Who Won The Antlerman, Alice, Buddyferris Debate?

[SWIM]

In this thread, is Christianity a Pessimistic Religion:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...c=19135&hl=

 

OK in Buddy Ferris's closing statement, he *Proudly* proclaims he won the debate, and even explains in detail how he *really* won.

 

Sheesh...

 

I think he lost. Any good debate needs judges at the end of the debate, so OK everyone, be the judges!

 

Have phun!

[R. S. Martin]

What are the rules for judging the outcome of a debate? Rules of logic? How much one agrees with the opinions expressed? Law of the jungle where might makes right, i.e. Buddy won because the others deserted the field while there was yet a living soul left standing? Or maybe how well participants adhered to the rules of the game?

 

If the latter, then Alice and Antlerman win hands down. They spent half their time in the Arena getting Buddy to play by the rules. Finally they left because he refused to play fair. So maybe he's king of the mound. But he's got no subjects to rule. That's okay with me. Eventually the trees will grow back and the spiders will spin webs over him. He will become part of the landscape. Nobody who lived through this will ever forget it.

 

He says he will take discussion back to the Lion's Den. I really do hope no one cares to engage him because he uses up a lot of space and time and energy and accomplishes nothing that is of value to me. Nor do I notice that it is of value to others. However, I have been reminded that what does not appear to be of value to me can be of value to others. Or, that which does not appear to have immediate value may have long-term value.

[Grandpa Harley]

Effectively, it was like debating someone who speaks English as a fifth or sixth language... he seems to have such low comprehension levels of common English usesage, or a speak a dialect that makes one of the obscure Amish dialects seem like the Queen's English, that the debate became a debate of the meaning of common usage words.

 

I read the whole shooting match, and have a clear insight into both AM's and Alice's opinions and beleifs... but Buddy... God's teeth! You may as well ask me about Kalaallit shamanic practices as to what Buddy believes. It involves Jesus, but quite how, and why is just so vague as to be non existent, or at least impenetrable to most.

 

In the end, since Alice and AM both put across their points clearly, and with a minimum of Uncle Remus story telling, I got the gist of their commentary and did not find it wanting. Again, Buddy, in full bore obfuscation mode, basically never abided by even rudimentary debating, and seemed, at times to contradict himself... I think. Again, who could tell in the general shit storm of bland, obsequious, flattery, badly hidden condescension, and poorly told tales...

 

 

Conclusion: BF was handed his arse.

[Deva]

Buddy loses. Taking his usual approach, he stubbornly refused to address the topic in an honest and straightforward way. Like Grandpa, I still do not know what Buddy believes after probably reading 100 pages of his stories and outlandish statements.

 

Now he says:

 

"I'll consider the topic closed by the summaries elements above and with the addition of the following notes for the gallery players."

 

So I look forward to his "following notes" for those of us in the peanut gallery who elected to comment on his nonsense. I am sure they will be edifying and beneficial to us all ( said with extreme sarcasm, folks).

[sojourner]

I enjoyed reading the debate alot and in fact saved it for learning. I love the way about Alice, she is so incredibly mature, respectful of those she disagrees with, very wise, well spoken and shes just a beautiful human being. That much has become very clear very fast in reading her posts.

 

Antlerman seems very well spoken as well, respectful, very clear, and has a heart of gold evident in all his posts.

 

I felt Buddie didnt really make his points clear but I do think I hear what he is saying. That because to him you cannot seperate the bad in christianity from the good if I understand him correctly.

 

To me though, the question doesnt jive with what I believe, in that in universalism, all sin is already dealt with, God is reconciled to all men now, and now allmen are reconciling to God. So for me universalism cannot be pessimistic because it leaves out no one, no one is more special, and no one misses out.

 

sojourner

[R. S. Martin]

I felt Buddie didnt really make his points clear but I do think I hear what he is saying. That because to him you cannot seperate the bad in christianity from the good if I understand him correctly.

 

I'm so glad to come across someone who thinks they understand Buddy. I am now trying to understand what you say about his point of view. You talk about separating the bad from the good in Christianity. I am not sure what you mean by that--I never heard the expression. I confess that I did not read much of Buddy's writing because it just said what I learned from the craddle and it never made any sense. And it's basically what people are saying here: Whenever something negative happens to us, it's because we didn't have enough faith or God is testing us, or whatever. But when something positive happens, God gets all the glory. We never get to feel good about anything but we get all the blame for everything. Everything boils down to God's will. Is this the kind of thing you mean by separating the good and bad of Christianity?

