This Section

[Antlerman]

I'm wanting to address some of your earlier questions as I feel they are important questions to address for everyone...

 

To be true to the purpose of this site (as I understand it, anyways), shouldn't we be encouraging anyone and everyone who has abandoned or who is considering abandoning Christianity? Atheism is certainly a valid rationale, but for the purposes of this site, isn't anything that leads one away from Christianity equally valid?

Yes.

 

In the rules for posting in this thread, it is stated: "Ex-Christian.net has no particular quarrel with...non-evangelical spiritual thinkers." That in itself makes me wonder. First, not all Christians are Evangelicals. Does that somehow make them okay?

For me personally, I look at people as individuals, not their identification as this or that. I judge by the 'fruits' a person bears, not how they self-identify.

 

That said however, it is understandable for many who have been badly burned by those members of a said religion acting under that name to have an adverse response to someone coming in carrying the symbol of that religion as a flag by which they come to you. That will automatically create a negative response in many cases, essentially seeing that individual saying "I come to you in the name of my god". So based on the nature of what this site is, people reclaiming power in their lives away from that system which wrestled control of it away from them, it is an understandable response in light of that process. In that light, to lash out at individuals symbolically fits within that paradigm, that process of healing. Hopefully, that doesn't become what ultimately defines someone, as being free and at peace are far, far better.

 

Secondly, the term "Evangelical" can be applied to non-Christians who are trying to act as "missionaries" for whatever their point of view may be. We could speak of "evangelical atheists"--although they're anti-spiritual thinkers. One could speak of "Evangelical Muslims"--and I despise and fear them as much as (if not more than) Evangelical Christians. Is our opposition here then to Evangelism rather than Christianity?

To me it is. I see the behavior of fundamentalist thinking to be the source of the problem, no matter what system of belief it is, Christian, Atheist, or otherwise. Religion is really attractive to fundamentalist thinkers because of its inherent control systems. "Sinner", is labeled on someone to designate them outside approved thought of the group. The same can be said for labeling "Woo Woo", or "Superstitious" to those who don't adhere to the religious system of the Rationalist Materialist camps. It's all about group-membership. For me personally, I see them all as expressions of something far more "fundamental" than the religions themselves, pun intended.

 

One more thought: When I (and everyone else) signed up to be a member of this site, I was required to state whether I have any gods. This seems in itself to implicitly place atheism as the "correct" position to have if you want to be a member here, and I felt as if saying "yes" would mark me as a second-class member of the site. Does this then show that when the site was set up, it was implicitly meant to be an atheist site--or not?

The reason my answer is "What's God?" is because it reflects my view that there are many ways to understand God, and how you define that dictates how I would answer that. I can say I believe in God, but to many that would sound like I accept the storybook picture of God as the anthropomorphic god of the Bible, whereas that hardly would be correct. I don't see the choices as that or atheism. And personally, I feel that that being portrayed as the two options only can actually discourage people from leaving Christianity, which otherwise isn't working for them!

 

In effect when the promoters of NeoAtheism insult and belittle those who are not hard-core Materialists, they are creating a false dichotomy, that you are either rational for not believing in God, or ignorant if you do. For those who believe in "God" for reasons that are valid humanly, but coming from the non-rational space (which is entirely valid), it forces them to either deny something important to them they wouldn't otherwise in order to embrace life outside Christianity, or it forces them to not move beyond it and stay stuck! That's tragic in my opinion.

 

So yes, there are valid options outside Christianity to those that that system no longer speaks to. Atheism is one valid option, but not the only one. Whatever allows the individual to find truth, light, peace, and growth; whatever helps them to be more than just a member of their group and be larger than them all, then that is something to be supported and encouraged for them. When it starts to try to belittle others because they don't fit your group, then I would encourage that person to ask how that is any different than what they had in Christianity, which they felt to leave in the first place.

[Deva]

AM - thanks for responding to Horsey's questions about restrictions. Not being a mod, I was hesitant to respond. Your answer was right on the money.

 

I would probably just say that on each forum there are guidelines (right?) that should be read but often are not. I think that preaching in the Testimonies forum is the only bar on Christians, maybe overt preaching in the Ex-C Life Section, too.

