Challenge The Christian

[R. S. Martin]

I also called Kat a liar in a pm. She claims to want to learn of us as to why we deconvert but she does not read or believe our stories. Thus her claim is a lie. And all liars go to hell, according to Rev. 21:8. She told me to my fact that she refuses to discuss it so there's not much she can fault me with. It's very difficult giving anyone the benefit of the doubt in such cases. I even went so far as to lovingly tell her how to make things right with Jesus by repenting. But when just laughed at me and refused to discuss it with me.

 

It will be interesting to see whether this thing will ever get off the ground, what with all her bluffing and changing of rules to suit her own agenda.

[Ouroboros]

Ah, well, at least I wasn't alone in accusing her.

 

 

I find it rather irritating when we have Christians visiting the website (only a few really had said this so far), that because you tell something that is not true, your a liar. And if you got angry at someone, you're a murderer. It's the sign of extremism, and it's very dangerous. It's painting the things in it's most extreme contexts, without ever considering all the gray in between. And I also find it frustrating when it seems to most Christians that it's okay to lie for them, but they use it as an emotional tool to try to convert non-believers, and they get so hellbent when someone call them out for being liars. So it's okay to call all non-Christians liars, but as soon as you become Christian a lie isn't a lie anymore, it's just a justified means to reach the objective to convert everyone to their meme-virus.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Yooohhhkkkaaaayyyyyy folks...

 

If Kat and Antlerman can or have already agreed on the foundation of discussion, then post it to me, I'll se up the Arena sands for this to happen.

 

*******

 

Kat: Arena is usually a VERY formal debating ground, however we've opened it up to serious discussions between folks in a less than tit for tat argumenting. You and Antlerman will have up to fifteen (15) pages of discussion as you desire with no outside interruptions allowed.

 

We'll have a Peanut Gallery where *everyone else* get a chance to comment. The Big However will be for you participants in Arena is to NOT participate in the Peanutting. Defeats the purpose of the exclusive use of Arena if you step out and take swings at those not *fighting*.

 

*********

 

I'll need the discussion foundation rules which you two are going to agree on, and I'll see things up in Arena.

 

kFL

[Kat22]

Every once and a while, I might post something that turns out to be not completely accurate (i.e. misquoted). I have been accused of being a liar, when this happens (even though I am sure everyone has quoted information and then later found out that there was something amiss with what they thought to be truth) and then it is used to close off any further comments, I may make, as "just another lie". I give you my word that I will not deliberately post any quotes/information with dishonest intent. Will you agree to give me the benefit of the doubt and just inform me if I have made an error, without accusing me of lying?

It was me who accused you of being a liar.

 

And it's based on the ideas from the Christians that created the Way of the Master. They say, if you lie once, you are a liar. If you tell something that is not true, you are lying, so hence everyone is a liar. That makes you a liar too, especially since we caught you with telling something that wasn't true. So can we really trust you to tell us any truths? After all, I just expect of you what you're God expects from you, so it's not more than you already should be used to. It's just the same standards you live by.

 

It's the same standards, I live by, if you misunderstand my standards. You are right, everyone is a liar (not a habitual liar) because everyone has lied at least once. However, that does not mean they lie so much that they are untrustworthy. Someone, who make it a practice to be honest but slips every once and a while, is trustworthy. However, because they have lied once, they are a liar. Again, however, not a HABITUAL liar.

 

Besides, I wasn't lying. Was it the Albert quote which some say isn't from Albert? That quote is still up for debate as to who the author was but I did not realize it had been attributed to someone else. It was an honest mistake and I was labeled, and tossed away, as untrustworthy because of an honest mistake.

[Kat22]

I also called Kat a liar in a pm. She claims to want to learn of us as to why we deconvert but she does not read or believe our stories. Thus her claim is a lie. And all liars go to hell, according to Rev. 21:8. She told me to my fact that she refuses to discuss it so there's not much she can fault me with. It's very difficult giving anyone the benefit of the doubt in such cases. I even went so far as to lovingly tell her how to make things right with Jesus by repenting. But when just laughed at me and refused to discuss it with me.