 

To me though, the question doesnt jive with what I believe, in that in universalism, all sin is already dealt with, God is reconciled to all men now, and now allmen are reconciling to God. So for me universalism cannot be pessimistic because it leaves out noone, noone is more special, and noone misses out.

 

The item that comes up on these board is: If you do away with hell and all the rules that makes some people special and others bad, as you seem to be doing, what is religion good for? Why not just get rid of religion altogether? Lots of people here do just that because there seems to be no point in having that kind of religion. In fact, we're taught that this is just nominal Christianity and it's not real.

 

I think I know the answer because I am studying under such teachers and I've tried explaining here; I know it's real. But it might be good hearing it directly from a person who actually participates in a church that believes this way.

 

BTW, "no one" is spelled as two words. The way you spell it is noon with an "e" at the end; it's not an English word and makes for difficult reading.

[R. S. Martin]

Buddy loses. Taking his usual approach, he stubbornly refused to address the topic in an honest and straightforward way. Like Grandpa, I still do not know what Buddy believes after probably reading 100 pages of his stories and outlandish statements.

 

Now he says:

 

"I'll consider the topic closed by the summaries elements above and with the addition of the following notes for the gallery players."

 

So I look forward to his "following notes" for those of us in the peanut gallery who elected to comment on his nonsense. I am sure they will be edifying and beneficial to us all ( said with extreme sarcasm, folks).

 

I will be interested to see how well he is capable of summarizing stuff. Or making a point when he decides that it needs to be done. I was disappointed not to see the points when he said of his own volition that he would do it.

[sojourner]

I felt Buddie didnt really make his points clear but I do think I hear what he is saying. That because to him you cannot seperate the bad in christianity from the good if I understand him correctly.

 

I'm so glad to come across someone who thinks they understand Buddy. I am now trying to understand what you say about his point of view. You talk about separating the bad from the good in Christianity. I am not sure what you mean by that--I never heard the expression. I confess that I did not read much of Buddy's writing because it just said what I learned from the craddle and it never made any sense. And it's basically what people are saying here: Whenever something negative happens to us, it's because we didn't have enough faith or God is testing us, or whatever. But when something positive happens, God gets all the glory. We never get to feel good about anything but we get all the blame for everything. Everything boils down to God's will. Is this the kind of thing you mean by separating the good and bad of Christianity?

 

Ty for pointing out my mistake not putting in the spaces , I type way to fast and get ahead of myself at times.

 

Im not a real big faith person as in the bad comes from a lack of faith and the good all comes from your big amount of faith. That to me would make me God or at least have Him under my thumb. To me good and bad happens to all people. I have learned from you all here and was challanged about not allowing myself to be a part of the good that comes thru me and that was a good thing. TY Alice for that one.

 

What I mean is that sin and death , fallen man, bad but I should have said pessimistic as that was the word used in the debate but to Buddy if I do understand him, because God provided the way out he cant see it as pessimistic, if God had not provided the way out of sin and death then he could. To him the fact that God provided takes away the pessimisim to him. Now I hope he will correct me if I am misunderstanding him.

 

To me though, the question doesnt jive with what I believe, in that in universalism, all sin is already dealt with, God is reconciled to all men now, and now all men are reconciling to God. So for me universalism cannot be pessimistic because it leaves out no one, no one is more special, and no one misses out.

 

The item that comes up on these board is: If you do away with hell and all the rules that makes some people special and others bad, as you seem to be doing, what is religion good for? Why not just get rid of religion altogether? Lots of people here do just that because there seems to be no point in having that kind of religion. In fact, we're taught that this is just nominal Christianity and it's not real.

 

I really dont follow your reasoning how doing away with eternal torment makes some people special and others bad. No one will be eternally tormented to me. Just because a few men being transformed and getting eternal life turns into All men and a plan that encompasses ages rather then one age does not seem nominal to me.

 

I think I know the answer because I am studying under such teachers and I've tried explaining here; I know it's real. But it might be good hearing it directly from a person who actually participates in a church that believes this way.

 

BTW, "no one" is spelled as two words. The way you spell it is noon with an "e" at the end; it's not an English word and makes for difficult reading.

 

 

sojourner

[R. S. Martin]

I felt Buddie didnt really make his points clear but I do think I hear what he is saying. That because to him you cannot seperate the bad in christianity from the good if I understand him correctly.

