Comments for Questions for Christian Members

[LloydDobler]

You are a sick individual.

I am well, thank you for your concern though.

No you're not. And I have the chat logs to prove it.

Here's a real choice tidbit from our first week with what YoYo defines as 'well'.

[22:22:49] <JP1283> JKorn, you quit your job?

[22:22:52] <JP1283> Come on.

[22:23:27] <JP1283> Why in the world would God tell you to quit your job?  You are supporting you and your wife.  Where are you going to buy money for cigarettes?

[22:23:44] <jkorn> yea

[22:23:56] <jkorn> he said its time to do his works

[22:24:11] <JP1283> What is he going to make you do?

[22:24:11] <jkorn> still figuring it all out

[22:24:41] <jkorn> he told me i would be one of the last harvesters?

[22:25:41] <jkorn> told me to preach to the 7 churches?, i presumme is the type of people descibed in beginn. of revelat.

[22:26:38] <jkorn> but, i have to have some things handled in the church of god to even interveiw or something, must have a sound marriage and cant smoke.

[22:27:00] <jkorn> so, i might be floatin around i guess?

[22:27:32] <LloydDobler> hate to say it but you shoulda quit smokin before you quit workin

[22:29:49] <jkorn> yea thats what i was thinkin

[22:31:34] <jkorn> well, god told me to quit someking the night before all that happened, and the next morning i lit up and i dont know, something happened, and i just felt real funny, and i remembered what was said, so after that is when he told me to quit my job.

[22:36:49] * jkorn is out for a smoke............

[22:36:53] <ericf> So, how's this working out for you?

[22:37:41] <LloydDobler> fuckin a dude

[22:37:52] <LloydDobler> i question whether or not you really even believe that god is talking to you

[22:37:57] <LloydDobler> i mean GOD IS TALKING TO YOU

[22:38:07] <LloydDobler> and you can't even fucking quit smoking?

[22:38:26] <JP1283> if God told me to quit smoking, I would QUIT SMOKING.

[22:38:33] <LloydDobler> no shit

[22:38:41] <LloydDobler> i mean even if it's delusion

Not only were we abusive to you right from the start, you showed yourself to be a complete nutter right from the start.

 

I rest my case. Get off the internet and go see a psychiatrist. Or at least waste your time on the 7 churches god commanded you to preach to. This sure as hell ain't one of 'em.

[Guest MalaInSe]

acorn/jkorn/yoyo, etc:

 

The banner reveals himself  I actually went in the one of the last times and everyone didnt really care until "The Banner came in".

 

I'm the chatroom owner. The room creators and I don't believe in making quick decisions on these things, and we don't do anything without a consensus of the other room creators. I supported your ban on the basis of several complaints: (1) you were harassing other posters with your endtime delusions, (2) you were delusional and apparently unable to carry on a conversation, (3) you were entering the room with multiple and false personas, and (4) you were spamming the room. You are the only ban we've agreed on so far, by the way. That's how impressive you were in your lack of regard.

 

As you say, there was an attempt to be nice to you in the beginning and have civil discourse. However, that appears to be quite impossible with you. It became very clear very early that you required much in the way of professional assistance with your mental health.

 

Your repeated attempts to reenter the chatroom, frequently under other names and under false pretenses did not help your case. Your ban is permanent, and it's not because you are a Christian or for any other reason than that you don't know how to act around people. Rest assured, however, that you weren't banned merely on the word of LloydDobler, influential though he may be, it was a joint decision made by the room creators and room owner.

 

Renee

[Lokmer]

Thanks for mentioning "Mark McFall of Frontline Apologetics" - I'll make a note of that and hopefully get around to checking out the site sometime!

 

McFall has my respect as a civil human being because he invites discussion (Carrier is a regular poster on his site, for example). I do not vouch for his material on the other hand, he's a competant intellectual, but his arguments are fairly stock and rather tepid, IMHO.

 

Actually - I would really like to hear if there are any people who you do still respect - who dabble in apologetics.  I don't remember if you commented when I posted some links to some stuff by Peter Kreeft. Also, have you read anything by Os Guinness??? 

 

As a rule, I do not respect apologists at all. The dicipline of apologetics is dishonest from the start - it's a mode of argumentation made for the express purpose of selling or defending an a priori conclusion. It is not a rational or honorable mode of discourse, it does not present arguements, and it is a generally inferior form of rehtoric.

 

And, just FYI, I didn't respect apologists as a Christian. I grew up around real academics, and have been able to spot the difference between a presentation piece and propaganda since I was barely out of diapers.

 

Like I say, I would really like to know who you still respect (if anyone) - and/or who you respected while you were still referring to yourself as a Christian?

