between Christian Evangelism and spreading freethought. Wizard look up freethought in the bloody dictionary. I would not be pulling heart strings and making bribes and threats. ( heaven and hell, money from heaven from tithing at church, faith healing, removing demons..). Heathenplease!

 

Your comparing me to them is very insulting. I will be trying my best to change minds through reason. Tap was an exception to my rule of leaving fundies alone. I aim to educate nonchristians as well as luke warm "kinda" Christians who would say they are Christian in a poll, which is somewhat important to politicians now. I and others have already had many successes in RT with people who called themselves Christian and are not anymore. There are many people like that you would be suprised. I would have no ultimate truths or "the answer" as you say. And I am not a pig...unless you choose to take out your wand and do some hocus pocus like in your comparison.

 

Reducing the numbers of Christians will reduce damage. Increasing the number of freethinkers will be good for this country. We have lousy politicians because we have lousy citizens. Take that to the bank.

 

There are also many nonchristians that see nothing wrong with the bible and it's teachings and most of them are easy to show how rediculous it is to beleve that book is moral. Much can be done to reduce damage just by reducing the numbers of Christians and thier sympathizers by changing minds.

 

Merlin

*sigh*

 

I never said it was healthy. I never said it helped the believer. I said that as long as the belief stays inside the church, we have no right to judge.

Something you are doing a damned good job of chipping away at, I might add.

Wrong!

 

It don't stay in the church thier hoss! Not the bigotry.That doctrine gets folks killed or drives them to suicide. You forget about gays. atheists get thier share of abuse from community and from family as well. Every individual is worth rescuing. I don't give a shit if atheists, heathens, and homosexuals are a minority in this country. Some of this shit has gota stop. Do you have any idea how some families are so dysfunctional because of the fucking death cult? It don't stay in the church bro. You ever lost a close relative to suicide there hoss? I hope this chips the rest away partner. I am not a pig. I do care about people. And I have experienced Christianity at it's worst.

[Lokmer]

Sorry.  I figured if you can show problems with the bible the rest will follow.

 

If that was the case, Doggie, all religions would have collapsed years ago. Are you really this naive`?

 

But with some people is it possible that moral contradictions and realizing bigoted scriptures is the way to go first with some people? People of quality? Yes? No?

 

There is a large difference between pointing out moral contradictions or problems and attacking believers personally. But you're not even doing the first well - you're not referencing the Bible in any kind of context that's fair to it as a ancient literary work. It's worse than the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, which at least has the virtue of being entertaining.

 

Many of the Liberal Christians give the bible just as much power as fundies do. The bible is a bigoted book. But for some peope this is probably the only option like you say, " ..attempt to get a religious person to accept a smoother, nicer and less dangerous version of their religion, instead of aggresive and obnoxious."

 

Doggie, were you ever a Christian? Were you ever religious at all? Your entire approach to Christianity is stilted, naive`, and stupid. Now, when it comes to the dogma, I am as anti-religious and anti-Christian as Ingersol. But that's where it stops. I am not hostile to the Bible as a book, nor to Christians as a group or as individuals. I have some inkling of the diversity of opinionns, beliefs, and attitudes in the vast and sprawling church, and I also understand the different things people mean when they say they have "faith." In many cases, it means "habitual, unexamined allegience." For others, it means they've had an experience of encounter with the profound or divine through the Christian tradition, and hence they reverence it. For others still it means "working out" their salvation with acts of charity, love, and grace. And for yet others "faith" means simply surrendering to the possibility that salvation and eternal life might be more than a pipe dream. And again, for some it simply means "gratitude for what is" and an attitude of affectability. All of these gradations of meaning don't have a hell of a lot to do with fideism to the doctrines of shepherders and ecstatics living in the milenia past. For the vast majority of Christians, you can debunk the book, debunk the doctrine, and it won't effect their faith. They can *know* that it's propisitionally false, and yet find in it a metaphorical framework that fits and gives order to their spiritual experience.

