Slamming the Christians

[Ouroboros]

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.

 

Ok, he’s not in a phase. He will stay angry the rest of his life, and he will become bitter and no Christian want to talk to him. So much luck for his plans to de-convert anyone.

 

I think you’ll get a better response and a dialogue with people without being angry with them. Sure you can be angry over the religion, but I don’t think people will open up and really listen to you if you go at it with a sword and armor. You build a rapport with people, then you discuss and have a dialogue, then you can have them see their delusion and come out of it.

 

The crusades in 11 century by the Christians used the tactics of “convert or die”, and they were not very successful. Is the solution to scare as many Christians as possible so they never want to talk to you?

 

Show your anger, and they will respond with anger. It’s the law of the jungle.

 

The best way of convincing someone is to try to be polite and correct. Think through things before you bash in their heads. The Vikings tried the head bashing thing, but they lost too many customers, so the trade market went down and no more money could be made. I’m just saying be smart about these things.

 

Don’t you agree that some civil manners could get you further to success?

 

Of course there’s things in the Bible that’s unjust, and the Koran is even worse! And what should we do about Korea that torture and kill people in the name of Communism? What should we do about the non-Christian tribal wars in Africa? What about Islam? Even the Zen Buddhism has a bloody history. The Hindus have a lot of blood on their hands too. What should we do?

 

Religion or no religion, people take whatever stupid belief they can get to force, maim and kill people. Greed and need of power is extremely strong in some people, but not in everyone. People respond with respect if you give them respect, except for some like Invictus (or what I want to call him now: Convictus, because I’ve convicted him, and sent him to my iggy list).

[Totallyatpeace]

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

 

 

 

If I thought I could get a word in edgewise, I might try. Why should I fight for myself when you are all doing such a fine job dissecting me on your own?

 

Surely SOIL would make a more interesting topic.

[Lokmer]

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.

 

There are coloquial connotations that go well beyond the bare dictionary definition, as you well know. And, if you're so into throwing the insult around, perhaps a look in the mirror for you or I would be in order? I certainly think my views are superior to those of most other people. You seem to as well. But "bigot" only gets thrown at those who disagree. Interesting, isn't it?

 

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?

 

Pigenholing is making a judgement about a person's character based on the opinons/beliefs/philosophies that person holds. I just as well might say "All Muslims are terroists" or "All priests are pedophiles" or "All atheists are morally vacuous" as "All Christians are bigots." Since, after all, Islam gives rise, more than any other religion, to terrorism and repression. The Catholic priesthood is a haven for pedophiles and rapists. Atheism, as a philosophical position, makes no moral judgements whatsoever. And Christians believe their doctrine is the truth. So, all of the insulting prejudicial statements above must be true, right?

 

That's pigeonholing, and it's not telling the truth. It is perverting the truth into demagoguery to serve one's own end.

 

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

 

My point exactly.

 

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.

 

I don't see how this is relevant at all. Are we to pat ourselves on the back and support each other, but then turn to the same kind of intellectual and emotional dishonesty that we came to loathe in Christians, and abuse them just becasue we may hate what they represent?

 

I do know better than *that.*

 

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

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

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

 

I understand where you're coming from. I also understand the other side. I'm objecting to the bitter slagging off exchanged between otherwise good people over an impossible issue of conscience.

 

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

 

I'm not fighting TAP's battle - I'm fighting mine. I have a *thing* about groupthink pigenholing among those who are supposely enlightened enough to get out of Christianity and rise above that kind of bullshit.

 

-Lokmer

[Dio]

I find it odd that TAP has become such a controversial figure.

 

You mean, she's a "Christian" !?!?!?!?!

 

Well, I was too for a long time. So? I'm not any more, but I haven't changed hardly at all in many of my attitudes and habits. I don't go to church or discuss religion anymore, but other than that people would be hard-pressed to tell a difference. It's not like she holds some wacky alien viewpoint that we've never heard before. Tons of people I know are just like her. Relax.

