Offending Christians

[Lycorth]

Interesting choice in cultures to pick, given that my BA and MA involved the study of Ireland, and yet I don't seem to recall this "terrorized the concept of inherent worthlessness" so could you please provide an example or two? and just for a change try and actually cite objectively without resorting to the anti-Christian vitrol.

 

Anti-Xian vitrol? Oh, I see- I disagree with you, so I must be wrong. The centuries of Xian oppressiveness in the name of Jesus must just be lies of the Devil, then

 

No apologies for past wrongs... interesting I guess perhaps you missed the various apologies actually issued by the Vatican huh? As for the teachings concerning the moral nature of Man they don't teach that 'Man is prone to evil', but that Man is capable of 'evil' which is a distinct and important difference - one that I'm sure if you read through my previous posts you'll see the philosphical arguement laid out

 

Like I said, the Church may have moderated it language but it still teaches the same overall concept - we're shit without Jesus.

 

And I didn't miss all the Vatican apologies - I was still a Catholic when PJPII was starting up with them. Back then, I thought it lunacy, since what did an institution that defended The One True Faith™ have to apologize for?

 

And their apologies are worth nothing because they still teach the same insidious religious ideas as they ever have.

 

Ah yes because Christianity is this giant monolithic group with absolutely no variation in thought, philosophy, theology, or even evolution of those ideas...

 

Don't put words into my mouth, tough guy. I speak of the fundamentals that apply to all traditional sects, and you are caught-up on Big Momma Church alone.

 

The only "evolution" that is acceptable is evolving out of Xianity period. There is no need for a demented, primitive cult like that in a scientifically advanced society.

 

Oh noes teh l337 dood called me a noob

 

Wow, such cutting sarcasm. If only I had used lEE7 in any of my posts, perhaps your asinine attempts at insulting me would have some merit.

 

Try again, jesusboy.

 

I'm not 'waltzing' on here to teach 'spiritual Nazism', but rather to actually present a possible alternative to some of the misinformation or opinions offered here... so far the only ideological 'Nazism' being taught seems to be yours - in that you are demonizing and denouncing a group or ideology based on more on hate and less on actual understanding.

 

No, you're indeed waltzing on here trying to defend your spiritual Hitler. And I advocate freedom of thought and choice, so your attempts to smear me with my own words only have made you look like the fool. To oppose something hatefully is not wrong, when that something is immoral garbage from the get go, such as Xianity, especially when the facts rest clearly on the opponent's side.

 

Just like a typical Xian (of any stripe), you insist that I oppose your religion out of hate and that I don't understand anything about it. Never mind that I spent 27 years as a faithful Xian, studying and trying to apply both the Wholly Babble and the teachings of my chosen sect to my life - I must not understand because I'm still not a sarcastic Jesus freak anymore And I believed all your "possible alternatives" once, already - and they failed to satisfy.

 

You can keep your gay-bashing, pagan-hating, murder-inciting, naturally-oppressive deathcult. Got no interest in it, and have no desire to be "reconverted" by you or anyone else

 

Kirangel isn't Christian... or at least I don't think she is.

 

Hell if I know, either - she does a hell of an imitation if she isn't. You must be proud

 

Most people here are saying Christians are inherently not-nice because Christians of necessity believes people are bad, i.e. sinful, evil, in need of salvation, etc.

 

Just for clarification of my own position, I don't think that xians are not nice. I think their doctrine is not nice. I see them as victims of their doctrine. I know a lot of very nice xians.

 

That's pretty much what it boils down to. I've known many nice and not-nice Xians, but it's their religion that's the problem.

[R. S. Martin]

So the nuns and priests told you that man is inherently evil? I don't know, when I look at the catechism and the bible, I don't get that impression, it talks more about the inclination to do evil and the necessity to repent our sins. That's why I maintain that that is the core belief. The bible is all about salvation for us because of our sins, not because we are inherently evil. Where in the bible does it give you the impression that we are all basically evil?

 

Kir, you don't see or hear yourself.

 

1. You are telling me, a person you have never seen or met, that I tend to sin, that I need salvation, that I have committed sins from which I need salvation. You can't make those statements about me because you don't know me.

 

2. I can imagine your response to #1. You will say that because I am human, those statements apply to me.

 

3. By classifying humans as tending to be sinful, as needing salvation because of sin, etc. you are saying humans are inherently evil.

 

You can twist and turn all you want; you believe being human makes a person sinful, i.e. inherently evil. Lifeguards can't save people from drowing if there is no water to drown in. Likewise, humans can't be saved from sin if there is no sin to be saved from.

 

I say there is no sin. I say humans are inherently good. I have evidence to back up this claim.

 

Here are my beliefs on the matter:

 

1. We are born as infant physically, emotionally, intellectually.

2. We grow and change and learn physically, emotionally, intellectually.

3. Sin is intentionally doing what we know is wrong. Nobody does that.

4. There are psychological and other mental health reasons that convince a person that a certain evil deed is justified. This does not make the person evil. It tells me that person has an unresolved pain in his/her life that needs to be addressed before he/she can act more maturely.

