Slamming the Christians

[dogmatically_challenged]

I could have PM'd Merlin and Lokmer both but I was a coward. I apologize to them both even if we disagree. Also I want to make it crystal clear that I owe Merlin an apology. I should have PM'd him when I thought he was insulting me but I didn't.

I said a lot of things in anger and to be vindictive to them both and am sorry. I went through this thread and can see that Merlin didn't deserve the treatment I gave him. Sorry Wizard.

 

Sorry Fellas.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Loren,

 

I went to far, got carried away and did not spend the time thinking about my posts that I normally would or otherwise should, and there's no excuse for it.  It's proper and right to call me on it.  I've been working on a reply to D_C's thread directed particularly at me since last night and it'll be ready later today.

 

But this:

This is a hell of a thing to say.  It's also desperately hypcritical of you, who has always cheered on Rameus and Chef and other people who employ far more abusive attacks against Christians from time to time.  My axe that I grind here has not changed one whit in the last several months that I've been grinding it: I have no truck with bullies.  Here I crossed way over the line of making that point and became what I had beheld.  But I have at least the moral consistancy at fighting for the attacking of *positions* and not *people.* I to have, to my shame, privately enjoyed the abusive tactics employed by others from time to time, particularly in singular debate.  But I have always tried to intervene when I have been unable to ignore the hurling of groupthink prejudicial insults.  Even in this occasion, where I was inexcusably mean to D_C, I did not resort to group-insult tactics, I took him apart with his own words.  I was not down on atheists, agnostics, apostates, I *AM* one.  And, where some people are content to ignore the evils done in the name of their own camp but be harshly critical of outsiders, I prefer to be critical of what represents the views I hold dear.

 

I don't even know what else to say here, Loren.  But you, who will happily delight in the derision of a person based on the beliefs of others in their religion, are not in a morally clean position here either.  Cerise gave me a good mirror last night, one I have been looking in carefully.  But you have become what you beheld every inch as much as I did.

 

D_C, you'll have my apology on your thread tonight.

-Lokmer

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I apologize Lokmer.

 

I want to know what you know as far as the wrong aproach. I want to soak up, what seems reasonable to me. At the very least I want to know what your perception is. I may or may not agree with it all, but I'd bet there'd be some things I'll use for myself. I apologize for starting that thread against you and merlin. It was cowardly on my part. But it can be a thread were ideas are exchanged and I look foward to it. Besides, I definately need to practice debate, I've been putting that off. My style is working together, and if I'm a little dense at grasping your ideas please have patience with me.

 

Thank you for your time Lokmer I appreciate it.

[dogmatically_challenged]

I could have PM'd Merlin and Lokmer both but I was a coward. I apologize to them both even if we disagree. Also I want to make it crystal clear that I owe Merlin an apology. I should have PM'd him when I thought he was insulting me but I didn't.

I said a lot of things in anger and to be vindictive to them both and am sorry. I went through this thread and can see that Merlin didn't deserve the treatment I gave him. Sorry Wizard.

 

Sorry Fellas.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bump

[♦ nivek ♦]

At this point the Referee breaks up the clintch, has boxers go back to respective corners...

 

With any group of aggressive intelligent personalities, bumps are gonna happen.

 

Let this set of bumps cool off and subside.

 

kL

[dogmatically_challenged]

At this point the Referee breaks up the clintch, has boxers go back to respective corners...

 

With any group of aggressive intelligent personalities, bumps are gonna happen.

 

Let this set of bumps cool off and subside.

 

kL

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Earlier you even warned us in this thread. I am sorry for not heeding you nivek. It will be different next time.

[♦ nivek ♦]

dc...

 

We're allowed, even encouraged to leave our opinions here on these Boards..

 

I'm thinking we've got a mutual whack and stack happpening, everyone is taking a dogfight-like "last bite out"...

 

Let subject cool in this thread, and even though we will differ in opinion(s), we can remain civil.

 

That has happened, civility in the heat of argument.