 

I have and do respect many Christian thinkers and researchers. Bruce Metzger and Dan Wallace for their textual criticism work, Jacques Ellul and Deitrich Bonhoeffer (both VERY much, both as philosophers and as human beings), Kirekegaard, Bono, Vincent Van Gough, J.R.R. Tolkien (for his mytho-literary work), C.S. Lewis (for some of his fiction and for his literary critical work, definitely not for his apologetics at all - they are worse than most), and Martin Luther (though, again, not for his apologetics or theology, but merely for his courage. Some of the finest words ever uttered were his defense before the Diet of Worms: "Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.").

 

But, as I said, I have absolutely no respect for apologists or their work. Period. It is a thoroughly dishonest profession, always has been.

 

-Lokmer

[Abiyoyo]

Here's a real choice tidbit from our first week with what YoYo defines as 'well'.

 

Not only were we abusive to you right from the start, you showed yourself to be a complete nutter right from the start.

 

I rest my case.  Get off the internet and go see a psychiatrist.  Or at least waste your time on the 7 churches god commanded you to preach to.  This sure as hell ain't one of 'em.

 

 

MalaInSe,Jun 18 2005, 11:42 AM

acorn/jkorn/yoyo, etc:

I'm the chatroom owner.  The room creators and I don't believe in making quick decisions on these things, and we don't do anything without a consensus of the other room creators.  I supported your ban on the basis of several complaints: (1) you were harassing other posters with your endtime delusions, (2) you were delusional and apparently unable to carry on a conversation, (3) you were entering the room with multiple and false personas, and (4) you were spamming the room.  You are the only ban we've agreed on so far, by the way.  That's how impressive you were in your lack of regard.

 

As you say, there was an attempt to be nice to you in the beginning and have civil discourse.  However, that appears to be quite impossible with you.  It became very clear very early that you required much in the way of professional assistance with your mental health.

 

Your repeated attempts to reenter the chatroom, frequently under other names and under false pretenses did not help your case.  Your ban is permanent, and it's not because you are a Christian or for any other reason than that you don't know how to act around people.  Rest assured, however, that you weren't banned merely on the word of LloydDobler, influential though he may be, it was a joint decision made by the room creators and room owner.

 

Renee

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

QUOTE(.:webmaster:. @ Jun 18 2005, 07:45 AM)

 

 

 

 

 

Now, having said all that, I would like to ask Yo Yo for ten dollars.

 

First of all, the verses above say believers should give to all who ask. I'm asking.

I would be more than happy to send a donation. I need the address.

 

 

Secondly, it costs money to run this site, and if YoYo thinks he is entitled to a free ride, he is mistaken. This site is for EX-Christians.

 

A free ride has never been mentioned by me. I actually, from observing everones attitude toward other beliefs came to my own conclusion that everone wants to have adult discussions and learn from each other, no matter what the religion. I simply answered the questions that were posted to Christians on this site, honestly. If others feel that I am not being truthful, then I cant do nothing about that.

 

 

Thirdly, if Yo Yo is being slandered as he claims, shouldn't his response be reflective of his savior's words above? Or is the Sermon on the Mount considered passé in Yo Yo's  brand of Christianity?

 

You know, thats funny. I prayed about all that last night, and reliazed that I was wrong by this post. In that, I apologize for my topic here and will continue posting as normal, just not about how I got here. I dont want to offend others here, as it seems I have. So, for the 3rd comment, you are right and I formally apologize.

[Totallyatpeace]

Yo-Yo~

 

Can I introduce you to Word Association.

 

 

Tap

[BigToe]

Le Sigh. Not all Christians believe in hell to have a fear of it, not all are mean, not all try to preach, heck not all care about it all that much.

 

YoYo is still a liar anyway you spin it. And has probably needed help since the first time he farted in a sandbox.

[Fweethawt]

And has probably needed help since the

first time he farted in a sandbox.

 

 

 

<--- Fwee with his harmful gas and chemical suit.

[Abiyoyo]

Le Sigh. Not all Christians believe in hell to have a fear of it, not all are mean, not all try to preach, heck not all care about it all that much.

 

YoYo is still a liar anyway you spin it. And has probably needed help since the first time he farted in a sandbox.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, since you are calling me a liar, and you are coined a Christian on this site, I have a question. Christian to Christian.

 

What does Jesus said about His people. What would he rather them be: Hot, Cold, or Lukewarm. What was His response to each? Why did He say this?

[Abiyoyo]

Yo-Yo~

 

Can I introduce you to Word Association.

Tap

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

[Fweethawt]

Well, since you are calling me a liar, and you are coined a Christian on this site, I have a question. Christian to Christian.