[R. S. Martin]

Connected sure, but not the same or equal - otherwise they'd have just used one word for sin and evil wouldn't they?

 

No.

[R. S. Martin]

The Catholic Church was the first christian church, after all. If not the Catholic Church, then the Orthodox church. After that come the Anglican and Methodist churches.

 

I think you have your history a bit mixed up. The Lutheran Church came a long time before the Methodist church. I think Lutheran came before Anglican, too.

[Kirangel]

I'm a bit confused here. Can someone bring me up to speed here and tell me if we're still talking about the topic "Offending Christians, They don't get a free pass from me", or is it something else?

 

The topic was de-railed a long time ago. As near as I can tell, it's turned into a pile onto Kirangel thread.

 

 

I think the way it all hangs together is that Kir is insisting we should give Christians a free pass if they are nice. Kir seems to measure "nice" by standards very different from most people here. Most people here are saying Christians are inherently not-nice because Christians of necessity believes people are bad, i.e. sinful, evil, in need of salvation, etc.

 

Kir, I have also defended Christianity to some extent. I know that there are good Chrisians, but I know that they are far out-numbered by the not-so-nice Christians. However, even the nice Christians believe that salvation is necessary. Anyone who believes salvation is necessary also beleives that humans are sinful=evil=deserving of hell in the hereafter. Or more happiness in this life. They don't all say the same thing but they all agree that a savior is necessary in some way or other.

If your brand of Catholicism did not believe this, then why do they go to church? Why do they serve in religious capacities as nun, monk, priest, etc.? Why do they baptize? Why don't they just dismantle the church and let everyone live according to secular humanist values/principles?

 

This is a long thread so maybe I've just forgotten but did I even mention anything about giving Christians a free pass if they're nice? But arguing aver whether or not among Christians there are more bad then good people is pointless, the argument is baseless.

 

In Catholicism a savior is necessary to redeem humanity, because of their sins, it's a different concept and does not dictate whether or not humans themselves are inherently evil.

[Evolution_beyond]

The Catholic Church was the first christian church, after all. If not the Catholic Church, then the Orthodox church. After that come the Anglican and Methodist churches.

 

I think you have your history a bit mixed up. The Lutheran Church came a long time before the Methodist church. I think Lutheran came before Anglican, too.

 

 

Whoops! British bias on my part.

 

You are quite right of course. Lutherans and Calvinists came before Anglicans and Methodists.

[Kirangel]

So the nuns and priests told you that man is inherently evil? I don't know, when I look at the catechism and the bible, I don't get that impression, it talks more about the inclination to do evil and the necessity to repent our sins. That's why I maintain that that is the core belief. The bible is all about salvation for us because of our sins, not because we are inherently evil. Where in the bible does it give you the impression that we are all basically evil?

 

Kir, you don't see or hear yourself.

 

1. You are telling me, a person you have never seen or met, that I tend to sin, that I need salvation, that I have committed sins from which I need salvation. You can't make those statements about me because you don't know me.

 

2. I can imagine your response to #1. You will say that because I am human, those statements apply to me.

 

3. By classifying humans as tending to be sinful, as needing salvation because of sin, etc. you are saying humans are inherently evil.

 

You can twist and turn all you want; you believe being human makes a person sinful, i.e. inherently evil. Lifeguards can't save people from drowing if there is no water to drown in. Likewise, humans can't be saved from sin if there is no sin to be saved from.

 

I say there is no sin. I say humans are inherently good. I have evidence to back up this claim.

 

Here are my beliefs on the matter:

 

1. We are born as infant physically, emotionally, intellectually.

2. We grow and change and learn physically, emotionally, intellectually.

3. Sin is intentionally doing what we know is wrong. Nobody does that.

4. There are psychological and other mental health reasons that convince a person that a certain evil deed is justified. This does not make the person evil. It tells me that person has an unresolved pain in his/her life that needs to be addressed before he/she can act more maturely.

 

 

1. I'm not telling you anything, this discussion is about what Christians believe not about what I personally believe.

 

2. See number 1.

 

3. Because the Catholic church doesn't teach that humans are inherently evil and the bible can be used to support that I am saying that not all Christians believe that humans are inherently evil.

[Pantonality]

I find that I'm having difficulty letting go of this one. It still infuriates me. I don't know if it's because it's all wrapped around mourning for my mother or something else. But I've found that I've become more bitter and more angry about Christianity that I've ever been in my life. I would like to think that at some point, I'd mature past the anger. But so far, it ain't happenin.

 

I believe that if we are judged at all we are judged by our responses to life's challenges. You were emotionally fragile and a well meaning pastor thought you might be ripe for being sold salvation. Your response probably gave him all the information he needed. You don't seem to know it but he got the message.