[Cerise]

Ok, he’s not in a phase. He will stay angry the rest of his life, and he will become bitter and no Christian want to talk to him. So much luck for his plans to de-convert anyone.

 

Ah, the myth of the bitter angry atheist. So many buy into it...I see you do as well. Very much used to the response. I spend a lot of time arguing with people who think I shouldn't be angry about rapists because I'll end up bitter and no one will want to talk to me. Hasn't happened yet though.

 

I think you’ll get a better response and a dialogue with people without being angry with them. Sure you can be angry over the religion, but I don’t think people will open up and really listen to you if you go at it with a sword and armor. You build a rapport with people, then you discuss and have a dialogue, then you can have them see their delusion and come out of it.

 

And in an ideal world, this would work. Guess what kind of world we live in.

 

The crusades in 11 century by the Christians used the tactics of “convert or die”, and they were not very successful. Is the solution to scare as many Christians as possible so they never want to talk to you?

 

The solution is to speak your mind. No one ever got anywhere through shutting up.

 

Show your anger, and they will respond with anger. It’s the law of the jungle.

 

And...this is a problem somehow?

The best way of convincing someone is to try to be polite and correct.

 

Not always. I've been polite and correct with many Christians and I've also been very politely ignored.

 

Think through things before you bash in their heads. The Vikings tried the head bashing thing, but they lost too many customers, so the trade market went down and no more money could be made. I’m just saying be smart about these things.

 

I'm just saying be truthful about these things.

Don’t you agree that some civil manners could get you further to success?

 

Like in all matters, it depends.

 

Of course there’s things in the Bible that’s unjust, and the Koran is even worse! And what should we do about Korea that torture and kill people in the name of Communism? What should we do about the non-Christian tribal wars in Africa? What about Islam? Even the Zen Buddhism has a bloody history. The Hindus have a lot of blood on their hands too. What should we do?

 

Speak out.

 

Religion or no religion, people take whatever stupid belief they can get to force, maim and kill people. Greed and need of power is extremely strong in some people, but not in everyone. People respond with respect if you give them respect, except for some like Invictus (or what I want to call him now: Convictus, because I’ve convicted him, and sent him to my iggy list).

 

I put Invictus on iggy before you ever got close to the button. I knew when it would be pointless to continue. Please trust that I also know when and when not to be "civil".

[Ouroboros]

You make a persuasive point.

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

 

Amen to that.

 

I don't like hatemongering from Christians nor from Apostates. Even I sometimes fall into the trap. And I agree on the ad.homs, rightly used they can be effective, I just wanted to know your reasons. Thanks.

 

In every debate with a Christian I try to give them some "benefit of doubt" before I start smashing their heads. First I want to know my "enemy", and the best way of doing it is to get to know them and understand how they work and think. The direct approach of "shoot when you see their whites!" won't de-convert anyone; it will only make sure that no one wants to talk to us.

 

Some of the topics directed to Christians don’t get any replies from Christians... I wonder why? Could it be that they see they will loose their head before their second post?

 

The few times I lost my head was with some of these hard-skulled Christians that can't budge from their rhetoric’s or repeated BS, but I didn’t start it, they did and I served it back. I believe in proving to Christians that I can be a better person than them, and by my actions convince them that they do not have the answer to life.

[Guest Challenger]

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

 

The lady is very capable of that, if need be.

 

She is one Christian you won't be seeing fed to the lions. . .

[Totallyatpeace]

I find it odd that TAP has become such a controversial figure.

 

You mean, she's a "Christian" !?!?!?!?!

 

Well,  I was too for a long time.  So?  I'm not any more, but I haven't changed hardly at all in many of my attitudes and habits.  I don't go to church or discuss religion anymore, but other than that people would be hard-pressed to tell a difference.  It's not like she holds some wacky alien viewpoint that we've never heard before.  Tons of people I know are just like her.  Relax.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Amen!!

 

Can I say that here?