 

Point of ExC is to *Encourage Those Excaping Religion*.

 

I think we all can do that in our individual ways and continue to add to Community.

 

kL

[Merlinfmct87]

Lokmer, I'm completely ashamed of you! Your treatment of DC has been absolutely vile and thoroughly hypocritical!

 

Yes, it has. His attacks have been profuse and(in my opinion) rather on-point. He became what he was fighting...

 

Your intellectual integrity is in the sewer. Your moral integrity is in the sewer. Your social integrity is in the sewer. With vast condescencion, you even told one of our members to use a mirror, when it's you who clearly needs one the most!

 

...But THIS?! THIS is above all need.

 

I cannot agree with you, Loren. Lokmer may have used the ad.hom. attacks with wanton abandon(as I have done many times) but his integrity was beyond question. His MORAL STANCE was the only reason he was even there.

 

D_C does not know of what he speaks. Lokmer made that painfully obvious. He has apologized for his behaviour and I am more than willing to accept it, but to say that Lokmer was utterly out of bounds for standing up against the very same thinking this site was BUILT TO STOP is obscene.

 

If we can't get angry at blindness, you need to ask Dave to delete this subforum.

 

I completely agree with the points DC made. But even if I didn't agree with him, I still felt that he made those points in a completely courteous manner and saw that he never did the hateful things of which you hatefully accused him.

 

Are we reading the same thread?

 

You should be sitting at his feet learning. His integrity has left yours in the dust.

 

You're joking, right? D_C has made a huge step in making an effort to understand, and I commend him for that. But I still think he was in the moral wrong here.

 

Your behavior has been revolting, and it's you who are completely lacking in honor here.

 

Utter bullshit. The worst he can be accused of is he was fast and loose with his own insults. His *HONOUR* is what made him see that flat evangelism(i.e. just changing faiths) can serve no purpose.

 

... And finally, just for the amusement a good juxtaposition can provide:

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

Loren

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"Apologist Lokmer?" Where the fuck did THAT come from?!

 

So... am I to understand that you are branded a nutcase if you start demanding moral integrity?

 

Right. Who would have thought to ask THAT of a person, right?

 

Merlin

[dogmatically_challenged]

Thanks nivek. I will wait 10 minutes before posting when I am angry. Maybe I'll be able to communicate by persuasion that way. As youve pointed out I should only say what I would have guts for face to face. hehe.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Thanks for not being angry at me wizard. I'll think on what is said here. I need time for that though. But thanks for not being angry.

[dogmatically_challenged]

I wish that you all would stop this whole thing.  It has gotten totally out of hand.  ALL of you pointing fingers here and there have said some very nasty and inexcusable things about one another. 

 

Pride, is a very very hard thing to swallow but it needs to be, in order to avoid any more harm than has already been caused.  These outrages at one another should have been kept to Pming/emailing.  We have all seenl the "foot in the mouths" from all of you, the names you're calling one another, the language to get a point across, etc.

 

A true apology shouldn't be followed with excuses or self defense.  When an apology is made that is all that needs to be said.  That is what makes the apology real.  Merlin, DC and Lok.... please, don't hash this out anymore on this thread.   The only thing that any of you are doing now is perhaps risking your already established good character.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed. But I think these things should be discussed. Perhaps a new thread, where I do not have to be reminded of the bad language I used. hehe.

[Merlinfmct87]

Thanks for not being angry at me wizard. I'll think on what is said here. I need time for that though. But thanks for not being angry.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Trust me man, I've been thinking about this thread for several weeks. Take your time... there is a *lot* to digest.

 

Merlin

[dogmatically_challenged]

(thankful @ Jun 25 2005, 05:47 PM)

I wish that you all would stop this whole thing.  It has gotten totally out of hand.  ALL of you pointing fingers here and there have said some very nasty and inexcusable things about one another. 