 

I appreciate your telling your story because it gives me the opportunity to think about what I might have said in that situation. For myself I'd like to also think I could mature past anger. In actuality I'm not angry at Xianity, I never experienced much angst within the church as I was raised in liberal churches and I always enjoyed the music. What I've come to realize there are things I don't appreciate about Xianity, the whole exclusivity thing, it's my religion or hell for you. Then there's that little problem of their book of fiction, aka the Jewish Book of Fables, I mean the Bible. While there's some good wisdom about human behavior (do unto others, etc.) there's a ton of crap, even if you skip the begat verses. So what would I have said to your pastor, how about this:

 

"Thank you for your concern for what you believe is my eternal soul. I know you've served the needs of my family, but my needs are different. I'd hoped you would respect that. I need something that has external validation in either the historical or scientific record. Xianity has none, nor does the Old Testament. I'm in no mood to debate the merits or lack thereof of the Bible and frankly I don't think you'd want to have that debate. Afterall it's far easier to cast doubt than it is to prove anything, the Xian Right has proved that over the last 20 years. If God is perfect then she created me perfect, anything less and that would only prove God is imperfect. Hence I shouldn't need slavation. Now if you thinik I need salvation then apparently your God is imperfect, maybe you'd like to try my religion?"

 

Yeah, hindsight is 20/20.

[Grandpa Harley]

The Catholic Church was the first christian church, after all. If not the Catholic Church, then the Orthodox church. After that come the Anglican and Methodist churches.

 

I think you have your history a bit mixed up. The Lutheran Church came a long time before the Methodist church. I think Lutheran came before Anglican, too.

Pretty much correct Ruby

 

The Roman Church, followed closely by the Orthodox Churches (a matter of decades) on continental Europe. Across North Africa, up Iberia and into Celtic Breton, Wales and Ireland came the 'Celtic' Church, more or less simultaneous with the RCC. It was why RCC missionaries were encountering Christian communities on their first visit to the British Isles, albeit a Gnositc slanted, slightly Johanite Chrsitianity.

 

The RCC and the ORthodox Churches, being pretty much matched in size and power form what would be called today a strateigic alliance (they remained independent, but have their common goals at heart...) It prevented a war that would have made WW2 look pretty tame. The Celtic Church was victim of a hostile take over at the Ecumenical Council of Whitby.

 

Lutheran philosophy antedates the 19th Ecumenical Council of Trentino, and is the first true 'protestant' sect. The word 'Protestant' being, rather like 'Christian' before it, a derogatory term, making reference to Luther's nailing of the 95 Theses to the door of the Castle Churh in Wittenberg in protest at the Papacy's behaviour (the selling of Indulgences being the final straw)

 

Anglican (Anglo-Catholic or Episcopalian) is a pretty late split off, and like the RCC, GO and EO claims Apostolic succession from Peter (hence Bishops touching the head of clergy during their ordination)

[Grandpa Harley]

BTW, that was done from memory... the general facts are correct but I've not looked up dates... Idleness is nothing if not followed through...

[Sceadugenga]

Anti-Xian vitrol? Oh, I see- I disagree with you, so I must be wrong. The centuries of Xian oppressiveness in the name of Jesus must just be lies of the Devil, then

 

Roll your eyes all you want still doesn't change the fact that you are expressing yourself with an easily seen anti-Christian vitrol - you can disagree without using offensive or insulting language, but if you continually use such language one can only assume that you are doing much more than expressing disagreement.

 

 

And I didn't miss all the Vatican apologies - I was still a Catholic when PJPII was starting up with them. Back then, I thought it lunacy, since what did an institution that defended The One True Faith have to apologize for?

 

Well maybe because horrible acts had been committed in the name of 'The One True Faith'?

 

And their apologies are worth nothing because they still teach the same insidious religious ideas as they ever have.

 

Really? Please show an example of Catholics still teaching something that they have apologized for?

 

Don't put words into my mouth, tough guy. I speak of the fundamentals that apply to all traditional sects, and you are caught-up on Big Momma Church alone.

 

Reading comprehension problems much? I stated Christianity, not anyone particular sect/church/denomination... and I was hoping to point out how stupid or delusional it is to paint such a varied collection of beliefs, ideologies, philosophies, and theologies with the same brush when framing your arguements - if anything it demonstrates the same blind and insidious ideological flaw you accuse Christianity of.

 

The only "evolution" that is acceptable is evolving out of Xianity period. There is no need for a demented, primitive cult like that in a scientifically advanced society.

 

Hmmm.... yep no anti-Christian vitrol here at all, just you disagreeing right?

 

Wow, such cutting sarcasm. If only I had used lEE7 in any of my posts, perhaps your asinine attempts at insulting me would have some merit.

 

Calling someone a 'noob' as a way of insulting them or invalidating their opinions and views is classic 'l337ness' - because 'l337ness' is eliteism afterall.

 

No, you're indeed waltzing on here trying to defend your spiritual Hitler. And I advocate freedom of thought and choice, so your attempts to smear me with my own words only have made you look like the fool. To oppose something hatefully is not wrong, when that something is immoral garbage from the get go, such as Xianity, especially when the facts rest clearly on the opponent's side.

 

Actually I'm here to promote free thought, objective debate, and intelligent discourse... not a schoolyard insult-fest or spewing of misinformation by any party or side of the debate. Thus far you have been the only one in this debate to really resort to the demonizing and denouncing of those who disagree with your views and opinions...