 

It will be interesting to see whether this thing will ever get off the ground, what with all her bluffing and changing of rules to suit her own agenda.

 

Why don't we put the entire pm out there so we don't have someone trying to lie about me, eh?

 

Kat,

 

I see you are no longer responding in the thread Theological Kryptonite. I see in your profile that you want to find LOGICAL answers. In you last post in the Theological Kryptonite thread you say:

 

 

 

So, if I were in your shoes, I would think about whether my decision about God is based off of fact, leading to my decision.

 

 

By this you automatically write off all the labor, sweat, heartache and tears we put into our search for God and Truth. This is not only totally unfair and unjust, it is also an emotional response, which is in diametrical opposition to your professed desire for logic. So which is most important to you--to be right? or to find logical answers?

 

BTW, your "joke" about monkeys breeding monkeys is offensive in places like exC.

 

Ruby

 

Ruby,

My intentions are not to insult anyone. However, I am sure that my responses will not always be taken as such. My position might be hard for you to understand.

 

You see, I have been coming to this site for almost a year and a half now... maybe even close to 2 years. My goal was to find out if anyone had arguments, with merit, which prove that the bible is not accurate and that there is no God... or at least no Christian God.

 

I have tried to make sure I kept my mind open to possibilities but what I have seen in return is not at all what I was expecting. With the exception of a few (like mythra), most responses are loaded with presuppositions and opinions (not to say that I don't give my own). I hear messages which say "There is no God and, therefore, the bible can't be FROM God" or "That non-Christian quote about Christ can't be accurate because we don't have the original document".

 

Statements, like these, show me that there seems to be an ulterior motive for not believing in God for most Ex-Christians. I have been insulted and bashed because I refuse to accept half baked arguments against the Christian faith, which adds to my conclusion that the reason for most Ex-Christians not to believe in Christ isn't because Christ isn't real (or the Son of God), but because of some emotional experience which lead them away from Christ.

 

Only two or three, since I have been here, have stuck to logical arguments, stating facts and not opinions (though even they ahve been prone to this from time to time just like me). And even those, when I have researched their conclusions more in depth, have not been founded by concrete evidence. Most are merely from a source which holds (at the very least) the opinion that "we can't prove this wrong but, since we can't prove it right either, it must BE wrong". That's just not enough for me.

 

However, in light of the group, in which I am conversing, I will respectfully remove my quote and replace it with another. Thank you for your insight.

 

God bless,

Kat

 

Kat,

 

Do you realize that, logically speaking, you need to be respectful in order to have a rational discussion? You do not demonstrate respect for exChristians, not even with this pm. If I opened my pm with Greeting from Atheists Alliance! would you feel respectfully greeted? If not, how do you think I feel when you wish me your god's blessings?

 

If you truly want to understand why we left Christianity, all you have to do is read our testimonies. Of course, in order to make sense of them, you will have to believe that we're telling the truth about our struggles, which we are. Please read the rules about posting on that forum before you respond to those threads.

 

Ruby

 

I have chosen not to respond to those postings. Your experiences are your own and no one can deny the struggle you have endured. Why add insult to injury by opposing you there? I prefer to save my comments for areas where debate and opposing oppinions are much more appropriate.

 

As for my blessings, I end every message that way. If you take offense to that, I am sorry. But it is who I am. If you choose to have your pm include "Atheists Alliance!", I will not be offended. For that is who you are. Why should I take something personal that has nothing to do with me? And I pose the same question to you.

 

 

Now I know the truth about you. You're out to evangelize, not to learn from us. You replacing that stupid monkey quote with an evangelical bible verse gives it all away. So you lied. All liars go to hell, according to Rev. 21:8. It's not the unforgivable sin so you can repent and be saved but it seems according to Jesus' teachings that you need to repent because you did lie.

 

LOL! I don't know how many times someone ahs tried to read something in to something I post or quote. It seems that many Ex-Christians are nit picking what i say in hopes to find something they can interprate as a lie so they can write off everything I say. That's the easy way out, kiddo. If you're going to be petty, you're not going to get anywhere with me.

