Slamming the Christians

[dogmatically_challenged]

If you had any clue what an utter mindfuck this post is to me, you would be disgusted with me.

 

I'm trying to come up with a responce that's a little more solid than "It don't feel right." I'm not blowing you off or ignoring you. I have far too much respect for you to do either.

 

Merlin

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Just say whats on your mind wizard. There is nothing wrong with doing that.

[Amethyst]

You have just said EXACYLTY what I have said with the exception of calling a spade a spade. They are connected even though they have good intentions. I did say that I believe that we all are victoms of Christianity, Christians and NonChristians alike.

 

Sorry, it seemed to me like you were calling them bigoted simply because they were a members of a religious group that, granted, tends to turn out more bigots than nice people. But it doesn't mean that everyone in that group is like that, and I am getting really tired of people inferring that.

 

I will agree that Christianity has done a lot of psychological harm to people, and the Christian church needs to address that, although I doubt they ever will because then they will essentially be admitting that they are a harmful cult.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Sorry, it seemed to me like you were calling them bigoted simply because they were a members of a religious group that, granted, tends to turn out more bigots than nice people.  But it doesn't mean that everyone in that group is like that, and I am getting really tired of people inferring that.

 

I will agree that Christianity has done a lot of psychological harm to people, and the Christian church needs to address that, although I doubt they ever will because then they will essentially be admitting that they are a harmful cult.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Please reread my posts in this thread. And don't worry about any misunderstandings. So what? Talk about it if you think I am totally off my rocker.

 

If I am wrong someone will correct me. It maight as well be you as anyone else.

[Merlinfmct87]

Just say whats on your mind wizard. There is nothing wrong with doing that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's the idea, d_a. Figuring out what's on my mind.

 

Merlin

[dogmatically_challenged]

Well I will tell you that I feel guilty. But I still think I'm right in what I said.

 

She was shocked at what I posted in another thread. And most of what I posted in that thread applied to SOIL, another Christian intellectual.

[Totallyatpeace]

Well I will tell you that I feel guilty. But I still think I'm right in what I said.

 

She was shocked at what I posted in another thread. And most of what I posted in that thread applied to SOIL, another Christian intellectual.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

*She* is right here.

 

DC~ I suppose if I came here preaching left and right trying to convert at least one of you....working it harder and harder until one......JUST ONE.......reconverts and comes back to Christianity, I might understand your feelings.

 

I haven't done that. Not even in PM's.

 

But yet that's what it feels like you are doing to me. That you are working me until I leave my faith and if I don't leave my faith you will feel that you have failed.

 

Like I said earlier, everyone needs to come to their own conclusion in their own timing.

[dogmatically_challenged]

*She* is right here.

 

DC~ I suppose if I came here preaching left and right trying to convert at least one of you....working it harder and harder until one......JUST ONE.......reconverts and comes back to Christianity, I might understand your feelings.

 

I haven't done that. Not even in PM's.

 

But yet that's what it feels like you are doing to me. That you are working me until I leave my faith and if I don't leave my faith you will feel that you have failed.

 

Like I said earlier, everyone needs to come to their own conclusion in their own timing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think that ANY converting to the Christian faith at any time and any place is causing harm. I will not fib. But every nice thing I have said about you is sincere.

 

I think you have the right of it as far as the time it takes for us to test our perceptions and beliefs. I will back off a little.

[Totallyatpeace]

I think that ANY converting to the Christian faith at any time and any place is causing harm. I will not fib. But every nice thing I have said about you is sincere.

 

I think you have the right of it as far as the time it takes for us to test our perceptions and beliefs. I will back off a little.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Don't be easy on me. I'm a tough cookie. (well...maybe)

[Guest vanesa]

Okay, I will not attack the Xtians now, but why is it perfectly okay for all of you to start attacking the Xtians, but when I call them on the carpet, I get all kinds of heat for it? I sense a possible double standard here.

[Totallyatpeace]

Careful Vanesa... or I just might hug you....

[Guest vanesa]

Wierd, a Xtian lesbian?

[Merlinfmct87]

 

 

Merlin

[Totallyatpeace]

Wierd, a Xtian lesbian?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

I finally see humor.......

 

 

I'm as straight as they come...... Trust me.

[Amethyst]

Wierd, a Xtian lesbian?

 

Believe it or not, I've known Christian gays & lesbians. One of them is studying to be a UCC minister and left the church in the burbs to take a position at a church in the downtown Mpls. area. I think I mentioned going to a very liberal church when I was in the last stages of my deconversion. It was, actually, one of the things that helped me deconvert. Because I realized that even if you take away the hypocrisy, the bigotry, and the belief that everyone who's not Christian automatically goes to hell, it's just another myth.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Okay, I will not attack the Xtians now, but why is it perfectly okay for all of you to start attacking the Xtians, but when I call them on the carpet, I get all kinds of heat for it? I sense a possible double standard here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There is no double standard that I can see. I figure if you just plainly say what exactly it is you see to be wrong you should be fine. But this is also a forum where freethinkers hang out so expect debate from heathens as well as the Christians no matter what you post.