 

Just like a typical Xian (of any stripe), you insist that I oppose your religion out of hate and that I don't understand anything about it. Never mind that I spent 27 years as a faithful Xian, studying and trying to apply both the Wholly Babble and the teachings of my chosen sect to my life - I must not understand because I'm still not a sarcastic Jesus freak anymore And I believed all your "possible alternatives" once, already - and they failed to satisfy.

 

In your case yes I'd say it's an opposition motivated by hate than any other of the myriad of reasons someone can justifiably object to about Christianity; because this far your "opposition" has consisted more of insults than actual points of debate or discussion.

 

You can keep your gay-bashing, pagan-hating, murder-inciting, naturally-oppressive deathcult. Got no interest in it, and have no desire to be "reconverted" by you or anyone else

 

Personally I have zero interest in "re-converting" someone, much less you (I like my Christians to be honest and intelligent with themselves and others).

[Japedo]

Roll your eyes all you want still doesn't change the fact that you are expressing yourself with an easily seen anti-Christian vitrol - you can disagree without using offensive or insulting language, but if you continually use such language one can only assume that you are doing much more than expressing disagreement.

 

Just a note, perhaps you may wish to view the name of the site of which you choose to visit. It's called Ex-Christian. You dump in here from who knows what website to preach the true ™ meaning of what a real ™ catholic is suppose to behave like. We detest your blood cult, it's nothing personal. The Bullshit teachings of salvation and so forth is what we are healing from here. If many of the members here have what you sense as "anti-Christian Vitriol" maybe you should jump off your high horse and find out why. Your condescending tone to people who have been seriously harmed by something you come here to say we've been misinformed. You come in here claiming your church/religion is this wonderful place.. blah blah blah.

 

You and your cohort attempt to say that words don't mean what they say. Your interpretations are irrelevant to the bottom line of your cult. LIFE WITHOUT THE BLOOD OF CHRIST IS CAST INTO THE LAKE OF FIRE... Call it evil, Call it sin... it matters not in your Cult... they all end up in the same place. Mincing words to have a pissing contest over semantics is bullshit. Why do you come here? To twist the knife? To piss on those hurt? Do you believe it will give you another jewel in your crown?

 

Just FYI to your highness... Scead. Many victims of religion come here as it's our safe haven. Many are angry for Christian dogma that has been inflicted upon themselves and family. Maybe you should find out why instead of trying have a self-righteous pissing contest with people who have been hurt.

 

You might very well be a nice person, Your Niceness (or lack there of) is irrelevant to the blood cult dogma we are talking about here.

 

Really? Please show an example of Catholics still teaching something that they have apologized for?

 

 

Hell to those not saved at the very least. I won't even attempt to go into the self-loathing they promote to people who are gay, who've had abortions or divorce and so forth. If you can't understand that... then you don't understand it. why not take a few days and read some Ex-C testimonies? Why not see what people who have been here before you piss on everyone... You're not a former Christian, while your welcome to be here.. why do you choose to be here? Ulterior motive? You say you don't want to convert.. so why?

 

Reading comprehension problems much? I stated Christianity, not anyone particular sect/church/denomination... and I was hoping to point out how stupid or delusional it is to paint such a varied collection of beliefs, ideologies, philosophies, and theologies with the same brush when framing your arguements - if anything it demonstrates the same blind and insidious ideological flaw you accuse Christianity of.

 

 

 

Major difference that you ignore. None of us here threaten to burn you til the end of time if you don't listen and follow as we say.

 

Hmmm.... yep no anti-Christian vitrol here at all, just you disagreeing right?

 

Varokhar is a well respected and well loved member here, You're being rather dismissive to people who have left Catholicism saying they didn't really believe or know the truth. ™ I'm sure if you went somewhere and told a group of Catholics your beliefs and they said you're not being honest and so forth it would anger you, then again maybe not. It all depends on the person and the conversation I guess. I can honestly say I haven't really seen Varokhar ever lose his temper before. You want people to bend and acknowledge things for your benefit but refuse to bend yourself.

 

Mincing words saying God only hates evil sin but man isn't evil but sinful is mind numbing. No one can follow your twisted logic. The bottom line is the same, and that's the part you refuse to acknowledge. You never did answer my question I posted twice even when I thanked you in advance.. care to answer it yet or are you going to just ignore the question and pick something else I said to pick apart?

[crazy-tiger]

Still waiting for an answer...

 

I still want an answer to something... if, as you claim, Man isn't inherently evil, why the need for the Crucifixion? Why the need to Salvation in the form of Human Sacrifice?

Why, if we aren't evil fuck-ups, are we told we are evil fuck-ups who are gonna burn for eternity unless we praise Jesus?

 

Christianity needs Humanity to be evil fuck-ups to justify the Crucifixion... because if we ain't evil fuck-ups, we don't need to accept Jesus's sacrifice to get into heaven... but Christianity teaches that we MUST accept that sacrifice to get into heaven because we are evil fuck-ups that God is going to cast into hell.

 

 

I have the feeling that you will be waiting and waiting and waiting......

 

Take out the 'evil' and you have it about right.

You sure? Are you sure that you suggest taking out 'evil' based on what Christians believe, or what CHRISTIANITY teaches?

 

I don't want to have to remind you again that they can be different things.......