 

So, though I was irritated and not very nice with my comment back, I was NOT refusing to address the issue. I told Ruby that pettiness is a waste of my time.

[Ouroboros]

It's the same standards, I live by, if you misunderstand my standards. You are right, everyone is a liar (not a habitual liar) because everyone has lied at least once. However, that does not mean they lie so much that they are untrustworthy. Someone, who make it a practice to be honest but slips every once and a while, is trustworthy. However, because they have lied once, they are a liar. Again, however, not a HABITUAL liar.

 

Besides, I wasn't lying. Was it the Albert quote which some say isn't from Albert? That quote is still up for debate as to who the author was but I did not realize it had been attributed to someone else. It was an honest mistake and I was labeled, and tossed away, as untrustworthy because of an honest mistake.

Good. You passed my test.

 

My point was to see if you could understand that things aren't as black-and-white as you seemed to argue several times. Now take this lesson and apply this to other areas of discussion regarding your religion and see if you maybe are just a tad too hard-core-categorical in your application of your faith, and missing the critical points of the same reason. As I said, I've seen you do it, and now is your time to start re-thinking how you approach questions in life. Maybe the Bible shouldn't be interpreted according to Theologians in group A, but maybe it should be interpreted according to the Theologians in group B, or maybe the truth is in between? For instance, the existence of Jesus. Maybe you should consider drop the "he didn't exist at all" vs "he did exist, was God's son, did miracles etc etc", and consider other possibilites. You have to ask yourself: are you able to critically analyze your own viewpoints regarding your religion, or are you just a slave to other religious peoples influence and input? Are you independent enough to look at your faith honestly and fresh, or do you still depend on what someone else wrote or said how you should see it?

[R. S. Martin]

Ah, well, at least I wasn't alone in accusing her.

 

 

I find it rather irritating when we have Christians visiting the website (only a few really had said this so far), that because you tell something that is not true, your a liar. And if you got angry at someone, you're a murderer. It's the sign of extremism, and it's very dangerous. It's painting the things in it's most extreme contexts, without ever considering all the gray in between. And I also find it frustrating when it seems to most Christians that it's okay to lie for them, but they use it as an emotional tool to try to convert non-believers, and they get so hellbent when someone call them out for being liars. So it's okay to call all non-Christians liars, but as soon as you become Christian a lie isn't a lie anymore, it's just a justified means to reach the objective to convert everyone to their meme-virus.

 

Absolutely! I haven't been an exChristian all that long. I've been on here about as long as her, a few months less. She is spilling her lies about us and our experiences all over the place--in her profile, in her posts, in her pms, everywhere. Our experiences of life and religion don't count to her--only her self-righteous judgment of how she judges we really experienced them, or what really went on in our hearts and minds--that is all that matters and she will acuse us on that, she will write posts and pms and conduct discussions based on that. We point this out to her and she gets upset and irritated, but won't take responsibility for having lied. Acts as though it were no big deal. Laughs at our pettiness--as though it's no big deal that we are upset when our life work is dismissed and laughed at. Condemns us to hell for not accepting her version of truth. Tells us we need to really think things through, thereby dismissing decades of heavy-duty thinking the likes of which she couldn't imagine if she tried. The chick hasn't even seen her thirtieth birthday. And she pretends to know about life????

 

Then she defends lying as though it's okay. Whew! she doesn't "slip up; she intentionally lies left and right. At least, it sure looks like it. Antlerman lays out rules that are fair and straightforward. She says, no-no-no, I don't like them because........and pettily makes up rules that allow her to slip and slide all over the place. I admire Antlerman for taking her on. I admire you for finding points of common ground and taking it from there. I wash my hands of the slimy sneak.

[Antlerman]

I've submitted the rules and my opening post to Kevin this morning for him to set up the discussion in the Arena. I'll refrain from participating in this current thread from this point on and focus on the topic in the Arena.