 

This makes sense, but there are people who says that it is all or nothing. So for some people this will not work. Maybe a Christian is all or nothing in the beggining, but later they can change thier mind, this is true, but some will always be all or nothing. And for those kinds of people it would be best to try and dispell the illusion that that book is the word of a god.

 

And you believe that running around, hurling insults, and generally being a striped asshole will accomplish that goal? You have chosen your avatar well - it reflects the sophistocation of your understanding of human nature perfectly.

 

There is a big difference between Christian Evangelism and spreading freethought. Wizard look up freethought in the bloody dictionary. I would not be pulling heart strings and making bribes and threats. ( heaven and hell, money from heaven from tithing at church, faith healing, removing demons..). Heathenplease!

 

You're not spreading freethought, Doggie, you're spreading hatred, vitriol, and blind loathing. It's very possible to be rehtorically fierce and intellectually relentless without being a Klansman. Ingersol, Twain, Heinlein, Straczyinski, Kurtz, Voltaire, Hobbes, Camus...our history is filled with excellent oraters and philosophers attacking Christianity in eloquent, persuasive ways that keep the attacks where they belong: On the church and on its doctrine.

 

You're using shame, insult, and hatred to try to make people free?

 

You're as bad as "the fundies."

 

Now who's the fucking bigot?

 

I aim to educate nonchristians as well as luke warm "kinda" Christians who would say they are Christian in a poll, which is somewhat important to politicians now.

 

Perhaps you should leave the educating to people who actually know the field and are qualified to do so?

 

Reducing the numbers of Christians will reduce damage. Increasing the number of freethinkers will be good for this country. We have lousy politicians because we have lousy citizens. Take that to the bank.

 

While I agree, it's manifestly clear that you have zero understanding of human nature or sociology. If you truly believed that education and freedom of thought was the way to reduce Chritainity's negative effect on society, and to make fewer Christians, you would be opening and engaging in dialogue rather than getting your jollies off by attacking people. This has the taste of being more about revenge than about honesty and dialogue. Your lack of confidence in your own position is betrayed by your bluster.

 

There are also many nonchristians that see nothing wrong with the bible and it's teachings and most of them are easy to show how rediculous it is to beleve that book is moral. Much can be done to reduce damage just by reducing the numbers of Christians and thier sympathizers by changing minds.

 

Sign me up for the gulag, fucknugget. I don't fall into the trap of seeing the Bible as one book. And I refuse to condemn "love your neighbor" right alongside "keep the virgins for yourselves.

 

Every individual is worth rescuing. I don't give a shit if atheists, heathens, and homosexuals are a minority in this country. Some of this shit has gota stop. Do you have any idea how some families are so dysfunctional because of the fucking death cult? It don't stay in the church bro. You ever lost a close relative to suicide there hoss? I hope this chips the rest away partner. I am not a pig. I do care about people. And I have experienced Christianity at it's worst.

 

And here it is - it IS about personal revenge. I got news for you, buddy, I have experienced as bad or worse at the hands of Christianity than you have. I have witnessed rape (twice, eyewitness) covered up by the church. I have been privy to a contract murder called in by a Chiristian college president. I have seen embezzlement, blackmail, child molestation, theft, con games, lying, cult worship of a leader, lives totally destroyed, brainwashing, gay bashing, terrorism advocation, and white supremacy, all up close and personal. And I have helped people out of shit you don't even want to begin to imagine. I have far more reason to take revenge than you do

 

You do not stop "shit" by employing the tactics (even in small measure) that were employed against you. Your approach is hateful and contemptible, myopic in conception, and lacking in honor.

 

-Lokmer

[zfunkman]

I agree and disagree with this.  When someone like TAP comes on here who isn't hurting anyone I'm not saying they should be handled with kid gloves and never ever asked the hard questions, but I do feel that it is  bigotry plain and simple to be an ass to someone based only on their belief system.