[Cerise]

There are coloquial connotations that go well beyond the bare dictionary definition, as you well know.  And, if you're so into throwing the insult around, perhaps a look in the mirror for you or I would be in order?  I certainly think my views are superior to those of most other people.  You seem to as well.  But "bigot" only gets thrown at those who disagree.  Interesting, isn't it?

 

I am not denying that I am a bigot. I am not denying that you are a bigot. We are all bigots. I don't see what so much offense should be taken at the phrase, as everyone I know happens to be one.

 

Pigenholing is making a judgement about a person's character based on the opinons/beliefs/philosophies that person holds.  I just as well might say "All Muslims are terroists" or "All priests are pedophiles" or "All atheists are morally vacuous" as "All Christians are bigots." 

 

All people are bigots. Will you deny it?

 

Since, after all, Islam gives rise, more than any other religion, to terrorism and repression.  The Catholic priesthood is a haven for pedophiles and rapists.  Atheism, as a philosophical position, makes no moral judgements whatsoever.  And Christians believe their doctrine is the truth.  So, all of the insulting prejudicial statements above must be true, right?

 

Or none of them. What do you think?

 

That's pigeonholing, and it's not telling the truth.  It is perverting the truth into demagoguery to serve one's own end. 

 

Truth cannot be perverted. Only lies can be perverted.

 

I don't see how this is relevant at all.  Are we to pat ourselves on the back and support each other, but then turn to the same kind of intellectual and emotional dishonesty that we came to loathe in Christians, and abuse them just becasue we may hate what they represent?

 

Who was abusing anyone? DC made a statement that as far as I can tell is correct. You disagreed and jumped on him. TAP ducked and covered as per usual. What exactly is this huge deal about anyway?

 

I understand where you're coming from.  I also understand the other side.  I'm objecting to the bitter slagging off exchanged between otherwise good people over an impossible issue of conscience.

 

If you continue to think it is impossible then it will continue to be impossible. I think the issue is actually very simple, but I would be surprised if anyone follows it. Sort of the like the "love your neighbor" command. So simple, and yet so incredibly hard for people to do.

I have a *thing* about groupthink pigenholing among those who are supposely enlightened enough to get out of Christianity and rise above that kind of bullshit.

 

I have a thing about people spouting "rise above" rhetoric, myself. As if they are in a higher position.

[spamandham]

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.

 

I was going to make that same point. You have to realize that these people actually believe this stuff is real. But that doesn't mean they like every aspect of it. It doesn't make sense to hate/punish people for believing things any more than it makes sense to fate/punish them for failing to believe (sound familiar?).

 

At the same time though Lok, I don't see how a Christain can accidently start posting here without realizing this is a site devoted to recovering Christians. It's almost like Spuds McKenzie showing up with two bikini-clad babes, a bunch of kegs and an awesome band at an AA meeting. Some people are going to get damn pissed and react. In that sense, I think you were rough on him and really should consider an apology.

[Cerise]

I believe in proving to Christians that I can be a better person than them, and by my actions convince them that they do not have the answer to life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And of course, proving that you are better then others is not at all bigotry.

[Cerise]

Amen!!

 

Can I say that here? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You could say more. The question is...will you? Or will you run again?

[Ouroboros]

And of course, proving that you are better then others is not at all bigotry.

Lucky for me I didn't make any comment about bigotry, I never said I wasn't!

 

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

I'm very strongly partial to our group, and I'm intolerant to Christians, but trying to show them some benefit of a doubt before the head smashing starts. That's all.

[Totallyatpeace]

Cerise..... I have never ran....I'm here.

 

When there are 10 different threads asking you questions, it gets a bit overwhelming.

 

Ask me one question. Whatever you want and I will answer you.

[Cerise]

I never said I wasn't!

 

Neither did I.

[Cerise]

Cerise..... I have never ran....I'm here.

 

When there are 10 different threads asking you questions, it gets a bit overwhelming.