 

We obviously are not all in agreement about whether Christianity needs to be stopped. I aim to change that if I can. The Christian religion ALL DENOMINATIONS should be stood up to and deserves no respect as long as it holds that evil book to be the word of a god.

 

The only reason we got chewed out is because we ignored Texas Freethinkers rules in HIS thread. So there is no double standard Venesa.

[spamandham]

I guess it does come down to very different starting points - you do not know a single christian who reveres the ascension of a loved one - and I do.

 

Something I've never understood, and that seems applicable here, is why did Jesus grieve for Lazarus? According to modern Christian theology, Lazarus was in heaven, so from his perspective he was better off dead.

 

Yet from Jesus' perspective as god incarnate, not only was he with Lazarus the whole time as the father, but he also knew he was going to resurrect Lazarus shortly as the son.

 

It's not like he was grieving that he wouldn't see Lazarus for a few decades, he knew he was going to see him again within an hour or so. It's not like Lazarus was in pain either - he was in bliss.

 

What gives with that? Was Jesus sad for the sake of Lazarus who was going to have to leave the bliss of heaven to come back to earth? If so, why didn't Lazarus say anything about how fantastic it was to be dead?

 

(and why is the story, including the name, so similar to the story of the raising of Osiris from the dead?)

[Alice]

Something I've never understood, and that seems applicable here, is why did Jesus grieve for Lazarus?  According to modern Christian theology, Lazarus was in heaven, so from his perspective he was better off dead.

This links in really well with the thread Hans has started about free will and emotions in heaven and hell. You are absolutely right that it doesn't make sense in the context of a modern christian theology. I do remember raising questions along these lines - and the response I got back was something to do with 'time'. I was taught that no one is actually in heaven yet - all awaiting judgement day, but that there would be no awareness of the 'wait' - because in the afterlife the concept of time would be different, thus Jesus could say stuff like 'today you'll be with me in paradise' - because for the dead that's how it would seem. I was also told that Jesus raised Lazarus out of compassion for his grieving family rather than for his own - 'I'm missing Larry like mad so let's get him back for a few more years of earthly existence' kinda thing.

 

Just in case you now think I'm trying to defend the indefensible ... I'd just like to say that I'm not ... I think the stories in the Bible are a mixture of myths and tall tales with some journalistic class 'truths' - I'd bet my bottom dollar that raising Lazarus from the dead falls into the tall tales category.

 

I found your post really interesting because i like trying to extract 'meaning' from tall tales and I'm not inclined to think that because something is mythical it doesn't contain the 'truth' - in fact there is IMO often more truth in myths than in 'eye witness accounts of an actual event'. I also like trying to work out why christians believe what they believe - and what the story writer originally intended to convey (before the tale fell into the hands of the 'this literally happened because the only valid form of truth is things actually happening' brigade)

 

(and possibly/hopefully you weren't thinking anything of the sort - it's just that my intentions in this bit of the conversation seem to have been misunderstood in one corner and I'm trying to avoid that happening again!)

 

I guess this example of yours is another one that demonstrates the inconsistencies of modern christian theology, you are right, it certainly doesn't seem to fit ... I'd quite like to kidnap your example and set it free in the 'freewill and emotions' thread! Hope that's ok.

[Reach]

Something I've never understood, and that seems applicable here, is why did Jesus grieve for Lazarus?  According to modern Christian theology, Lazarus was in heaven, so from his perspective he was better off dead.

 

(and why is the story, including the name, so similar to the story of the raising of Osiris from the dead?)

First question: In this story, you have attributed Jesus' grieving to the cause of Lazarus' death and the Bible does not say that is why he grieved. Check the behavior of Mary and Martha and you will understand why he grieved. He grieved over the sisters' unbelief.

 

Now, the question about Osiris? That's the real problem, isn't it? The story of Lazarus is not authentic; it's clearly a plagiarism. Another strike against the legitimacy of Christianity.

[Reach]

If you had any clue what an utter mindfuck this post is to me, you would be disgusted with me.

 

I'm trying to come up with a responce that's a little more solid than "It don't feel right." I'm not blowing you off or ignoring you. I have far too much respect for you to do either.

Well Merlin, when you figure out what it is you want to say, let me know. I never knew that Wizards could be at a loss for words.