 

I'm so glad to come across someone who thinks they understand Buddy. I am now trying to understand what you say about his point of view. You talk about separating the bad from the good in Christianity. I am not sure what you mean by that--I never heard the expression. I confess that I did not read much of Buddy's writing because it just said what I learned from the craddle and it never made any sense. And it's basically what people are saying here: Whenever something negative happens to us, it's because we didn't have enough faith or God is testing us, or whatever. But when something positive happens, God gets all the glory. We never get to feel good about anything but we get all the blame for everything. Everything boils down to God's will. Is this the kind of thing you mean by separating the good and bad of Christianity?

 

Ty for pointing out my mistake not putting in the spaces , I type way to fast and get ahead of myself at times.

 

Im not a real big faith person as in the bad comes from a lack of faith and the good all comes from your big amount of faith. That to me would make me God or at least have Him under my thumb. To me good and bad happens to all people. I have learned from you all here and was challanged about not allowing myself to be a part of the good that comes thru me and that was a good thing. TY Alice for that one.

 

What I mean is that sin and death , fallen man, bad but I should have said pessimistic as that was the word used in the debate but to Buddy if I do understand him, because God provided the way out he cant see it as pessimistic, if God had not provided the way out of sin and death then he could. To him the fact that God provided takes away the pessimisim to him. Now I hope he will correct me if I am misunderstanding him.

 

I think that is what he is saying--that because of God's provision for a way out it is not pessimistic. I personally learned that I have to find my own way out. I learned that as Christian. When I fully surrendered myself, the Holy Spirit taught me how to see the Bible in a way that is consistent with humanist values. I did not learn humanism from books; I learned it from listening to myself and exploring who I am. Books helped me immensely in my search. But I did not know the word humanism. Two years ago I set up a website Humanist Truth.

 

I made up the word Humanist. I looked it up and it existed already but I did not know about it. I have by now read a little bit of humanist literature but not much. It all agrees with what I put on that website, except perhaps not the religious parts. The fascinating part is that I chose theology that is as humanistic as possible. The Holy Spirit taught it to me. After my deconversion I learned other ways to explain these things. I am convinced that neither religion nor lack thereof makes us human. It goes much deeper than that.

To me though, the question doesnt jive with what I believe, in that in universalism, all sin is already dealt with, God is reconciled to all men now, and now all men are reconciling to God. So for me universalism cannot be pessimistic because it leaves out no one, no one is more special, and no one misses out.

 

The item that comes up on these board is: If you do away with hell and all the rules that makes some people special and others bad, as you seem to be doing, what is religion good for? Why not just get rid of religion altogether? Lots of people here do just that because there seems to be no point in having that kind of religion. In fact, we're taught that this is just nominal Christianity and it's not real.

 

I really dont follow your reasoning how doing away with eternal torment makes some people special and others bad. No one will be eternally tormented to me. Just because a few men being transformed and getting eternal life turns into All men and a plan that encompasses ages rather then one age does not seem nominal to me.

 

I guess I wasn't clear. Belief in eternal torment makes some people special and others bad. Some people believe if you do away with that belief, then there is nothing left in religion and you might as well get rid of religion altogether because what is left is not real. So my question is: What is there about religion that is meaningful for you if you don't think you have to be saved from hell?

 

I don't know what you are talking about in the last part of your paragraph about transformation and eternal life and ages.

I think I know the answer because I am studying under such teachers and I've tried explaining here; I know it's real. But it might be good hearing it directly from a person who actually participates in a church that believes this way.

 

BTW, "no one" is spelled as two words. The way you spell it is noon with an "e" at the end; it's not an English word and makes for difficult reading.

 

 

sojourner

 

[Mythra]

Well, since I only understand about 20% of what Buddy's even trying to say - I have to give the nod to Antlerman and Alice.

[sojourner]

I think that is what he is saying--that because of God's provision for a way out it is not pessimistic. I personally learned that I have to find my own way out. I learned that as Christian. When I fully surrendered myself, the Holy Spirit taught me how to see the Bible in a way that is consistent with humanist values. I did not learn humanism from books; I learned it from listening to myself and exploring who I am. Books helped me immensely in my search. But I did not know the word humanism. Two years ago I set up a website Humanist Truth.

 

I made up the word Humanist. I looked it up and it existed already but I did not know about it. I have by now read a little bit of humanist literature but not much. It all agrees with what I put on that website, except perhaps not the religious parts. The fascinating part is that I chose theology that is as humanistic as possible. The Holy Spirit taught it to me. After my deconversion I learned other ways to explain these things. I am convinced that neither religion nor lack thereof makes us human. It goes much deeper than that.