 

 

 

 

Meanwhile, try answering the question... If, as you claim, Christianity does teach that we are evil fuck-ups, then WHY THE CRUCIFIXION??

 

 

p.s. Acts like a duck.... Sidestepping the question like that, making it look like you answered but didn't, is a trademark fundie act.

[Kirangel]

Still waiting for an answer...

 

I still want an answer to something... if, as you claim, Man isn't inherently evil, why the need for the Crucifixion? Why the need to Salvation in the form of Human Sacrifice?

Why, if we aren't evil fuck-ups, are we told we are evil fuck-ups who are gonna burn for eternity unless we praise Jesus?

 

Christianity needs Humanity to be evil fuck-ups to justify the Crucifixion... because if we ain't evil fuck-ups, we don't need to accept Jesus's sacrifice to get into heaven... but Christianity teaches that we MUST accept that sacrifice to get into heaven because we are evil fuck-ups that God is going to cast into hell.

 

 

I have the feeling that you will be waiting and waiting and waiting......

 

Take out the 'evil' and you have it about right.

You sure? Are you sure that you suggest taking out 'evil' based on what Christians believe, or what CHRISTIANITY teaches?

 

I don't want to have to remind you again that they can be different things.......

 

 

 

 

Meanwhile, try answering the question... If, as you claim, Christianity does teach that we are evil fuck-ups, then WHY THE CRUCIFIXION??

 

 

p.s. Acts like a duck.... Sidestepping the question like that, making it look like you answered but didn't, is a trademark fundie act.

 

I answered it, and the evidence I've seen leads me to believe that Christianity doesn't teach you that humans are inherently evil, only some groups in the religion do. Where's the sidestepping? I said take out the word "evil" and you basically have it right that Christians do need the crucifixion to save humanity because of their sins, because they are 'fuck ups' as you like to put it.

 

Trying to understand a religion doesn't make me a part of it too. I'll defend Islam when I think people are twisting parts of it around as well. So does that make me a Muslim too? So now I'm a Christian fundie and a Muslim... I like native American traditions, there was a large pow wow at this one university that I went to where they played traditional music and had dances, and dressed up it was awesome, so maybe I'm a Native American Spiritualist as well because I enjoy some of their traditions. I've also defended aspects of neo-druidism, and wicca in Christian groups when I think they are twisting it around. Like when they say Druids sacrifice babies (there is no evidence for it), or when they say the Wiccans are evil and harm people, some might but it's not in their rede.

 

So now I'm a fundie Christian Muslim Native American Spiritualist Neo-Druid, Wiccan... I could keep going if you want, by your standards I would be and adherent to many more belief systems then just those.

 

 

Argumentum ad nauseum. You can keep trying to label me a fundie all you want, repeating it after every post doesn't make it true.

 

or

 

you could consider the fact that maybe all I'm doing is trying to understand the religion. Where does the bible say that humans are inherently evil or inherently good? It doesn't say it, it concentrates more on the fact that humans sin, and their God offers them redemption for sinning. Saying that some Christian denominations and Christian individuals maintain that we are not inherently evil does not make me one of them. Saying that not all aspects of Christianity are horrible does not make me a Christian. Saying that I think some Catholic traditions are beautiful does not make me a Christian. Saying that Christianity can have a positive influence on some people does not make me a Christian.

 

Just like when I say that it has a negative impact on some individuals it doesn't make me anti-Christianity. Saying that the God of the OT seems cruel doesn't make me anti-Christianity. Saying that I no longer believe because the pieces of the puzzle don't fit together right in Christianity doesn't make me anti-Christianity.

[Astreja]

...You can disagree without using offensive or insulting language, but if you continually use such language one can only assume that you are doing much more than expressing disagreement...

In my case, at least, this is correct. Ex-C is not so much a debate site as a venting site. And I see nothing whatsoever wrong with this.

 

And their apologies are worth nothing because they still teach the same insidious religious ideas as they ever have.

Really? Please show an example of Catholics still teaching something that they have apologized for?

Apologies are a start, but they don't go nearly far enough. Personally, I want financial compensation for each and every member of my Scandinavian and Celtic kinfolk whose ancestors were converted at the point of a sword. Enough compensation to restore to them the social positions that they would have inherited had their ancestors been allowed to live life in ways of their choosing. Enough compensation to fucking bankrupt the RCC and all individuals who have benefited financially from its atrocities.

[Lycorth]

Roll your eyes all you want still doesn't change the fact that you are expressing yourself with an easily seen anti-Christian vitrol - you can disagree without using offensive or insulting language, but if you continually use such language one can only assume that you are doing much more than expressing disagreement.

 

Oh, I'm full of anti-Xian vitriol, tough guy. I'm not hiding that

 

Like Japedo said, this is ex-christian.net. We hate Xianity here. Deal with it

 

Nonetheless, my deconversion was based as much in the factual problems of Xianity as much as the anger it was causing inside of me. You can poo-poo that all you like, but your attempts to wind me up and get me mad are kinda falling on deaf ears.