[South2003]

4. You must at least believe that Jesus is a historical figure. Otherwise it a waste of time.

 

In other words, you must at least believe the delusion...errrr, I meant the notion that Jesus was somewhat important. Then, that would verify in her/his mind - "see, Atheists believed in Jesus. Maybe, just maybe, I'm not so co-co after all.

 

 

You are right. It's a waste of time.

[Grandpa Harley]

Like most fundies, a venal lying bag of rancid sheep's tripes and lights... and of course she's an habitual liar... look at the stuff she tries to sell as true...

 

*Waves his large blue foam 'Go ANTLER!" hand...*

 

anyone want a beer?

[Antlerman]

Here's the opening post. It's inside Kevin's post: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=325431

[R. S. Martin]

I saw A-man's post and responded in the peanut gallery. Somehow, after seeing the sneaking, lying, low-down character this cat demonstrates in pms and on here I don't have too much hope of an honest discussion in the Arena. As everyone knows, she posted that series of pms without so much respect as a single word of consent from me. I had not said anything that had not already been said in public.

 

Gramps said:

 

Like most fundies, a venal lying bag of rancid sheep's tripes and lights... and of course she's an habitual liar... look at the stuff she tries to sell as true...

 

Yeah, seems we have to come right out and say it. She has somehow deluded herself into thinking everyone believes she is the good girl in this situation. No self-respect on her side. No respect for others. Probably the pawn of her entire church. Used and being used. Yet she deludes herself as being able to somehow enlighten us deconverts.

 

The way she defends liars is totally abhorable. My father was a strong Christians and it was through him that I learned about that verse in Rev. 21:8. She makes light of the Bible she so highly esteems. SHE PRETENDS TO BE SOMETHING SHE'S NOT.

 

MANIPULATOR.

 

TRAITOR.

 

LIAR.

 

I know what sheep manure is. There is no deception in it. My dad used to have sheep and so did I for a few years. Sheep and their manure don't pretend to be something they're not. This K A T is lower down than any sheep manure. Totally disgusting. I read on an old post of her's that god cured her husband of abusing her. I suspect what happened was that she herself rationalized away the perception of the abuse so that in her mind it does not exist while in reality nothing has changed. Or, since she is a confirmed liar, there may never have been any abuse to begin with.

[R. S. Martin]

However, whether one leaves the faith first, and then builds a case for why it was a good idea; or builds the case and then leaves,

 

I think that is one of the crassest things I have ever seen. As though we "build a case" for leaving. This person is NOT out to learn a thing. She is out for one thing ONLY. To prove us wrong. The case builds itself when decades of searching bring no answers. Antlerman is doing a really good job of showing what's what. Let's see if she will even listen. She promises to listen. Yeah right.

[quicksand]

However, whether one leaves the faith first, and then builds a case for why it was a good idea; or builds the case and then leaves,

 

I think that is one of the crassest things I have ever seen. As though we "build a case" for leaving. This person is NOT out to learn a thing. She is out for one thing ONLY. To prove us wrong. The case builds itself when decades of searching bring no answers. Antlerman is doing a really good job of showing what's what. Let's see if she will even listen. She promises to listen. Yeah right.

Well its a simple shifting-the-burden of proof fallacy she's attempting.

[R. S. Martin]

However, whether one leaves the faith first, and then builds a case for why it was a good idea; or builds the case and then leaves,

 

I think that is one of the crassest things I have ever seen. As though we "build a case" for leaving. This person is NOT out to learn a thing. She is out for one thing ONLY. To prove us wrong. The case builds itself when decades of searching bring no answers. Antlerman is doing a really good job of showing what's what. Let's see if she will even listen. She promises to listen. Yeah right.

Well its a simple shifting-the-burden of proof fallacy she's attempting.

 

I'm not very good in philosophical terminology. What would that be in English?

 

So far as I can see, she is saying we are lying in our testimonies. And that bugs me no end because we are NOT LYING. When people disbelieve when one tells the truth, talking to them is so totally a waste of time.