 

Now if TAP was a bitch to go with it I would say...go for it, she deserves it.  But TAP isn't a bitch.  And TAP as someone who has always been civil on here has, I feel, earned the right to be treated with some respect.

 

Sure...think her beliefs are stupid, but why would you attack TAP?  I for one have wanted for awhile for TAP to discuss her views on things without having to "post and retreat" as I said in a separate thread.

 

However if everytime she opens her mouth "so to speak" someone jumps down her throat I don't feel how anyone can expect her to share ideas.  I know I can't censor everyone and I can't be her personal guard dog...and in a message board with free access some people are going to be jerks, but overall what has TAP personally done to warrant your wrath?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK,

I may slam or mock someone like TAP but that does not mean I'm going to call her a "bitch" or be a total jerk. I've read the bible and I have a hard time with the fact that so many people in this country and the world actually believe in it. I know and work with xtians, and in person I treat them all with respect and never engage them in any kind of talk or debate about "religion". But, deep down inside I have absolutely no respect for anyone who believes in the "Bible". This includes my family members and my coworkers. I believe the bible is one of humanity's biggest problems. If you claim to be a xtian you get the respect from me that I feel you deserve depending on where it is I am. On this forum I can vent a little more than I can in "real life". I'll never be a total asshole but I will call a spade a garden tool and I will never "kiss a xtian's ass" even if it is an attractive female.

[Guest Challenger]

But, deep down inside I have absolutely no respect for anyone who believes in the "Bible"

 

Is this lack of respect confined to their belief in the Bible, or does it extend to the person as a whole because of that belief?

[Mythra]

I only have one other comment on this. This IS an ex-christian forum. The primary purpose (I think) is to help ex-christians cope with all of the garbage associated with de-converting and to connect with people who are going through the same shit.

 

If I, as an atheist were to dive into the middle of a christian forum, I would expect to be attacked like someone diving into a swimming pool full of pirhanas. It would be expected. I would get chomped on hard.

 

Why is it so surprising that the same thing happens here to christians?

[Cerise]

Could anyone point me to were zfunk actually attacked TAP? Can't seem to find it, but apparently it must be there, otherwise there would be no actual reason for Lokmer to throw a huge rant at him, would there?

 

Anyone?

[Lokmer]

Could anyone point me to were zfunk actually attacked TAP?  Can't seem to find it, but apparently it must be there, otherwise there would be no actual reason for Lokmer to throw a huge rant at him, would there?

 

My rant was directed towards Dogmatically_Challenged, not zfunk. I've not been following the zfunk subthread.

 

-Lokmer

[Cerise]

My rant was directed towards Dogmatically_Challenged, not zfunk.  I've not been following the zfunk subthread.

 

-Lokmer

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well then the only example of this "attack" I could find was the statement that TAP follows a bigoted book.

 

Which, as far as I can tell, she does, unless suddenly she wants to indicate that she does not, in fact, believe that all non-Christians are going to Hell if they do not follow her interpretation of the "salvation plan".

 

And TAP, if you do indicate this then I'll be really happy.

 

And Lokmer, crack open the Voltaire again and see if you can't find some insults towards Christians as people...I know I can. The whole Candide was full of 'em.

[Lokmer]

Well then the only example of this "attack" I could find was the statement that TAP follows a bigoted book.

 

A few pages back he said that "All Christians are bigots," not just that they follow a bigoted book.

 

Which, as far as I can tell, she does, unless suddenly she wants to indicate that she does not, in fact, believe that all non-Christians are going to Hell if they do not follow her interpretation of the "salvation plan".

 

There is a difference - and a major one - between believing something monsterous is true and actually wishing the mosterous thing on other people. The former is often a painful thing, and (when it comes to hell) filled with cognative dissonance. The latter is bigotry and hatred. I believe the Holocaust happened and could happen again - but I wouldn't wish it even on Hitler.

 

And Lokmer, crack open the Voltaire again and see if you can't find some insults towards Christians as people...I know I can.  The whole Candide was full of 'em.