 

Pride, is a very very hard thing to swallow but it needs to be, in order to avoid any more harm than has already been caused.  These outrages at one another should have been kept to Pming/emailing.  We have all seenl the "foot in the mouths" from all of you, the names you're calling one another, the language to get a point across, etc.

 

A true apology shouldn't be followed with excuses or self defense.  When an apology is made that is all that needs to be said.  That is what makes the apology real.  Merlin, DC and Lok.... please, don't hash this out anymore on this thread. The only thing that any of you are doing now is perhaps risking your already established good character

Agreed. But I think these things should be discussed. Perhaps a new thread, where I do not have to be reminded of the bad language I used. hehe. But I would rather see in depth what the perceptions of the Wizard are and think on it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bump

[Lokmer]

Apology:

 

First off, D_C, you are owed an apology. Most particularly, because in my fury I used several very abusive terms and accusations that were not germane to the point I was making - and indeed were very hypocritical considering the fact that I was railing against you for discourtesy and bigotry. In attempting to voice my outrage at what I consider to be a particularly insidious and repulsive form of petty evil, I wound up becoming an example of exactly that sort of petty evil.

 

So, D_C, I am sincerely sorry for the abuse I heaped upon your head.

 

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

 

You caught me very flat-footed with your extremely heated reply to my attack. Not because of the degree of your anger, but because of the factual errors in the assumptions you made about me (which is what provoked my dying-of-laughter response).

 

So, in the interest of an open and level playing field...

 

I am an autodidact, not a multiple Ph.D. I have been to a lot of school, but have not sat through and finished my degree (life intervenes). I acquire my knowledge through voracious and varied reading on whatever subject happens to interest me at the time.

 

I am not a professor, I'm a photographer, videographer, and amateur filmmaker and ethicist. I also have been known to do quite a bit of fiction and poetry writing, although I am still struggling to re-discover my author's voice since my deconversion. I've seemed only to have the patience for essays since then - there's a lot in my head still needing to work itself out through propositions rather than metaphor at the moment, I suppose.

 

I'm in my late 20s rather than my early 60s as some of your rehtoric seems to imply that you think

 

I live very much in the real world, not in academia. I come, however, from an academic family that is heavily involved in the theological academic world, so it's a universe I understand quite well. I tend to keep a foot in both worlds, because despite the failings and self-importance of the isolated academy, good work still gets done in the sciences and philosophy (it just takes a lot of work to sort through all the tautological bullshit). My interests outside of art (of all sorts) and philosophy include helping people in need around me (which includes safe-house work for people running from abusive parents or spouses), starting businesses, hiking, friendship and conversation, and occasionally making a disasterous miscalculation here and there.

 

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

The issue:

 

My basic points that are germaine (which you are free to disagree):

 

From a tactical point of view, if your purpose is dialogue, then putting your sword out before you put your hands out is dumb.

 

From a tactical point of view, if your effort is the destrution of Christianity (or, actually, any philosophical system) it is foolish to attack its adherents. To make them see the evil of the system they are wedded to, you must first seperate them from the system. Dan Barker - one of the most adgendized evangelical atheists I have ever seen - has been known to quip "Most Christians are better than Christianity, they are better than Jesus, and they are better than the Bible." And, although I think Barker is wont to play fast and loose with the truth during debates, on this matter I think he's not only correct, but tactically brilliant. And the same principle holds through most faiths and philosophies: I have known muslims who are sublimely good people by EVERY possible measurement, even though Islam itself is a vile religion started by a contemptible man. Same goes for Wicca, Freemasonry, Druidism, JW's, Mormonism, Judaism, Republicans, Democrats, etc. ad. nauseum. When you identify a basically decent person with the basest aspects of their religion as if they wanted their religion to be that way, you goad them into "herd" and "persecution" mode, and their brains disconnect.

 

From a moral standpoint, the above tactic is also mistaken. That is why, for example, the men who give the orders in war crimes trial are punished more severely then the people who carry it out. The believer/adherent does have a certain amount of guilt-by-association and perhaps also some guilt-by-volition (evil things they do because authority says it's right or necessary), but that guilt-by-association depends on how closely the believer/follower is associating himself and what evil s/he's perpetrating.