[quicksand]

However, whether one leaves the faith first, and then builds a case for why it was a good idea; or builds the case and then leaves,

 

I think that is one of the crassest things I have ever seen. As though we "build a case" for leaving. This person is NOT out to learn a thing. She is out for one thing ONLY. To prove us wrong. The case builds itself when decades of searching bring no answers. Antlerman is doing a really good job of showing what's what. Let's see if she will even listen. She promises to listen. Yeah right.

Well its a simple shifting-the-burden of proof fallacy she's attempting.

 

I'm not very good in philosophical terminology. What would that be in English?

 

So far as I can see, she is saying we are lying in our testimonies. And that bugs me no end because we are NOT LYING. When people disbelieve when one tells the truth, talking to them is so totally a waste of time.

Sure. Defined: Shifting the burden of proof.

 

I never doubt the infinite capacity of christian vehemence and turpitude torward people. History is packed nuts-to-butts of examples. These are the same people who insist from birth we are born evil, yet from the same mouth go on on how innocent babies are and go to heaven. Whatever.

 

Their opinion of me doesn't mean squat to me. Yawn.

[R. S. Martin]

I read that definition and a lot of other articles and definitions. I cannot quite figure out what is meant by "burden of proof." None of the articles give enough descriptions and examples for me to see any patterns.

 

Going strictly by the words I would guess it means that if she makes a claim it is up to her to prove it. Is that what is meant by "burden of proof"?

 

Thus, when she claims that we don't mean what we say in our testimonies, it is up to her to prove what we do mean, and that her meaning is correct? However, no one here is convinced by her interpretation, hence, the debate. Is that about the size of things?

[Kat22]

You have to ask yourself: are you able to critically analyze your own viewpoints regarding your religion, or are you just a slave to other religious peoples influence and input? Are you independent enough to look at your faith honestly and fresh, or do you still depend on what someone else wrote or said how you should see it?

 

I will add the answer to this in my Opening Post, in the Arena:)

[Kat22]

Here's the opening post. It's inside Kevin's post: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=325431

 

I will see you there:) It might take me a little while to complete my opening post. I thank you for being patient with me, AM

[Antlerman]

Here's the opening post. It's inside Kevin's post: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=325431

 

I will see you there:) It might take me a little while to complete my opening post. I thank you for being patient with me, AM

No problem. Thanks.

[Guest N.T.Wrong]

There are many reasons for Ex-Christians to abandon their faith. All seem legitimate in their eyes and I will not be so bold as to argue that which I did not experience myself. However, whether one leaves the faith first, and then builds a case for why it was a good idea; or builds the case and then leaves, there seems to be good arguments out there.

 

So I am looking for ONE person, who has studied and reflected, to open a conversation with me. So far, I have seen little more than convincing opinions as to why certain things cannot be trusted.

 

So, here are my rules (and whoever is chosen can add on if they feel the need):

 

1. Only one person will be chosen to respond. Otherwise I don't have enough time to complete my replies and I will end up closing the discussion.

 

2. Documentation and fact, not personal opinions (unless said opinion is mutually agreed upon as acceptable)

 

3. No personal attacks (though I doubt I will have to worry about this one if Mythra ends up being the Ex-Christian representative). All inappropriate comments will be ignored and, if neccessary, so will the poster.

 

4. You must at least believe that Jesus is a historical figure. Otherwise it a waste of time.

 

5. I need someone patient. With my schedule, sometimes I can't respond for quite a few days.

 

In order to decide what direction this discussion will take, I open with this question:

 

What biblical or extra-biblical documentation, supporting the Christian faith, do you draw into question?

 

Nominations are open.... NOW!

 

 

I nominate Mythra. Any other nominations?

 

 

Now that's the way to do it. Did anyone take you up on that?

 

I would much rather speak to someone in person to debate them.

 

I think an atheist should truly look at Jesus as a historical figure. At least treat him as one. They should use the same historical methods for Jesus as they do with anyone else. Jesus isn't like other "gods". He claims to be an actual historcal figure. His followers claim that his resurrection is an historical event.