 

Oh, indeed, he's merciless, particularly to the clergy. That's a bit of a different thing than what I was criticizing in DC. My apologies if I didn't nuance it properly.

-Lokmer

[spamandham]

And I refuse to condemn "love your neighbor" right alongside "keep the virgins for yourselves.

 

Yah, I have to condemn the "keep the virgins for yourselves" part too. I much prefer if they have a lttle experience first.

[Cerise]

A few pages back he said that "All Christians are bigots," not just that they follow a bigoted book.

There is a difference - and a major one - between believing something monsterous is true and actually wishing the mosterous thing on other people.  The former is often a painful thing, and (when it comes to hell) filled with cognative dissonance.  The latter is bigotry and hatred.  I believe the Holocaust happened and could happen again - but I wouldn't wish it even on Hitler. 

Oh, indeed, he's merciless, particularly to the clergy.  That's a bit of a different thing than what I was criticizing in DC.  My apologies if I didn't nuance it properly.

-Lokmer

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you follow a bigoted book...can you not help but be bigoted? Part of Christianity (unless you happen to be partaking of Amanda's version of it) is believing that Jesus is the only way to salvation. That means all other ways are false. So, to an extent, by definition all Christians must be prejudiced against other "ways to salvation" and, if they truly are believers, intolerant to suggestions otherwise. That is the traditional definition of bigotry: to believe your way is the only way, the right way.

 

TAP may not wish Hell on anyone, but she certainly isn't decrying God for making such a place. More like people in a German village watching the smoke rise over the hills, saying what a terrible thing it is, and then raising a salute to the Fatherland on Sundays. They also believe the Holocaust happened and could happen again. But they aren't going to stop it.

 

Is that really such a major difference after all?

[Vigile]

TAP may not wish Hell on anyone, but she certainly isn't decrying God for making such a place. 

 

True, in fact she even deems such a creature worthy of her solemn worship. I like TAP to, but she doesn't seem to want to confront this dichotomy. It's like loving Hannibal because he is kind to you, despite what he does when he leaves the house.

[Ouroboros]

Even though I agree with Lokmer, I think you maybe pushed a little bit to much there. DC is still in a phase of anger over Christianity, and he need guidance as any Christian also need guidance. So let's not have all these ad hominems, because they're not needed to make the point.

 

I understand where DC comes from, and it takes experience to learn how to address the problems of a discussion with a Christian, and I don't have enough of it yet. That's one reason why I like this website, so I can do training in debating. We all need that.

 

We all fall into this name calling game when we argue, even me, and my opinion is that it should be held to a minimum, otherwise no one wins the argument. And I think goes all ways, between the apostates as well between apostates and Christians. Emotions runs hot in the debates, but according to theories in rhetorics you keep the ad hominens to last resort, and usually when it looks like you're loosing. So Lokmer, did you feel you were loosing the argument or was it just hot temper?

[Cerise]

Anger over something you find unjust is...I hope...never simply "a phase".

 

Or else I am in deep trouble. And so is the world.

[zfunkman]

Is this lack of respect confined to their belief in the Bible, or does it extend to the person as a whole because of that belief?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Their belief in the bible. In throwing out all knowlege, reason, intellect, etc.. I have no respect for people who support George W. Bush either, but if they end up seeing things a little more clearly and drop that support, my lack of respect can change.

[zfunkman]

Could anyone point me to were zfunk actually attacked TAP?  Can't seem to find it, but apparently it must be there, otherwise there would be no actual reason for Lokmer to throw a huge rant at him, would there?

 

Anyone?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All I said was that I have had no problem with slamming or mocking TAP for her belief in the bible. I can do this without being a totlal jerk. The way some extians on this site kiss her ass sometimes makes me sick. Oh yea, and I am thankful that she is at least a decent human being despite her ridiculous beliefs.

[zfunkman]

A few pages back he said that "All Christians are bigots," not just that they follow a bigoted book.