 

This is rather awkward wording but it's the simplest way I can think of saying what I want to say: It never feels completely right to oppose in an area, especially philosophically, those whom we hold in high esteem. I think that most of us seem to gravitate towards agreement and to seek for areas where we are in one accord, which makes us experience more of an interconnectedness and unless we thrive on confrontation, we tend to shy away from discord as we are disconcerted by our differences and dissonance.

 

I can disagree vehemently with just about everyone in my world and it does not matter much to me at all but when it comes down to a minor perceptual difference between, say, me and my mate (my best friend), for example, it can send me into a bit of a brief emotional tailspin. Even though that is only most temporary, there is a bit of an adrenaline rush as my brain senses the conflict which it dislikes and rushes to find resolution.

 

Lastly, we are uncomfortable with speaking the truth sometimes because disagreement does nothing to create warm fuzzies.

 

The respect is mutual and I can't imagine ever being disgusted with you. We seek understanding, not conflict.

-Reach

[spamandham]

First question: In this story, you have attributed Jesus' grieving to the cause of Lazarus' death and the Bible does not say that is why he grieved. Check the behavior of Mary and Martha and you will understand why he grieved. He grieved over the sisters' unbelief.

 

I went back and read John 11:1-45, and I can see where the argument could be made that his weeping was empathic brought about by the general sense of sorrow of everyone else, but I don't see how a good argument could be made that he was weeping over the unbelief of Mary and Martha. As best I can tell, they were toting the party line, and Jesus never reprimanded them for unbelief (as he did others from time to time).

[Reach]

I went back and read John 11:1-45, and I can see where the argument could be made that his weeping was empathic brought about by the general sense of sorrow of everyone else, but I don't see how a good argument could be made that he was weeping over the unbelief of Mary and Martha.  As best I can tell, they were toting the party line, and Jesus never reprimanded them for unbelief (as he did others from time to time).

Well, I'm not going to preach that message. I don't even care. This is just another case, where as you found by going back and reading the passage again, one can pretty much read the story and draw any conclusions he wants. The Bible and its various stories are consistently up for grabs when it comes to interpretation and application.

[Guest Hannibal]

in my experience debating with christians, i've always been civil with them, but not because i feel i need to tiptoe through eggshells, but because that is my nature. although, if they get hostile with me, i'm more than glad to strike back coldly.

 

Many fundies want a negative reaction, it helps reinforce their beliefs that they are right. So they usually act in ways that garner negative reactions.

 

It's called a 'projection identification" in psychology

[Mr. Neil]

I like to deliver good arguments in a cold manner. Sure, they get the hate they want, but they also get a little vinegar in with their wine.

[Ouroboros]

Many fundies want a negative reaction, it helps reinforce their beliefs that they are right. So they usually act in ways that garner negative reactions.

 

It's called a 'projection identification" in psychology

 

I had a feeling it was something like that...

 

So they want to reinforce their belief by creating the enemy, and you create the enemy by rally them up and get angry responses.

[Merlinfmct87]

Well Merlin, when you figure out what it is you want to say, let me know. I never knew that Wizards could be at a loss for words. 

 

First time for everything. Also, our good reputation is more due to our excellent press staff than anything else... plus people get pretty scared of you once you toss your first fireball....

 

I'm jesting, of course. Trust me, I've been left speechless many times in my stay here.

 

This is rather awkward wording but it's the simplest way I can think of saying what I want to say: It never feels completely right to oppose in an area, especially philosophically, those whom we hold in high esteem. I think that most of us seem to gravitate towards agreement and to seek for areas where we are in one accord, which makes us experience more of an interconnectedness and unless we thrive on confrontation, we tend to shy away from discord as we are disconcerted by our differences and dissonance.

 

I agree wholeheartedly. I don't like discord to say the least, but I do believe in facing your problems.

 

I can disagree vehemently with just about everyone in my world and it does not matter much to me at all but when it comes down to a minor perceptual difference between, say, me and my mate (my best friend), for example, it can send me into a bit of a brief emotional tailspin. Even though that is only most temporary, there is a bit of an adrenaline rush as my brain senses the conflict which it dislikes and rushes to find resolution.

 

I've been there - exactly in that place you describe. It is a very painful place to be... but you do walk away stronger, invariably. Of course, you never remember that fact when you're in the middle of it, but I suppose that would be too much to ask for, eh?

 

Lastly, we are uncomfortable with speaking the truth sometimes because disagreement does nothing to create warm fuzzies.

 

*nods*

 

I admit, it is a lot harder to bring up a subject when you can't see any positive outcome either, which is how I often feel about discussing the religion directly.

 

The respect is mutual and I can't imagine ever being disgusted with you. We seek understanding, not conflict.

-Reach

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm very touched - and I agree wholeheartedly. Understanding is the goal.

 

*sigh*

 

But sometimes conflict is needed for understanding to come, is it not?