 

What does Jesus said about His people. What would he rather them be: Hot, Cold, or Lukewarm. What was His response to each? Why did He say this?

 

Dude, you just lied again.

 

You said that you had 'a' question for her.

 

You asked four questions.

 

[BigToe]

Dearest YoYo-

 

Because I call you a liar doesn't imply anything as to my hot, cold or lukewarm status. We aren't the same "brand" anyway so what you determine as each of those would be different. But the lying thing has nothing to do with you being a Christian- it has to do with you contradicting yourself and saying you have not done things that you have. That is what a lie is.

[simonpeter]

It is unfortunate that many believe that all Christians are of the same thought and carry the same ideas, ideals and faith. Because the term "Christian" has been so misused and polluted through the ages, many of use prefer the term "Students of Christ."

 

In any event, I find it difficult to understand why exchristians find the teachings of Jesus objectionable.

[LloydDobler]

It is unfortunate that many believe that all Christians are of the same thought and carry the same ideas, ideals and faith. Because the term "Christian" has been so misused and polluted through the ages, many of use prefer the term "Students of Christ."

 

In any event, I find it difficult to understand why exchristians find the teachings of Jesus objectionable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's unfortunate that many believe that all ex-christians are of the same thought and carry the same ideas, ideals and lack of faith.

 

We don't find the teachings of Jesus objectionable. The golden rule is great. His teachings on charity, mercy, forgiveness, love, and grace are great ideas. Fairly obvious and universal, but great nonetheless.

 

We find the belief in Jesus as god and the doctrine of hell and condemnation pretty objectionable though.

[Vixentrox]

The whole "hate your family" is a questionable Jesus teaching.....

[cerebralchristian]

The whole "hate your family" is a questionable Jesus teaching.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Vixentrox,

 

That's just comparative hyperbole, which is a common literary style employed in the speech/writing of the Hebrew culture at that time.

 

Jesus of course did not mean that one should develop and cultivate hatred for family members but instead that a disciple's relationship with him should be so clearly first in priority that it would be almost *as if* all other relationships were not a priority.

 

He means that to be his disciple, one's commitment to him must come first without question, even above commitment to family.

 

CC

[♦ ficino ♦]

Vixentrox,

 

That's just comparative hyperbole, which is a common literary style employed in the speech/writing of the Hebrew culture at that time.

 

Jesus of course did not mean that one should develop and cultivate hatred for family members but instead that a disciple's relationship with him should be so clearly first in priority that it would be almost *as if* all other relationships were not a priority. 

 

 

Jesus "of course"? His meaning is so transparent? How do you know this? How do you know that his words mean the opposite of their literal signification?

 

If you can interpret Jesus' words to mean the opposite of their literal signification, putting lots of weight on the "as if" clause, then anyone can interpret any way he/she thinks fits with what he/she already believes.

 

So when Jesus talks about eternal torment in hell, I think he only means "as if." he really means something different.

 

Back to your original point. Look at the tiny glimpses the gospels give of Jesus' relation to his family. I think it's highly likely, if he actually existed, that the man expected his disciples literally to form a new family with him and forsake their blood families. You cannot refute this.

[Vixentrox]

Vixentrox,

 

That's just comparative hyperbole, which is a common literary style employed in the speech/writing of the Hebrew culture at that time.

 

Jesus of course did not mean that one should develop and cultivate hatred for family members but instead that a disciple's relationship with him should be so clearly first in priority that it would be almost *as if* all other relationships were not a priority. 

 

He means that to be his disciple, one's commitment to him must come first without question, even above commitment to family. 

 

CC

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nice that you can determine that. Is it just that this one part of the bible saying things completly opposite of what is printed? Sound's like Calvin and Hobbes where Calvin tries to wiggle out of something by claiming it's "Opposite Day".

[NotBlinded]

Vixentrox,

 

That's just comparative hyperbole, which is a common literary style employed in the speech/writing of the Hebrew culture at that time.

 

Jesus of course did not mean that one should develop and cultivate hatred for family members but instead that a disciple's relationship with him should be so clearly first in priority that it would be almost *as if* all other relationships were not a priority. 

 

He means that to be his disciple, one's commitment to him must come first without question, even above commitment to family. 

 

CC

 

How wonderfully ethical that is! That was just a little touch of sarcasim.

 

Could you tell me what would be some of the consequences of people actually believing that? Does it mean that god would provide for the family that one abandoned because they chose to be more commited to god than their family? I'm pretty sure there have been people that have been harmed because of this teaching.