I never once said such a thing. Don't come in here waving your "holier than thou" flag and then put words in my mouth that I never said. True, all xtians have a belief in a myth but I never once called all xtians bigots. Shit like this makes sick. I do expect an appology from you if you have any decency at all.

[Cerise]

I never once said such a thing.  Don't come in here waving your "holier than thou" flag and then put words in my mouth that I never said.  True, all xtians have a belief in a myth but I never once called all xtians bigots.  Shit like this makes sick.  I do expect an appology from you if you have any decency at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

zfunk, it's okay. Lokmer explained he was talking to dogmatically challenged, not you. He knows you said no such thing.

[Lokmer]

If you follow a bigoted book...can you not help but be bigoted?  Part of Christianity (unless you happen to be partaking of Amanda's version of it) is believing that Jesus is the only way to salvation.  That means all other ways are false.  So, to an extent, by definition all Christians must be prejudiced against other "ways to salvation" and, if they truly are believers, intolerant to suggestions otherwise.  That is the traditional definition of bigotry: to believe your way is the only way, the right way.

 

Man, the use of the word "bigoted" has gotten really fluid in the last few years. Believing that something is true is different from self-righteousness or hatred and condescention towards others. "Prejudiced against other ways to salvation"? I'm prejudiced against socialism, does that make me a political bigot? No. I'm firmly opposed to Christianity (and religion in general) but that does not make me a bigot. I do not hate religious people, I do not hate socialists.

 

*I DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO GROUPTHINK*

 

And the whole attempt to pigeonhole someone because of one particular errant belief is disgusting. It's exactly what we all get down on Christians for.

 

I will come out (and do) and decry the evils and perversions of Christianity. This does not mean that all - or even most - Christians are evil and perverse. Every time I defame a group of *people* I am very careful to deliniate the intent, extent, and nature of the defamation.

 

TAP may not wish Hell on anyone, but she certainly isn't decrying God for making such a place.

 

And, if God existed and hell was real, what good would decrying God do? It would save no one, in fact it would lead to more people being put there. Perhaps you don't understand the extent of the emotional, intellectual, and spiritual blackmail involved in the concept of hell? Decrying God for making such a place (were it real and he real) would be immoral because you'd be contributing to the damnation and suffereing of others.

 

Now, I decry the rat-brained power hungry Zoroastrian priests that made up the doctrine, and the politically minded newts that syncretized it into Chrsitainity. But that's a whole different ballgame. You and I can say that a god who would do such a thing is immoral, because it's true and we believe that it's a convincing disproof of the doctrine. To someoe who truly believes, the equation is a LOT different.

 

  More like people in a German village watching the smoke rise over the hills, saying what a terrible thing it is, and then raising a salute to the Fatherland on Sundays.  They also believe the Holocaust happened and could happen again.  But they aren't going to stop it.

 

And do you imagine that a God powerful as monsterous as to create and send people to hell would give a rat's ass whether people tried to stop him or not?

 

Is that really such a major difference after all?

 

Yes. The sincere Christian is the lynched, not the Klansman. Big difference.

-Lokmer

[Lokmer]

True, in fact she even deems such a creature worthy of her solemn worship.  I like TAP to, but she doesn't seem to want to confront this dichotomy.  It's like loving Hannibal because he is kind to you, despite what he does when he leaves the house

 

Two words: Stockholm syndrome.

 

-Lokmer

[Vigile]

Two words: Stockholm syndrome.

 

-Lokmer

 

I had that myself once...

[Lokmer]

I understand where DC comes from, and it takes experience to learn how to address the problems of a discussion with a Christian, and I don't have enough of it yet. That's one reason why I like this website, so I can do training in debating. We all need that.

 

You make a persuasive point.

 

Emotions runs hot in the debates, but according to theories in rhetorics you keep the ad hominens to last resort, and usually when it looks like you're loosing. So Lokmer, did you feel you were loosing the argument or was it just hot temper?