 

Thats the beautiful thing about freethought. We are free agents. All of us. Some of us are trying to deconvert Christians. But so what of it? The Christian religion is unpredictable in that we can never know what will come from it in the future. We know of it's past and what it is at present. The bible and its mix of love and hate, tolerance and bigotry is very confusing and for that reason believing that that book is the word of a god will always be a problem for humanity.

 

I am unabashedly unashamed for trying to deconvert Christians. I try not to be hateful about it though.

 

This gives me chills, it really does.

 

What it says to me is that you're trying to change the dogma, not the behavior. For me it is exactly the opposite. I really couldn't care less what god(s) people bow before, it's their affair, not mine. When they start harming people I step in. If they are harming themselves, I try to point that out... if they are bound and determined to hurt themselves, there isn't much I can do.

 

If attempts at deconverting Christians is an activity not welcome here I am unaware of it. I will respect the Webmaster if it is not the thing to do here.

 

For now I will say that there is nothing wrong with it. Can you show me wizard why it may be wrong?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I say it's wrong because it's narrow sighted. Trying to change a person because of one detail in that person not only does harm(it's indiscriminate) but it fails to solve the problem.

 

That being said...

 

Sometimes the person is so tightly wound in the idea of 'God is great' they never hear the next line - 'but will he listen?' They are so blinded that they refuse to see the harm they are doing by following 'His Word.' So you have to point out that the only way to be a faithful fundamentalist Christian is to toss mercy and love out the window.

 

You have to illustrate the choice they have: Be a Christian, or follow the loving image of Christ.

 

Merlin, based on the posts that our WebMaster has made over the years on Ex-C, it is quite apparent that this site exists for more than one single purpose. Clearly and evidently, a secondary purpose of this site is a proactive one, to educate truth-seeking Christians and ourselves that we might be able to fight against the tides of Christianity.

 

Now how I took this, in my own view, was making sure Christianity stayed in the church, not it the government or the school curriculum. People can believe what they believe as long as it harms no one else.

 

I've been told by many true Ex-C(verified apostates, not never-was like myself) that this belief is... naive is the nice term. Because Christianity can't help but harm.

 

Just like the passive-aggressive Christian member, some may not appear to have much fight in them, but they can leave the battle to the others who are willing and equipping themselves to fight the insidious evil that Christianity is...

Insidious:

Etymology: Latin insidiosus, from insidiae ambush, from insidEre to sit in, sit on, from in- + sedEre to sit —more at SIT

Date: 1545

1 a : awaiting a chance to entrap : TREACHEROUS b : harmful but enticing : SEDUCTIVE <insidious drugs>

2 a : having a gradual and cumulative effect : SUBTLE <the insidious pressures of modern life> b : of a disease : developing so gradually as to be well established before becoming apparent

Christanity is an insidious evil. Those caught in her trap deserve to be rescued, if at all possible. Or, disliking all the confrontation and wanting to avoid being anything but nice, do we care enough to do bother with the battle?

 

Freedom is the ability to do stupid things.

 

That being said, one of my darkest fears, and what always drew me into the debate forum is the new apostate being seduced by the spin the nutcases are selling... that they will forget the pain and the illogic their beliefs caused them and just believe the nice, easy-to-swallow image they sell.

 

No.

 

 

 

I love my children enough to want them to be completely free from Christianity and so I work toward that end, in the most loving, but blunt and honest way I am able. Why do I bother to try to bring my two children out of Christianity? I love them and want what is best for them. I learned something a long time ago: Poison is not good for us.

 

Do I always like my bluntness? No, not really. But time does not always allow me the freedom of couching every unappetizing truth in the sweetest of honey buns.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You're absolutly right here.

 

If their beliefs are causing them pain, they need to be discussed, that's something I think everybody here would agree with.

 

At the same time telling a person that they should change their beliefs is not something I'm comfortable with. I don't honestly know why, but it's something that makes me very hesitant. I know that I've done it indirectly(at the very least) in my time here, telling people such nonsense like evolution, the big bang theory, equal rights, etc. etc. etc.

 

I can say the Bible is crap. I can say that Jesus is not my role model, nor is any other saint. I can say I don't believe or respect BibleGod.

 

I have a very hard time saying "You should not believe in this." I have told them the facts are not on their side, that according to all rational and reasonable indications they are flat out wrong. But I've never told them what to do with it.

 

Maybe I always felt the next course of action was obvious, so why rub it in?

 

I think - think, not know - that the reason I have a problem with it is because I believe it's everyone's right to believe how they wish. I have every right to show them the truth, but it stops there. They can believe in the invisible pink unicorn, and I will respect that belief, but the facts are something I am obligated to show them.

 

I know I'm missing something obvious. I hope you can point it out to me.

 

My best regards to you,

 

Merlin