 

My second, and to me most important, moral point is about the cloisterization and radicalization that happens to people in any groupthink situation. There is a difference between seeing your opponent as "adversary" and seeing your opponent as "other." And adversary in a fight is someone to go against with all your might, but engaging him with the same respect that you would wish to be treated with in return. Thus, when I am debating a Christian (which I now do less often than I used to) I make every attempt to approach the Christian first as "PERSON" and second as "adversary." This makes it easier to remember that words have an effect, not just on the person hearing the words, but on the person *speaking* the words. What we say, the way we refer to people and things, helps classify them in our minds. When we have an animal that is going to be a pet, we name it and talk to it like a person. When we have an animal that is going to be food we're less likely to talk to it at all, and refer to it as "the cow" or "the rabbit" instead of "Bessie" or "Bugs." The same principle works in our relations with people. If your opponent becomes "The Apologist" then you have also, in a sense, lost the battle, because the battle is about *people.*

 

In my opinion, good and evil are pretty basic on a human level. Morality consists basically of the application "Do as you would be done by." This isn't just a convinient moral platitude, biology bears out that the more developed a brain is the more the principle of reciprocity is ingrained in it. Chimps, Gorillas, Dogs, and Cats all seem to have a very keen sense of fairness. Humans are highly developed enough to engage in slolipsism (I'm all that really counts) and also to engage in altruism (which is essentially pre-emptive reciprocity of a good sort). Where things get complicated is in weighing choices between two evils, and in balancing the sense of rightness against our own inate, competing sense of personal godhood (looking out for oneself). Revenge, sadism, and suchlike are manifestly acts of the ego, and are extremely difficult to seperate from issues like justice.

 

 

-------

 

Because of all that, I get extremely angry when I see apostates shouting at Christians "Hooray for me and to hell with you." It's the same kind of groupthink that has allowed Christians to do the unspeakable evil they have done in the last two millenia. The one-upsmanship at the expense of another - particularly at the expense of one who is not doing it to you, but simply *agrees* with someone who once did it to you or a friend of yours - is (in my recently humbled opinion) utterly beneath contempt. It's the same binary thinking that we see in Islam between the Infidel and the Faithful, or in Nazism between the loyal German and the Jew and subversives, and in Christianity between the "Kingdom of God" and "The World." All of these are particularly ugly manifestations of the worst of human nature that says "Horray for me and to hell with you."

 

Please note, this is not "Can't we all just get along?" The world is full of battles worth fighting - indeed, battles that MUST be fought lest we, by our inaction, become complicit in the triumph of the bad guys. But there is a vast difference between doing battle against an ideology or religion (or whatever) and blaming one person for the evil of the enemy he in some way serves. There is a difference between the enemy, and the man who is conscripted in his army. It is often be necessary on the battlefield to shoot an enemy soldier, but it is never necessary to take one prisoner and torture him to alleviate your hatred of what he has come to represent to you.

 

I think that's the best I can express myself. Agree or not, I hope that the perspective is useful to you and others.

 

-Lokmer

[scotter]

Am I qualified to say something? And allow me to use the word ‘we’ in the following to denote the non-Christian members with me Scotter together, ‘cos I really don’t want to classify yourself - myself, you – me.

 

Debate amongst members who happen to be non-Christians-ex-Christians-atheists…is fine and healthy, by and large Debate is not necessarily defined as non-Christians vs Christians in this Forum.

 

But we must stand united---do members know that we are constantly monitored?

 

The webmaster can tell you there are some IP addresses who always log on but never register as members to participate in discussion, amongst them must be evangelical institutions, apologetic groups, who are watching our questions, watching our threads, and simply, watching our behavior.

 

You know, when we behave like the fallen one with bat wings, then we ARE the fallen ones with bat wings, to those evangelicals and fundies who are reading the threads. And they may be laughing off now. They don’t need to say, “I shall be laughing at you when I am in Heaven.” They are laughing at us right here on earth now.