 

After all, one thing is the same about all you Jesus-freaks - you think you know what goes on in the minds of others, which is why so many of your kind were so quick to murder others in the name of your religion in times past and are still so caught up in pushing your deathcult today.

 

Really? Please show an example of Catholics still teaching something that they have apologized for?

 

They still teach that people who refuse Jebus will burn in hell. This idea and the contrived "necessity" of spreading it is part of what caused the Church to enforce their will through violence throughout the centuries. They may have apologized for getting a little unruly, but apologies are meaningless unless they dispose of the very ideas which inspired them.

 

But that would mean doing away with Xianity

 

Reading comprehension problems much? I stated Christianity, not anyone particular sect/church/denomination... and I was hoping to point out how stupid or delusional it is to paint such a varied collection of beliefs, ideologies, philosophies, and theologies with the same brush when framing your arguements - if anything it demonstrates the same blind and insidious ideological flaw you accuse Christianity of.

 

If the shoe fits, bucko. Xianity is deserving of every insult I've uttered. I don't suppose you like that, but it only makes me happier that I should displease a Jesus freak so much

 

Calling someone a 'noob' as a way of insulting them or invalidating their opinions and views is classic 'l337ness' - because 'l337ness' is eliteism afterall.

 

Ah, I see - because Xians have never practiced elitism and wouldn't ever think of looking down their noses at ignorant unbelievers like me

 

Actually I'm here to promote free thought, objective debate, and intelligent discourse... not a schoolyard insult-fest or spewing of misinformation by any party or side of the debate. Thus far you have been the only one in this debate to really resort to the demonizing and denouncing of those who disagree with your views and opinions...

 

Free thought, objective debate, and intelligent discourse are anathema to traditional Xianity. You are forced to try and rely on such things now, only because you can't force me at sword point to accept Xianity or die. Poor you

 

In your case yes I'd say it's an opposition motivated by hate than any other of the myriad of reasons someone can justifiably object to about Christianity; because this far your "opposition" has consisted more of insults than actual points of debate or discussion.

 

And since you have clearly never researched any of my other posts on the matter nor clearly read any of my other posts on this very thread, you have engaged in the self-same insult-throwing and lack of intelligence you falsely accuse me of. In true Catholic fashion, no less. Well-done

 

Personally I have zero interest in "re-converting" someone, much less you (I like my Christians to be honest and intelligent with themselves and others).

 

Ow, such sharp words. Yeah, you don't want people like me around, who oppose all the things I've accused your cult of being. People like me cause problems your type can't handle - that's why there are more people like me now than you. With the ever-decreasing numbers of people in the Catholic sect or any sect, apparently more and more humans are far more honest and intelligent than you.

 

Keep it up, troll. You are providing giggles and lifting my mood nicely

[Unknowing1]

Saying that not all aspects of Christianity are horrible does not make me a Christian. Saying that I think some Catholic traditions are beautiful does not make me a Christian. Saying that Christianity can have a positive influence on some people does not make me a Christian.

 

Just like when I say that it has a negative impact on some individuals it doesn't make me anti-Christianity. Saying that the God of the OT seems cruel doesn't make me anti-Christianity. Saying that I no longer believe because the pieces of the puzzle don't fit together right in Christianity doesn't make me anti-Christianity.

 

 

However to defend something that has some pretty negative messages can be a problem for those who have been on the receiving end of those messages. For me to hear you defend something that says a person belongs in hell just because they are different offends me and I will not give you a free pass.

 

You can play on words as much as you want and twist them to defend your position and that is fine; however, don't tell me what I was told. To tell me that isn't what the catholic religion taught me is an insult. How do you know what we were told? Unless you attended my catechism classes or attended the sermons at my church you wouldn't know. How do you know what my step mother in law and mother were taught? You wouldn't unless you attended their catechism classes and churches as well. Sure the message that you may have received may be different than the message that I received depending upon where you got your message and where I got mine. Were you ever involved in the church itself? Did you go through catechism? Or are you just picking up your message from what someone else told you? Or from your interpretation of the words, words have different meanings...remember capable, inclined, inclination, capability, sometimes they do go hand in hand but sometimes they just don't depending on who is doing the interpretation.

 

As for the catholic religion, I was taught that it was the only true religion, that anyone who wasn't catholic belonged in Hell, people died because of that belief. Sure it helps some people but it has also harmed people as well. Is helping one person worth the death or despair of many? What's the magical equation, 1 helped versus 20,000 harmed?

 

I was harmed by the catholic religion, while I wasn't molested by one of the priests I was mentally abused for years. Example, according to the catholic church I was going to Hell. Not because I stole, murdered, cheated or anything like that but because I married a non-catholic outside of the catholic church. Give me a break, how did I harm another living being by doing that? Why did the catholic church say my children would go to Hell, they never stole, murdered, cheated or anything like that either, they just weren't batized?

 

My mother in law died feeling unworthy. She paid penance for years and attended church 2-3 times per week. Why did she die feeling unworthy, because she too married a non catholic outside of the catholic church, and lets not forget the divorce from her first marriage that wasn't annulled by the church, oh yes and the birth control that she used to keep from having child, after child after child. According to the catholics she was a very, very sinful woman...I certainly hope the last breath she took was to enable her to give confession.