[Horsey_Girl]

Many poison dart frogs secrete lipophilic alkaloid toxins through their skin. Alkaloids in the skin glands of poison frogs serve as a chemical defence against predation, and they are therefore able to be active alongside potential predators during the day. About 28 structural classes of alkaloids are known in poison frogs.^[3][16] The most toxic of poison-dart frog species is Phyllobates terribilis. It is argued that dart frogs do not synthesize their poisons, but sequester the chemicals from arthropod prey items, such as ants, centipedes and mites. This is known as the dietary hypothesis.^[17] Because of this, captive-bred animals do not contain significant levels of toxins. Despite the toxins used by some poison dart frogs, there are some predators that have developed the ability to withstand them, including the Amazon ground snake (Liophis epinephelus).^[18]

 

Chemicals extracted from the skin of Epipedobates tricolor may be shown to have medicinal value.^[19] One such chemical is a painkiller 200 times as potent as morphine, called epibatidine, that has unfortunately demonstrated unacceptable gastrointestinal side effects in humans.^[20] Secretions from dendrobatids are also showing promise as muscle relaxants, heart stimulants and appetite suppressants.^[21] The most poisonous of these frogs, the Golden Poison Frog (Phyllobates terribilis), has enough toxin on average to kill ten to twenty men or about ten thousand mice.^[22] Most other dendrobatids, while colorful and toxic enough to discourage predation, pose far less risk to humans or other large animals.

 

 

[Horsey_Girl]

Many poison dart frogs secrete lipophilic alkaloid toxins through their skin. Alkaloids in the skin glands of poison frogs serve as a chemical defence against predation, and they are therefore able to be active alongside potential predators during the day. About 28 structural classes of alkaloids are known in poison frogs.^[3][16] The most toxic of poison-dart frog species is Phyllobates terribilis. It is argued that dart frogs do not synthesize their poisons, but sequester the chemicals from arthropod prey items, such as ants, centipedes and mites. This is known as the dietary hypothesis.^[17] Because of this, captive-bred animals do not contain significant levels of toxins. Despite the toxins used by some poison dart frogs, there are some predators that have developed the ability to withstand them, including the Amazon ground snake (Liophis epinephelus).^[18]

 

Chemicals extracted from the skin of Epipedobates tricolor may be shown to have medicinal value.^[19] One such chemical is a painkiller 200 times as potent as morphine, called epibatidine, that has unfortunately demonstrated unacceptable gastrointestinal side effects in humans.^[20] Secretions from dendrobatids are also showing promise as muscle relaxants, heart stimulants and appetite suppressants.^[21] The most poisonous of these frogs, the Golden Poison Frog (Phyllobates terribilis), has enough toxin on average to kill ten to twenty men or about ten thousand mice.^[22] Most other dendrobatids, while colorful and toxic enough to discourage predation, pose far less risk to humans or other large animals.

 

 

[Horsey_Girl]

Many poison dart frogs secrete lipophilic alkaloid toxins through their skin. Alkaloids in the skin glands of poison frogs serve as a chemical defence against predation, and they are therefore able to be active alongside potential predators during the day. About 28 structural classes of alkaloids are known in poison frogs.^[3][16] The most toxic of poison-dart frog species is Phyllobates terribilis. It is argued that dart frogs do not synthesize their poisons, but sequester the chemicals from arthropod prey items, such as ants, centipedes and mites. This is known as the dietary hypothesis.^[17] Because of this, captive-bred animals do not contain significant levels of toxins. Despite the toxins used by some poison dart frogs, there are some predators that have developed the ability to withstand them, including the Amazon ground snake (Liophis epinephelus).^[18]

 

Chemicals extracted from the skin of Epipedobates tricolor may be shown to have medicinal value.^[19] One such chemical is a painkiller 200 times as potent as morphine, called epibatidine, that has unfortunately demonstrated unacceptable gastrointestinal side effects in humans.^[20] Secretions from dendrobatids are also showing promise as muscle relaxants, heart stimulants and appetite suppressants.^[21] The most poisonous of these frogs, the Golden Poison Frog (Phyllobates terribilis), has enough toxin on average to kill ten to twenty men or about ten thousand mice.^[22] Most other dendrobatids, while colorful and toxic enough to discourage predation, pose far less risk to humans or other large animals.

 

 

[LightForce]

I think that people espousing beliefs other than Christianity should be held to the same standards of proof as the Christians are.

 

When evidence and logic is demanded of one religion, it should be demanded of all unfounded beliefs.

 

The problem with this area and its rules, anyone can put forth the most absurd supernatural claim and be exempt from scrutiny, while they are still free to condemn Christianity for being illogical and without foundation.

 

Everyone's pet belief is sacred to them, including the Christians. If there is no logical or rational defense for a position, it should be fair game for anyone wanting to why someone would believe such a thing.

 

I am new here and thrilled to find such a group that has had many of the same experiences as I have.

 

I would prefer that this section were not a place to be scrutinized by people who find it to be absurd. Those people should find their own place to criticize others .... not here.

 

I am able to disagree with the Christian faith without calling them names or being judgmental of them. Remember, we were them once. When we judge others we really are judging ourselves.

 

I choose not to discount other's experiences just as I prefer to be allowed to have mine. Being respectful and non-attached of/to other's experiences and beliefs add beauty and light to our lives. Every experience is just a stepping stone to another plane.

[Deva]

Welcome LightForce. I like this section too. We are "ex-Christians" and that does not necessarily imply that we all dropped theism or belief in an afterlife, or that we are all philosophical materialists. I am glad we have this section.