 

I am relatively new, maybe if Han Solo say the things I want to say, if the moderators say the things, it can carry more weight. Still I have to say it. (Originally I wanted to write a thread, but this thread and this space is just right.)

 

Right, we do not live under shadow of Christians, to behave “properly” because we know Christians are monitoring us, “judging” us, but we want to tell the Christians who are monitoring this site, that we, as ex-Christians who no longer believe Jesus/God, atheists, people of other beliefs, possess as much integrity standard as a dignified human should be.

 

This website, this forum, is a chance, a chance to tell the Christians and Christianity ---

 

You may have taken away our past, but you can never take away our future!

 

 

--- Scotter

[Lokmer]

As promised, I posted to D_C's thread.

-Lokmer

[dogmatically_challenged]

Thanks man. I appreciate your taking time with me Lokmer. For now I want to listen and think about things.

[Ouroboros]

Am I qualified to say something? And allow me to use the word ‘we’ in the following to denote the non-Christian members with me Scotter together, ‘cos I really don’t want to classify yourself - myself, you – me. 

Why wouldn’t you be qualified? Of course you are!

 

Debate amongst members who happen to be non-Christians-ex-Christians-atheists…is fine and healthy, by and large Debate is not necessarily defined as non-Christians vs Christians in this Forum.

 

But we must stand united---do members know that we are constantly monitored?

 

The webmaster can tell you there are some IP addresses who always log on but never register as members to participate in discussion, amongst them must be evangelical institutions, apologetic groups, who are watching our questions, watching our threads, and simply, watching our behavior.

 

You know, when we behave like the fallen one with bat wings, then we ARE the fallen ones with bat wings, to those evangelicals and fundies who are reading the threads. And they may be laughing off now. They don’t need to say, “I shall be laughing at you when I am in Heaven.” They are laughing at us right here on earth now.

It’s true that we’re monitored, and even more so by the Christians that actually are registered members, and engage in debates.

 

But yet I do think this discussion is somewhat needed, maybe not to establish a rules of conduct for our postings (censorship, no thanx!), but at least establish and understanding between each other. This might have to come to the price of being open and in freeform. But isn’t that the beauty? We don’t hide anything. We don’t try to pretend. We are who we are and some Christians (SOIL) said that this is one of the reasons he comes here, he can say any things he wants. This of course will come with a price of discontent, bad image to the rest of the world, heated words spoken without thought etc. Still, it’s just like the Freedom of Speech, we also have to allow the bad speeches to be spoken.

 

I am relatively new, maybe if Han Solo say the things I want to say, if the moderators say the things, it can carry more weight. Still I have to say it. (Originally I wanted to write a thread, but this thread and this space is just right.)

Hey, how did I get in here?

 

Right, we do not live under shadow of Christians, to behave “properly” because we know Christians are monitoring us, “judging” us, but we want to tell the Christians who are monitoring this site, that we, as ex-Christians who no longer believe Jesus/God, atheists, people of other beliefs, possess as much integrity standard as a dignified human should be.

 

This website, this forum, is a chance, a chance to tell the Christians and Christianity ---

 

You may have taken away our past, but you can never take away our future!

 

--- Scotter

Yes and no. I believe the purpose of the site is wider than just being a presentation for the Christian community, it surely is that, but it also is our oasis for discussion, rants and outbursts or should I say “mental therapy”. We can discuss and argue and learn, which I think is the purpose of life. Motion, dynamics and change is what keeps us alive.

 

The recent discussion got extremely heated, and that maybe could have been avoided by each party just step back and try to understand what the other one said, before responding, or maybe not? I can’t say.

 

But it’s clear that we have two polarities and just a few people lands on the extremes, but most of us lands somewhere in the middle.