 

I'm beginning to wonder if by chance you aren't catholic. I realize that someone said they didn't believe you are christian; however, some catholics believe they don't fall under the christian label.

 

Edit was to fix a typo, although there are probably many more.

[crazy-tiger]

I answered it, and the evidence I've seen leads me to believe that Christianity doesn't teach you that humans are inherently evil, only some groups in the religion do. Where's the sidestepping? I said take out the word "evil" and you basically have it right that Christians do need the crucifixion to save humanity because of their sins, because they are 'fuck ups' as you like to put it.

I'm sorry, but the Crucifixion is something Christianity added to an existing religion...

 

Yes, there was a religion in place that taught how all humans were sinning fuck-ups, but that trying to follow some rules was enough to get us into that country club in the sky... after an amount of time spent in a form of penance determined by how well we followed the rules.

 

 

No need for a crucifixion to save humanity... unless there was something else humanity needs saving from. Which is why the question remains unanswered.

 

 

 

 

Meanwhile, it seems there quite a bit in the bible about how Jesus spoke of men who were evil... not that they sinned and the sins made them evil, but that they were evil and that's why they sinned. After all... A good tree can only bring forth good fruit while an evil tree can only bring forth evil fruit, but an evil tree can never bring forth good fruit and a good tree can never bring forth evil fruit.

 

Translation: Only the evil can do evil... and since sins are evil, you must be evil to sin.

[Kirangel]

Saying that not all aspects of Christianity are horrible does not make me a Christian. Saying that I think some Catholic traditions are beautiful does not make me a Christian. Saying that Christianity can have a positive influence on some people does not make me a Christian.

 

Just like when I say that it has a negative impact on some individuals it doesn't make me anti-Christianity. Saying that the God of the OT seems cruel doesn't make me anti-Christianity. Saying that I no longer believe because the pieces of the puzzle don't fit together right in Christianity doesn't make me anti-Christianity.

 

 

However to defend something that has some pretty negative messages can be a problem for those who have been on the receiving end of those messages. For me to hear you defend something that says a person belongs in hell just because they are different offends me and I will not give you a free pass.

 

You can play on words as much as you want and twist them to defend your position and that is fine; however, don't tell me what I was told. To tell me that isn't what the catholic religion taught me is an insult. How do you know what we were told? Unless you attended my catechism classes or attended the sermons at my church you wouldn't know. How do you know what my step mother in law and mother were taught? You wouldn't unless you attended their catechism classes and churches as well. Sure the message that you may have received may be different than the message that I received depending upon where you got your message and where I got mine. Were you ever involved in the church itself? Did you go through catechism? Or are you just picking up your message from what someone else told you? Or from your interpretation of the words, words have different meanings...remember capable, inclined, inclination, capability, sometimes they do go hand in hand but sometimes they just don't depending on who is doing the interpretation.

 

As for the catholic religion, I was taught that it was the only true religion, that anyone who wasn't catholic belonged in Hell, people died because of that belief. Sure it helps some people but it has also harmed people as well. Is helping one person worth the death or despair of many? What's the magical equation, 1 helped versus 20,000 harmed?

 

I was harmed by the catholic religion, while I wasn't molested by one of the priests I was mentally abused for years. Example, according to the catholic church I was going to Hell. Not because I stole, murdered, cheated or anything like that but because I married a non-catholic outside of the catholic church. Give me a break, how did I harm another living being by doing that? Why did the catholic church say my children would go to Hell, they never stole, murdered, cheated or anything like that either, they just weren't batized?

 

My mother in law died feeling unworthy. She paid penance for years and attended church 2-3 times per week. Why did she die feeling unworthy, because she too married a non catholic outside of the catholic church, and lets not forget the divorce from her first marriage that wasn't annulled by the church, oh yes and the birth control that she used to keep from having child, after child after child. According to the catholics she was a very, very sinful woman...I certainly hope the last breath she took was to enable her to give confession.

 

I'm beginning to wonder if by chance you aren't catholic. I realize that someone said they didn't believe you are christian; however, some catholics believe they don't fall under the christian label.

 

Edit was to fix a typo, although there are probably many more.

 

 

 

I'm not going to say that everything about a religion is terrible because some people have had a bad experience with it, it wasn't all peaches and cream for me either. I don't think I've really defended it in this thread either, but I have been labeled a Christian fundie for trying to express my understanding of it. Since when is saying that Christianity doesn't mainly teach that humans are inherently evil a defense of the church? It's not, it's trying to understand what it is they teach. I'm tired of having words thrown into my mouth and people turning this into something it's not. My Aunt got re-married, to a non-Catholic...there was a pretty big deal on the other side of my family saying it was wrong, because it wasn't with the Church and my Mom almost didn't let me and my siblings go to the wedding...Frustrating I know at least for me, I don't think it bothered my Aunt but it must be hard on someone who is a pretty hardcore Catholic (I don't think she was). It's not one of the more positive impacts that Church has on people of course my mother would never see it that way.

