Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

In Response To Kcdad


Munk

Recommended Posts

... but the emphasis will be, if you like it or not, to allow the Ex-Christians to get the first and final word. So we're not talking about a free-for-all, neither a lets come to an agreement, but really it is let the Ex-Christians speak their mind.

 

Hooray for the Ex-Christians!!!

 

Thank you Hans!!! :clap:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is an ex-xtian's rabid anti-xtian- fundamentalism based on half truths and generalizations any different than the xtian's rabid xtian- fundamentalism based on half truths and generalizations?

 

I don't about the rest of that stuff, but I agree with this.

 

There is no difference. If all someone cares about is "me being right", there is no difference on which side of the fence you are firmly planted. We would all be better off we spent less energy attacking other people and more energy on explaining our own values, beliefs and behaviors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would we want small doses of the same poison that sickened us before?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is an ex-xtian's rabid anti-xtian- fundamentalism based on half truths and generalizations any different than the xtian's rabid xtian- fundamentalism based on half truths and generalizations?

 

I don't about the rest of that stuff, but I agree with this.

 

There is no difference. If all someone cares about is "me being right", there is no difference on which side of the fence you are firmly planted. We would all be better off we spent less energy attacking other people and more energy on explaining our own values, beliefs and behaviors.

 

Problem is, this is a strawman applied as a stereotype to members of this site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is an ex-xtian's rabid anti-xtian- fundamentalism based on half truths and generalizations any different than the xtian's rabid xtian- fundamentalism based on half truths and generalizations?

 

I don't about the rest of that stuff, but I agree with this.

 

There is no difference. If all someone cares about is "me being right", there is no difference on which side of the fence you are firmly planted. We would all be better off we spent less energy attacking other people and more energy on explaining our own values, beliefs and behaviors.

 

Problem is, this is a strawman applied as a stereotype to members of this site.

 

Is this a response to me? I don't understand what you are getting at?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you people think I think that the people on these forums have low intelligence?

 

I wouldn't even consider writing something like that.

 

I believe people do take short cuts, not because they are "stupid", but because they are not AWARE. I am trying to bring awareness to your rants about xtians and xtianity.

I know because I experienced the same initial reaction... "Throw out the baby with the bathwater!" (Kind of appropriate, eh?)

 

How is an ex-xtian's rabid anti-xtian- fundamentalism based on half truths and generalizations any different than the xtian's rabid xtian- fundamentalism based on half truths and generalizations?

 

How is this forum not another fundamentalist site... like Stormfront, or CF or CARM or any other?

 

 

Am I rabid? You think I rant? Is that what I make you think when I speak? I've actually given you a lot more slack than some people here, and you repay that with name calling and rude behavior?

 

You insinuate that I am both rabid and stupid, and then suggest that I'm the only one judging people and being irrational.

 

I'm not really sure I care what you would consider writing. As far as I'm concerned replacing "stupid" with "not aware" is just semantic nonsense.

 

I'm not throwing out the baby with the bathwater, I just realized that the baby was never there in the first place.

 

If you think I am any sort of fundamentalist, then you clearly haven't been listening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would we want small doses of the same poison that sickened us before?

 

 

What was the poison? What they preached, or that you believed it?

Wouldn't it be just as poisonous if you found out Darwin made up the whole thing, or Galileo and Newton made up the whole thing, That Jenner and Salk never invented vaccines or discovered anything? What about if Bush admits he went in to Iraq simply because Cheney wanted to fatten up Halliburton? What if 9/11 WAS a government inside job for the purpose of starting a war to stimulate the economy?

 

Isn't the poison that we have been hoodwinked... not by what we have been hoodwinked with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was the poison? What they preached, or that you believed it?

 

That they preached it.

 

Wouldn't it be just as poisonous if you found out Darwin made up the whole thing, or Galileo and Newton made up the whole thing, That Jenner and Salk never invented vaccines or discovered anything?

 

None of these things has the effect of instilling fear and self-loathing.

 

Isn't the poison that we have been hoodwinked... not by what we have been hoodwinked with?

 

No.

 

Are you a Marxist, then? Capitalism is clearly an invention of Industrial Age Feudal Lords using Christian language taken from Calvin. If you reject all religious teachings you have to reject that as well. (Or is it specifically Christianity that you reject?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no difference. If all someone cares about is "me being right", there is no difference on which side of the fence you are firmly planted. We would all be better off we spent less energy attacking other people and more energy on explaining our own values, beliefs and behaviors.

Agree, for certain conditions and context. But not every situation. The situation demands different approaches. For one thing, some of the members here have been part of very strange and hard-core brainwashing Christian cults, they still need a place to express themselves, and many times they go over board in responses, and even though it is true, the debate will work better if everyone behave and respect each other, in some cases the person is not yet capable of knowing how to do it. We can't expect everyone to be a master of discourse here. That isn't the main idea. Of course we want to encourage good behavior and the people avoiding personal attacks, but this is the training ground for them to learn these things and do the mistakes. We must allow them to learn! I did (I think). Because I was definitely much more angry with things before, because of my past, and this place is the boot camp where people can train to become more efficient in debates. Which means, they will not be perfected to everyone's approval.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said. I see this played out in my life.