 

Ruby humanism, humanist are new words to me. Though Ive heard them tossed about here and there in convo's I never looked at them till now. I am very uninformed on so much its not funny. I also have an 11th grade education as far as being educated, I went to the school of hard knocks as they say and its been since I got the internet that Ive become a student again, of many things.

 

Isnt it cool when that happens as in you making up the word then finding it meant just that and was legitimate. I love when those things happen.

 

guess I wasn't clear. Belief in eternal torment makes some people special and others bad. Some people believe if you do away with that belief, then there is nothing left in religion and you might as well get rid of religion altogether because what is left is not real. So my question is: What is there about religion that is meaningful for you if you don't think you have to be saved from hell?

 

That is the same question that all christians ask us. Because if you take away their belief in eternal torment you quickly find out that was the only real reason they served the God of christianity. Its like their belief is an insurance policy against eternal torment and thats about it. I had a pastor say to me recently that there would be no reason to serve God or do evangelism if what I believe is true and to him I said if hell and damnation is the only reason you are serving God and trying to win the lost then where is your relationship with your God? Do you feel you have any relationship with Him at all or is it just out of fear that you believe in Him? To me religion would be worthless without having this relationship that I have. To me my religion, and that is a word I hate using because it invokes pictures of robotic cold traditions of men for me, but my religion is really a love relationship. I live what I believe. I live the God I believe in, a God of love. So my answer is relationship. And I see and am learning that there are people here that dont even believe in a God and live expressing the same love.

 

I don't know what you are talking about in the last part of your paragraph about transformation and eternal life and ages.

 

its universalist speak, sorry.

sojourner

[Mythra]

Hey - I guess I'm a universalist, too - come to think of it.

 

I believe that all human beings have identical fates after they die - regardless of their religious affiliation.

 

 

See, sojourner - we have some common ground after all.

[Vigile]

I'm not sure anyone won because there was never a debate. Buddy offered up some awe-inspiring evasion tactics and didn't engage; not altogether different from the Cluster Fuck threads.

 

I chose AM and Alice though as they both offered some very interesting points in between baby sitting Buddy sessions.

[Grandpa Harley]

It was a bit like organising a soccer (football, to me) match, and the opposition turning up in dancing shoes and putting on an impromptu production of 'The Songs of Cabaret', then claiming to have won since the other sde went home before the 90 minutes were up...

[sojourner]

Mythra

 

 

that was a good one

 

is that you dancing in your avatar?

 

sojourner

[Jubilant]

I love the way about Alice, she is so incredibly mature, respectful of those she disagrees with, very wise, well spoken and shes just a beautiful human being. That much has become very clear very fast in reading her posts.

 

That is why I so badly want to visit the UK and meet Alice in person. She has become a very dear internet friend to me, and I don't know about her, but I believe that our friendship exists outside the internet as well, meaning a true real life friendship... even though we've never met. I think the world of her.

 

Antlerman seems very well spoken as well, respectful, very clear, and has a heart of gold evident in all his posts.

 

Girl, he doesn't "seem", he is all of those things that you've attributed to him! :-)

[Mythra]

is that you dancing in your avatar?

 

No, that's not me. I just like the little guy.

 

I'm a WASP male. Well, okay - maybe just a WAS male.

 

No - wait a minute - I don't mean I WAS a male - as in I've had a sex change operation or anything.

 

I must actually be a WASA male.

 

Oh, here we go again

 

WHITE ANGLO SAXON ATHEIST male.

 

There.

[sojourner]

I like him to,he cracks me up

 

so evidently you dont like m's as you left out the male which would really make you a

 

wasam

 

sounds like a great greeting where you bow to each other and instead of namaste you say wassam

 

lol

 

sojourner

[Ouroboros]

Sorry, but I put a tie. When it comes to how to deliver the message Antlerman and Alice did a great job, and Buddy did what Buddy does, he was spinning the words and wrote way too elaborate just to explain some vague ideas. So the winner there is definitely Antlerman and Alice, they're clear and direct. No hidden agenda.

 

But when it comes to the subject, I had my doubts from the beginning that anyone would be able to really get a full grip on it. I think the pessimistic worldview is quite common regardless of religion or not. I'm quite pessimistic about the future of this world, just as much as any Christian, so Christianity isn't more pessimistic than me. But when it comes to the question if Christianity has a valid pessimism of the world or not is a different issue. Christianity's pessimism isn't about what a real threat in the real world is, but some fantasy threat and it base its pessimism on that, so even if I'm just as negative about the future of the world, Christianity is so from a fantasy reason, while I'm more concerned about what is happening to this real world. Christianity's solution to its fantasy problem is also a fantasy solution, while I think it's more important to dwell in the thoughts of what can be done on a practical level to solve the real problems in this real world. So when it comes to the subject, the negative view is shared, but based on different reasons, so maybe the subject shouldn't have been if Christianity has a negative view of the world, but rather "Does it have a valid negative view of the world".