 

I have yet to see an atheist come to the conclusion that Jesus did not rise from the dead by using proper, historical methods. There is no historical methodology that could affirm other ancient events of that time, and at the same time, refute the resurrection.

 

So, did anyone take up your chalenge?

[Japedo]

Now that's the way to do it. Did anyone take you up on that?

 

I would much rather speak to someone in person to debate them.

 

I think an atheist should truly look at Jesus as a historical figure. At least treat him as one. They should use the same historical methods for Jesus as they do with anyone else. Jesus isn't like other "gods". He claims to be an actual historcal figure. His followers claim that his resurrection is an historical event.

 

I have yet to see an atheist come to the conclusion that Jesus did not rise from the dead by using proper, historical methods. There is no historical methodology that could affirm other ancient events of that time, and at the same time, refute the resurrection.

 

So, did anyone take up your chalenge?

 

Yes it's over in the Arena with Antlerman.

 

 

The one's making the claim are the one's that need to prove it NT. Prove he not only lived but died and rose up from the dead 3 days later. Until there is "Proper historical proof" that he did, I will assume it to be a fabrication by religious nuts. Birth, Death,warrants , so forth. After all extraordinary claims require solid evidence, don't you agree?

[R. S. Martin]

Crazy fatso! Read the thread and get your answer. There is a debate going on the the Arena by Antlerman and Kat right now. Kat is the unquestioned loser. She has painted herself so hard into a corner that she's trying to change the subject but that trick don't work with Antlerman. Go see for youself you moron.

[Grandpa Harley]

I think 'challenge' is a strong term, reading the pap she's posting. I've encountered more cogent autists...

[Ouroboros]

I think an atheist should truly look at Jesus as a historical figure.

I did for 30 years. Now, for 3-4 years I've been an atheist/agnostic, and all I hear, over and over again is to "try to" do something that I used to do but fell short of having enough support or evidence.

 

There is a possibility to a historical character that were the basic idea for the character Jesus, but to say that there's evidence for the miracles because of third-hand rumours is not enough. I have written several challenges to you N.T. that you never answered. What about them? Did Apollonius of Tyana do miracles or not? There are eyewitness accounts for those miracles, and also for some of the emperors spirits rising up as doves from their death beds too. So are those stories only stories, or are they true? I don't treat the "miracles" of other magicians from that time to be any more spiritual or supernatural than I think Chris Angel's magic tricks are supernatural. Mr Wrong, you have to get a grip on things. You actually want Jesus to be held to a higher standard than the other characters in history, not the same. To keep Jesus on the same, we have to assume that he might have been a historical character... but the miracles and resurrection were not. That's how you treat most of the other historical characters. So lets meet halfway.

 

At least treat him as one. They should use the same historical methods for Jesus as they do with anyone else. Jesus isn't like other "gods". He claims to be an actual historcal figure.

Jesus didn't claim it more than any other mythical character or historical person. So I'm not sure what you're saying.

 

His followers claim that his resurrection is an historical event.

Written down by a third generation or more. The followers did not write down those "historical" events, but other people did... long time afterwards. Don't claim something that's not true, it doesn't help your argument.

 

I have yet to see an atheist come to the conclusion that Jesus did not rise from the dead by using proper, historical methods.

What? WHAT? That's because you haven't looked for the arguments or the literature. Just because you haven't seen the arguments doesn't mean there are none. You make an argument from ignorance: "I don't know it exists, therefore it doesn't exist." That's very clever, but you don't buy brownie points from us by arguments like that!

 

There is no historical methodology that could affirm other ancient events of that time, and at the same time, refute the resurrection.

So... all the miraculous claims from all other religions and all other historical documents did happen too. Buddha did rise from the dead too for a short while to talk to his disciples according to some Buddhists. So did he, or did he not?

 

Mohammed claims to have been taken to Heaven by God. Was he, or was he not? If he was, then why aren't you a Muslim? If not, then why this one but not the other one?

 

 

 

And when it comes to the "challenge", click this link: Click this text that is underlined.