Absolutely, in life in general it is true, but not at bootcamp.

 

How about, is it true that people wear workout clothes, sweat a lot and get tired and need drinking water everywhere and every where? No. That's something you do at the gym. See this place as the gym. People work out things here. They work through things to get stronger and get rid of the fat. It's not pretty. It doesn't always smell good. And it's noisy. But it's the result afterward we are after. We're not trying to make this place to a museum of pretty art, but this is the training grounds were people butt heads to become the better people, and doing so by finding themselves again after being mind-raped by religious preachers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is an ex-xtian's rabid anti-xtian- fundamentalism based on half truths and generalizations any different than the xtian's rabid xtian- fundamentalism based on half truths and generalizations?

 

I don't about the rest of that stuff, but I agree with this.

 

There is no difference. If all someone cares about is "me being right", there is no difference on which side of the fence you are firmly planted. We would all be better off we spent less energy attacking other people and more energy on explaining our own values, beliefs and behaviors.

 

Problem is, this is a strawman applied as a stereotype to members of this site.

 

Is this a response to me? I don't understand what you are getting at?

 

It's a response to whoever is proffering the strawman (the strawman that we are fundamentalists, just of a different breed) on us. What's so hard to get here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hans, your description of this site as a bootcamp for the beleagured and beset is spot on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pitchu, thanks. I hope it will help some people to get the idea of what is going on here. Some seems to think this is the philosophical and ecumenical club where we all sing kumbaya over a few pieces of s'mores. And, well, sure, we try to keep that as one activity in here too, but we can't let the principal idea get lost because some like coziness more than battle field. And on the other hand, we can't let it go out of hand and people start using live ammo on the training grounds. It's a delicate balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not here to lead any one anywhere near any religion. I don't care about what fruits you think I may or may not be bearing. I am only pointing out that most of the anger and hatred on these forums is misdirected and therefor not helpful or healthy. You can't be angry and hate all christians when only a small percentage of them are the ones that you are upset with. And yes, you (you all) do lump Martin Luther King, Jr, Oscar Romero, Mother Theresa, Albert Schweitzer, William Boothe and many others in the same category as your fundamentalist antagonists. They are Christians too. Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and Paine were all Christians, too. Lincoln, Darwin, Galileo, Copernicus, Gutenberg, Watt, Whitney, Edison... all Christians. None of them were fundamentalists.
Since when? Name one instance where I bashed Martin Luther King Jr for his faith? I even defended Martin Luther King Jr for his faith in a Coliseum thread and more times than not, have one out of my way to try and get along with liberal Christians, but you apparently have a short term memory. You're the only one here who's acting like a fundamentalist by branding everyone who's an ex-Christian as a fundamentalist because we don't always agree with you. You keep denying you're here to convert us to Christianity, yet you turn around and say you're just trying to redirect our hatred. Again, that's no different than the fundies who come here telling us we were just hurt by false Christians and that we should join a "true" church. Maybe you're not here to reconvert us, but again, when you say crap like that it makes it sound like you are. And don't you dare put words into my mouth I never once said. Unless you can provide a single piece of evidence where I bashed Martin Luther King Jr for his faith, then you are a liar and a hypocrite. Besides, didn't Mother Theresa deconvert from Christianity before she died or at least had doubts in her faith? And if you're only here just to redirect our anger, then how are you accomplishing this by name calling anyone who disagrees with you? Yeah, you've really been a lot of help here. Maybe you should pluck the shard out of your own eye first before you accuse us of being fundamentalists.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin Luther King, Jr, Oscar Romero, Mother Theresa, Albert Schweitzer, William Boothe and many others in the same category as your fundamentalist antagonists. They are Christians too. Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and Paine were all Christians, too. Lincoln, Darwin, Galileo, Copernicus, Gutenberg, Watt, Whitney, Edison... all Christians. None of them were fundamentalists.

 

Who is doing this? I'm not. I've never once suggested that Martin Luther King Jr. was the same as a fundamentalist, he was more a proponent of social gospel.

 

Also, just as a point of historical fact. Some of these people were NOT Christian. If you are suggesting that Thomas Paine was a Christian then I laugh at your historical knowledge. He was a deist, he wrote an entire book debunking the bible, and hated organized religion of any kind. Many people maligned him because of his negative views of religion.

Calling him a Christian makes no sense, he would have told anyone to their face he was not.

 

Edison and Jefferson were also more Deist than Christian...

 

As to mother Theresa, I kinda WOULD lump her in with the fundamentalists, because she deserves it. She may have meant well, but she bought into catholic dogma, she believed suffering brought people closer to god, she told people, in a country where STD's and unwanted pregnancy is quite high, not to use condoms because it is a "sin." ect.... Its debatable as to whether she did more harm than good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.