 

(I'm no expert on debates, it's just my opinion. But I love the A-team and they did a great job.)

[Mythra]

I like him to,he cracks me up

 

 

Actually, that avatar is my reaction when fundy thumpers tell me I'm going to hell.

[R. S. Martin]

Hans, I think you have a valid argument. Like I say in my first post on this thread, I don't know the rules by which debates are judged, and the rules could be made so that anyone or nobody won this one. They all put in a lot of effort. It seems they all experienced frustration and put their best face in the Arena most of the time.

 

By default, this community agrees with Alice and Antlerman's position rather than a Christian's. And Buddy identifies as a Christian. But in the Christian community I am sure Buddy would have been voted the winner if we vote winners by agreement of position.

 

This brings up an interesting angle. I announced in my forums about the discussion Antlerman and I are having and opened a place for members to comment if they wished. A Christian expressed puzzlement at my position. He said he agrees with me but he thought I was an atheist; he asked whether was he mistaken? I guess some people find it almost impossible to separate ideas from the speaker.

 

Throughout my life I've gotten into much hot water with Christians for this very problem--all I wanted to do was to explore opposing ideas and they thought I was fighting for the ideas I was exploring. Maybe--just maybe--someone will learn something from this. We can always wish; note, I didn't say hope because I fear that would be too optimistic.

[SWIM]

I didn't post "rules" because not everyone here that is able to vote, is "qualified" to vote on a formal debate (myself included). Basically I was asking everyone to be the judge based on, "who offered the most convincing arguement". Which is something everyone that can read is qualified to judge on.

 

I saw lots of side-stepping, unanswered questions, evasive answers and long fluffy-sounding banter on, well, quite simply points that need no fluff at all. Buddy's inability to communicate is what lost him this debate, along with the FACT that xtainity IS a pessimistic religion in the first place. Taking an errounous stand on an issue pretty much condems you to loose right away. I am not suprised at all to see buddy get no votes. OF course, when he, kratos and end3 get here, he no-doubt will get 3 votes... LOL

[Alice]

I think both HanS and Ruby raise valid points here ...

 

We didn't set out to stick to a formal 'debate' fomat, so that makes it difficult to assess in any event.

 

I think we all hoped our 'conversation' would lead to a much deeper discussion of the topic than it did and we really only scratched the surface of whether or not Christianity is right or not in its pessimissim. If the discussion had led each of us to conclude that Christianity was correct in this respect, we'd still have been left with the fact that AM and myself regard the Christian solution as a 'fantasy'.

 

I have an approach to life that tells me mankind has the ability to overcome all manner of problems and difficulties and to find our own 'salvation' as it were and because of this I have an optimistic 'hope' for the future.

 

In terms of the 'problems' we face I do not think we will ever overcome death ... but then I don't think death is generally a 'problem', (early, violent or unnecesary loss of life not counted in this) but it seems christians generally do, so we come back to the communication difficulty of not only the meaning we ascribe to different words, but making clear our attitude and response to certain things.

 

I think Buddy and other christians would probably think I am 'pessimistic' because I believe that the end of my life will be simply that and the same for the rest of mankind ... whereas I consider myself optimistic, but a pragmatic optimist - I recognise that it is probable that man's inhumanity to man will continue in many places and in many hearts ... but I believe in mankinds ability to overcome these kinds of behaviours, (without needing an outside supernatural source) to triumph over adversity, to show great compassion, to forgive, to love, to learn, to grow in awareness ...

 

I think the winner was 'increased understanding'.

[SWIM]

I think the winner was 'increased understanding'.

 

 

With all due respect, the only people who got increased understanding was the readers, you an antlerman (for thinking deeply to participate in the discussion) but I doubt Buddy got an increased anything from it...

[Alice]

I think the winner was 'increased understanding'.

 

 

With all due respect, the only people who got increased understanding was the readers, you an antlerman (for thinking deeply to participate in the discussion) but I doubt Buddy got an increased anything from it...

 

I think Buddy's most recent post is a heartfelt and honest indication that he has taken away a lot of learning and increased understanding from this conversation, so I'd include him in the group who gained some new insights.