 

The polarities we have is on one side those who think we should treat Christians with silk gloves, and the other side that we should treat them with burning iron rods. Ok, I’m not saying really anyone is to either extreme-extreme, but some land closer to one side or the other. I would put myself on the silk-glove side of the middle, and my reasons have been developed from long experience of people of different faiths.

 

When it comes to our conduct if we should as a group behave more to one side or the other, maybe is a request we shouldn’t make, but I think we have to know that we do have these different opinions and some might lash out against someone of the other kind. Maybe we only need to understand these differences and take it into account in our discussion? Maybe; I don’t know. Most likely we will face this problem over and over again, and it all just comes down to, that we are different. And Thank Gawd for That!

 

For instance I wouldn't want to be like PurpleRhino, because then I actually might be funny for once.

 

[edit]

Spellcheck… Ay stil spel as an monkey!

[Lokmer]

I should add to my apopology, D_C, that part of the anger I hurled at you was not even yours to begin with. I have been growing increasingly angry at the kind of cloistered "us vs. them" mentality that has been festering subtly amongst most of our members here over the last three months, and so when I let loose on you I was not just letting loose what I was angry with you about. I was letting it *ALL* out, and that was unjust and deeply unfair to you.

 

Again, my humblest apologies. You merited a boxing match, and I gave you a machine gun. I'm deeply sorry.

 

-Lokmer

[dogmatically_challenged]

I am 16 Lokmer. It probably shos huh.

[scotter]

Han Solo,

 

Because you have already established yourself as the knowledgeable senior.

 

And I mean it.

[Lokmer]

I want to spend a couple days thinking on this, and if you both want to add periodicaly to this thread anythig more please do so. I want to take my time in testing my ideas and perceptions, so I must start by making damn sure I understand everything of what you both are trying to get across to me.

 

Thank you, D_C, for being such a gracious sport about this. In response to your question in PM about talking theology and history as well as tactics and ethics, I'd be delighted to, though it probably ought to be on a different thread. If you scroll through my post history you can find quite a bit of my brain droppings on those subjects posted already, particularly in some of Mythra's recent threads posting alongside AUB.

 

-Lokmer

[Amethyst]

The polarities we have is on one side those who think we should treat Christians with silk gloves, and the other side that we should treat them with burning iron rods. Ok, I’m not saying really anyone is to either extreme-extreme, but some land closer to one side or the other. I would land on the silk-glove side of the middle, and my arguments have been developed from long experience of people of different faiths.

 

I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise.

 

I guess the reason I react the way I do when I see people judging entire groups negatively is due mostly to my childhood; I know what it is like to be bullied, and I don't take kindly to people treating others in the same manner when it's unjustified.

[Lokmer]

I am 16 Lokmer. It probably shos huh.

 

It explains much

-Lokmer

[Ouroboros]

Han Solo,

 

Because you have already established yourself as the knowledgeable senior. 

 

And I mean it.

Now I feel old...

 

Nah, just kidding. That was extremely kind of you. Thanx.

 

If you keep on saying things like that, I might believe you one day... so keep it comming!

[Ouroboros]

I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise.

 

I guess the reason I react the way I do when I see people judging entire groups negatively is due mostly to my childhood; I know what it is like to be bullied, and I don't take kindly to people treating others in the same manner when it's unjustified.

This is true for many people in this site, and I think in some cases, some are so hurt by their experience of begin bullied, that it turns around to more anger than it needs to.

 

One of the other postings was that "let's hope we don't lose that anger", which is only half true. Sure we can keep anger towards the wrong things in this world, but let us not keep anger to the people or to good things.

 

While I was Christian I probably totally met and made friends with some thousands of Christians. Not one single one of them could be compared to the other. And I know that people can only change from inside and just like if you get a 3rd degree burn on your skin, it will become hard and rough. The same way goes for our psyche. To push someone is ok, but to burn someone, you have made the person impenetrable for reason.

 

You don’t want to put people in emotion mode for the arguments; you want to put them into reason mode. That’s our strongest weapon. Emotion is what drives a believer, but reason is what drives us!