 

I would like to think that if there is a god, it would be one that would be more apt to favor the people that were completely commited to their family and cared for them above all else. Does god need such an ego boost that he must be first no matter what the reprecussions would be? Does he need to be worshiped so badly that he is willing for families to be torn apart? Or, is it more likely that this was meant to keep people from straying away from the religion and for them to be more compliant? I favor the latter. Why would a supreme being need an ego boost? Why would it need worshiping?

[Merlinfmct87]

How wonderfully ethical that is!  That was just a little touch of sarcasim.

 

Ah yes... she's back

 

Could you tell me what would be some of the consequences of people actually believing that?  Does it mean that god would provide for the family that one abandoned because they chose to be more commited to god than their family?  I'm pretty sure there have been people that have been harmed because of this teaching.

 

I would like to think that if there is a god, it would be one that would be more apt to favor the people that were completely commited to their family and cared for them above all else.

 

Here, Here!

 

Does god need such an ego boost that he must be first no matter what the reprecussions would be?  Does he need to be worshiped so badly that he is willing for families to be torn apart?  Or, is it more likely that this was meant to keep people from straying away from the religion and for them to be more compliant?  I favor the latter.  Why would a supreme being need an ego boost?  Why would it need worshiping?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Another question: How could a god with such reckless disregard for the concequences of it's actions ever manage to create the universe?

 

Welcome back, by the way.

 

Merlin

[NotBlinded]

Thanks Merlin...I missed you.

[Ouroboros]

Vixentrox,

 

That's just comparative hyperbole, which is a common literary style employed in the speech/writing of the Hebrew culture at that time.

 

Jesus of course did not mean that one should develop and cultivate hatred for family members but instead that a disciple's relationship with him should be so clearly first in priority that it would be almost *as if* all other relationships were not a priority. 

 

He means that to be his disciple, one's commitment to him must come first without question, even above commitment to family. 

 

CC

 

Then maybe God shouldn't have dispersed the languages at Babel, and let the languages evolve to a much higher level of distinct definitions before he let Jesus enter the scene?

 

Was that an intentional act of God to make sure his words to us would be so confusing and multi-interpretive?

 

Or maybe that was exactly the intention he had, to make his word so confusing and require many competing theologies so everyone could claim the truth, and yet no one would have it...

[SOIL]

Maybe he presents his word in such a way that those who desperately want to "hear" can - but those who don't, can't?

 

Jesus' replies concerning why he taught in parables could be construed to be saying something along those lines I suppose.

 

-Dennis

[Checkmate]

Vixentrox,

 

That's just comparative hyperbole, which is a common literary style employed in the speech/writing of the Hebrew culture at that time.

 

Jesus of course did not mean that one should develop and cultivate hatred for family members but instead that a disciple's relationship with him should be so clearly first in priority that it would be almost *as if* all other relationships were not a priority. 

 

He means that to be his disciple, one's commitment to him must come first without question, even above commitment to family. 

 

CC

 

 

Un-huh. Well let's just see what the bible ACTUALLY says. (Not what you or I INTERPRET.)

 

I did a computer word search for the word HATE in the New Testament. It appears 38 times. Including the scripture in Luke where Jesus teaches to HATE your family. And EACH usage of the word HATE in the Greek means this:

 

misevw Miseo (mis-eh'-o); Verb, Strong #: 3404

 

 

to hate, pursue with hatred, detest

to be hated, detested

 

 

Miseo does NOT mean to "love less than". It means to fucking HATE! Despise. Detest.

 

I find it positively amazing how many knots you Xians will twist yourselves into trying to explain away the "plain and clear teachings of the Lord Jesus".

 

Maybe if "Jesus" wants us to understand him, then MAYBE he should fucking use language that can't be "misinterpreted." ("Common literary style". Hah! What horse shit!)

 

Wake up and smell what you're shovelling, Cerebralchristian!

 

Try your arguments on someone else who doesn't own several bibles, concordances and has some training in Xian apologetics. I'm not buying.

[NotBlinded]

Maybe he presents his word in such a way that those who desperately want to "hear" can - but those who don't, can't?

 

Jesus' replies concerning why he taught in parables could be construed to be saying something along those lines I suppose.

 

-Dennis

Hi Dennis...long time no read!

 

Does that also apply to the ones that can "hear"? Because we all know that they aren't "hearing" the same thing. They are only "hearing" what they understand. Maybe he should have installed a decoding device in our brains that kicks on when the desperate pleas are shouted and then the ones that are pleading would all receive the same message. Nahhhh...to easy.

[LloydDobler]

They are only "hearing" what they understand.  Maybe he should have installed a decoding device in our brains that kicks on when the desperate pleas are shouted and then the ones that are pleading would all receive the same message.  Nahhhh...to easy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

God wants dumb people to burn in hell. Also literalists.