 

I never said I knew what you were told, I even asked you what it was that your nuns and Priests actually taught you, not in disbelief, but to see if they actually came out and said to you that humans are inherently evil. I was trying to understand what it was that they said to you. If they did then either you are just one of the few cases that differ from main teaching or there was more to it then that that I'm not seeing. One of the priests at another church (not the main one that I used to go to) stated that women should be allowed to be priests. I think we can agree that that is against church teaching, but you see...some stray from it a little, it happens. But if you have any better information I would like to see it. I went to a Catholic forum and got responses that are in line with what I'm saying, just another reason why I'm more inclined to believe that they teach what I have been saying all along. Again, let me reiterate...this is not me defending the Catholic church, this is me expressing what it is that they teach according to the evidence that I've seen, and my own experiences with it. Here's the link, hopefully you can see this without having to sign up:

 

http://www.catholic-forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16552

 

 

That's the sentiment that I get from Catholics.

 

 

however, some catholics believe they don't fall under the christian label.

 

Wow. Other Christians may say this, but what Catholic would ever say something like that? Go to a Catholic forum and try asking if some Catholics believe they aren't Christian, I bet you'd get some nice responses on how they were the first and true Christians. I can't even count the number of times I've been shown that time line that places Catholics first before the other Christian groups.

 

Yes I'm an ex-Catholic and I had a very lovely time growing up in the church, until I went off to college and decided that I was being lied to all of those years. I don't particularly enjoy having my mother cry about me and saying that she hasn't done a good enough job, saying that she should have sent me off to private school growing up. I don't really enjoy the strange looks and questions, "You're not a Catholic anymore?" Which for some reason they held off asking me until just a few days ago, for the most part. It's almost as bad as coming to an ex-Christian group and being labeled a Christian fundie just because I don't hate all aspects of Christianity, or because I challenge people on their definition of Christian teachings. arumentum ad numerum shows that just because you have numbers on me doesn't make you right but nor does it cancel out the possibility of me being wrong, I'm not so stubborn, when the majority opinion in any place is contrary to my own I will look over my own thoughts.

 

My motives were questioned since the first post that I made in this thread. All I said pretty much was how harboring hatred was a bad thing, and I told Garnet that what the priest said was awful. Only I think I put it a little more eloquently then that.

 

*I do admit that the way I came into this forum was wrong, I should have started it correctly with an Ex-T, that was my fault.

 

People disagreed with my assessment of hatred which I made in the first post, that's fine... then three posts down someone said that what I was doing was a subtle form of evangelization but only because I said that I thought harboring hatred was a bad thing, and because under my name where it says any God's, I said sure how do you come up with that assessment? Go read it, it's like people are grasping at straws to try to label me a fundie. But like I said before I partly blame myself, maybe it's a fault in character to do so but it's how I am, you live you learn. Next time I'll try not to enter a forum while drinking and being in a pissed off mood. But seriously, read through everything I posted without a preconceived notion that I'm a fundie, read it under the context of me being an ex-Christian and you can see that this whole thread turned into me defending myself while trying to maintain my views on what the core beliefs of Christianity (in my case what they are not) which contrary to popular belief I have defended using the bible, the catechism (since I claimed that catholics don't believe what people are saying) and individual Christian beliefs. Although I haven't done the best job in using the bible to defend it, but you can't really defend a negative so I showed where it maintains that people are good. Doing this does not make me a defender of the Church, trying to understand their beliefs is not equivalent to me defending them.

[Vigile]

Something tells me that Kir has a problem with the concept of innuendo. Don't feel bad though, not all of us are able to move past binary thought processes.

[Grandpa Harley]

Something tells me that Kir has a problem with the concept of innuendo.

Maybe he doens't like Queen at all... it's possible

 

 

(Queen Fanboy joke)

[Unknowing1]

Kir,

 

There isn't much I can say except we are going to have to agree to disagree.

 

I don't feel inclined any longer to try to explain what I was taught, nor do I feel like finding and citing specific research.

 

You see I too was told by catholics that they don't believe they are Christian and for me to find any other type of research to back it up except for starting a thread in an ex-catholic forum would take some time, time I don't really have right now.

 

I am sorry if you feel that you were lied too. I also am sorry if the catholic church harmed your family when your divorced aunt married a non-catholic. I am hopeful that she isn't having to deal with the mental anguish of thinking she will be going to Hell.

 

Please note I never said you were a fundie; however, I did say I was beginning to believe you were catholic. I made that assumption based upon some of your comments as well as your citing part of 405 of the catechism but leaving a very important piece off as well as bringing in a catholic to refute what I had been taught by the church I attended along with your saying sure to Gods. I made an incorrect assumption and I do apologize; however, I do believe that you still have some catholic sympathies. I can definately understand why as I did when I thumbed my nose at God when I realized what I had been taught really wasn't true.

 

Now I am out of this thread.

 

EDIT: Oops thought I was out of this thread but feel I need to explain why an ex-catholic forum - I think if you go to a catholic forum to post such a question most people are not going to publicly state a belief that goes against the catholic church...kind of easy to find out who you are. On an ex-catholic forum the question could be designed so you could ask what you thought as a catholic, not what you believe now, although I think that might skew the results. Best odds of reliability an anonymous survey of current catholics....