 

Ask me one question. Whatever you want and I will answer you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, I don't really have a question for you in this thread. Unless you see something in my assessment of your beliefs that would be incorrect. I did get that part of docterine right, yes? You do believe that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the light and no one gets to the Father except through him. And, unlike Amanda, you do believe that his way is the only way, yes?

 

Otherwise I'll look silly.

 

Ooh, but if you wanted to, I had a question for SOIL and he hasn't exactly given a complete answer yet (he's very busy these days).

 

Would you, if you could, give up your own salvation in order to ensure the salvation of others?

[Totallyatpeace]

The Way, the Truth and the Life..

 

Yes...this is what I was raised to believe. This is what Christianity teaches.

[Cerise]

The Way, the Truth and the Life..

 

Yes...this is what I was raised to believe. This is what Christianity teaches.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I thought so, but with all these new-agey christians running around I'm never certain these days!

[Totallyatpeace]

See? You asked me a questions and I answered. No running away. And now that that has been proven......

 

I'll step back out of this thread.

[Cerise]

See? You asked me a questions and I answered. No running away. And now that that has been proven......

 

I'll step back out of this thread. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm wise to you, passive-aggressive woman!

[Totallyatpeace]

Cute.

 

To be honest.......if you read back through the original TAP thread I dont think there is anything that I haven't already answered. However, I'm almost positive that Zoe Grace will log on here tonight and tell me otherwise.

[Cerise]

Cute.

 

To be honest.......if you read back through the original TAP thread I dont think there is anything that I haven't already answered. However, I'm almost positive that Zoe Grace will log on here tonight and tell me otherwise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ah Zoe...what did we ever do without her?

 

And TAP, in case you didn't notice, none of this was about answering or not answering questions.

[Totallyatpeace]

But I've already replied in this thread a few pages back. What's left to be said? DC and I talked this through......doesn't mean we agree but we've talked it through.

[Lokmer]

I am not denying that I am a bigot.  I am not denying that you are a bigot.  We are all bigots.  I don't see what so much offense should be taken at the phrase, as everyone I know happens to be one. All people are bigots.  Will you deny it?

If all people are bigots, the word becomes fairly meaningless. The coloquial usage of the word for the last 40 years in the English speaking world points up a lot of connotations to the word. If you want to argue jsut from lexicography we can certainly go down that road. I doubt that you would hold the same standard of lexical equivalence when, instead of respectfully noticing that you are a woman, a man were to point out that you were a cunt-carrier or a baby-factory. Even though lexically the terms are correct biological description of a woman, they are hardly respectful or even neutrally blase`,

 

Truth cannot be perverted.  Only lies can be perverted.

Basic English: You can't pervert a lie. A lie is already perverse. Truth *can* be perverted. To pervert is to twist or debase something that is good. To make something evil or dirty that once was not.

 

Who was abusing anyone?  DC made a statement that as far as I can tell is correct.  You disagreed and jumped on him.  TAP ducked and covered as per usual.  What exactly is this huge deal about anyway?

It's about civility and decency. You know, those things that make civilization and social order possible?

 

If you continue to think it is impossible then it will continue to be impossible.  I think the issue is actually very simple, but I would be surprised if anyone follows it.  Sort of the like the "love your neighbor" command.  So simple, and yet so incredibly hard for people to do.

My opinion on its possibility doesn't enter the matter. If you're interested in challenging the doctrine of hell and up against someone who truly believes it, then pointing out that it's morally reprehensible ain't gonna get you a thing.

 

I have a thing about people spouting "rise above" rhetoric, myself.  As if they are in a higher position.

 

So rising above just isn't in the game plan, eh? Raising consciouness, encouraging civility and dialogue - it just doesn't feel right to you. A shame, you're rather an intelligent and mature person otherwise. But, you're right, it's easier to pull down people who are attempting to do something productive than it is to be productive oneself.

-Lokmer

[Cerise]

Zoe's earlier question to you just echoes my feelings, that's all.