 

Ad. Hom.s are an art form, if employed for flavor and not the main thrust of the argument, as our beloved Rameus has proven time and again. But, in this case, it was very delberate. D_C has, by direct insult and by insinuation, become steadily more abusive and dogmatic as this thread has progressed, has not responded either to playful attempts to lighten the mood nor to direct confrontation (for example, from Merlin).

 

So, it's both hot temper and cold tactics. I didn't have a dog in this fight, haven't posted much since the very beginning. Thus it isn't the last resort of broken rehtoric. I have a burr up my ass relating to fundamentalist attitudes of any stripe. High and mighty bigotry and hypocricy piss me off, and even moreso when comign from someone who is on "my side."

 

There is a vast difference between, as Reach said earlier "not coating everything in a honey bun" and being abuisive and hateful. Bluntness, even brutality in honesty, is fabulous. Hatred is beneath us apostates, particularly since many of us were infuriated by the hatefulness disguising itself as love and caring in the church. What D_C is doing is the same kind of superior consdescention, coating self-righteousness and revenge in the cloak of goodness and caring, that we all hated from the church as Christians and now as apostates. Should we tolerate it simply because we feel his pain? Or is there some behavior for which there is no excuse?

 

-Lokmer

[Cerise]

Man, the use of the word "bigoted" has gotten really fluid in the last few years.  Believing that something is true is different from self-righteousness or hatred and condescention towards others.  "Prejudiced against other ways to salvation"?  I'm prejudiced against socialism, does that make me a political bigot?  No.  I'm firmly opposed to Christianity (and religion in general) but that does not make me a bigot.  I do not hate religious people, I do not hate socialists.

 

I am curious, which dictionary is telling you that "bigotry" and "hatred" are synonymous. Because it isn't mine.

 

Bigot: A person who is prejudiced in their own views and intolerant of the opinion of others.

 

*I DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO GROUPTHINK*

 

Clap hands, skip about, prance, joy, rapture.

 

And the whole attempt to pigeonhole someone because of one particular errant belief is disgusting.  It's exactly what we all get down on Christians for.

 

Is it pigeonholing to tell the truth now? Or am I supposed to say, "well apprently not all Christians believe that Christ is the way, the truth, and the light...". That is one of the defining pillars of Christianity, is it not?

 

I will come out (and do) and decry the evils and perversions of Christianity.  This does not mean that all - or even most - Christians are evil and perverse.  Every time I defame a group of *people* I am very careful to deliniate the intent, extent, and nature of the defamation.

 

When were all Christians called evil and perverse? Unless "bigot" suddenly also means evil and perverse as well as hatred...my that's some dictionary you have.

 

And, if God existed and hell was real, what good would decrying God do? 

 

What good would decrying the Holocaust do if you were in it? Probably lead to you getting killed.

 

Perhaps you don't understand the extent of the emotional, intellectual, and spiritual blackmail involved in the concept of hell? 

 

That might be true if this were NeverbeenChristian.net and not ExChristian.net. By the way, I can't believe I have to explain this kind of thing to you, Lokmer. You should know better then that.

 

Decrying God for making such a place (were it real and he real) would be immoral because you'd be contributing to the damnation and suffereing of others.

 

No. What God does is his fault. What you do is yours. If you speak out against evil, how are you immoral?

 

Now, I decry the rat-brained power hungry Zoroastrian priests that made up the doctrine, and the politically minded newts that syncretized it into Chrsitainity.  But that's a whole different ballgame.  You and I can say that a god who would do such a thing is immoral, because it's true and we believe that it's a convincing disproof of the doctrine.  To someoe who truly believes, the equation is a LOT different.

 

I am not saying it would be an easy thing to do.

 

And do you imagine that a God powerful as monsterous as to create and send people to hell would give a rat's ass whether people tried to stop him or not?

 

It may not make a difference to God. It would, however, make a big difference to me.

 

Yes.  The sincere Christian is the lynched, not the Klansman.  Big difference.

 

Perhaps TAP could fight her own battles. That might be...enlightening.