I want to declare war on Christian Forums!

[dogmatically_challenged]

I'm not going to attack christians, dead hobbit, I'm going to defend myself and others from persecution. And Those who think that we are just fine being trampled on, don't need to be on this thread. I "HAD" no problems with christians for awhile, until they destroy things of mine and my friends because they deem them evil. They continueously attack my beliefs, thinking I don't have a right to share them. Wake up people! Christianity has been a threat for many years and will continue to be for a long while. Science is disproving christians more and more every day. So whats going to happen? Extreme christians are going to pull something big, I mean whats the most dangerous thing? something thats cornered.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am on your side B-C. The only thing is I'm not sure how to do these things correctly. I am a very angry heathen. I still see xianity as a threat to humanity, but I don't really have the confidence to do much yet as I want to be fair and reasonable in pointing out that xianity is bigotry. How do you pull this off without offending? The B word is considered an attack, when really it isn't. Its being honest.

[dogmatically_challenged]

I wasn't questioning you B-C I was questioning me. I still agree with you though.

[fallenleaf]

I have been a member of CF for well over a year. In that year I have had one single post moderated in any way (apparently directly referring to the male anatomy in a discussion of physiology was too provocative). I have very rarely been insulted or preached at. And a few times I have been asked to elaborate on my views.

 

Now... do you think I have helped change more minds in that manner than I would have if I charged in and gave them more 'proof' of how bad un-saved people are?

 

I change people's minds on religion by living my life. When asked, and it's appropriate to respond, I let people know that I am not a Christian. Often I will say I am Buddhist or just not explain at all. That's all I see as reasonable to do. I have no need to intrude my beliefs into the discussion because I happen to feel there's an elephant in the room which is probably mostly my imagination.

 

The elephant analagy makes me think of when I was a little kid and I did something wrong. And I would be talking to my mom and I imagined that she knew completely and she was just pretending everything was okay to see if I was going to tell her or if she had to directly ask me. And finally, in a moment of intense pressure I would blurt out what I had done and I could see on her face that she had no idea before that moment. I learned quickly that my own feelings and what I know, do not automatically become an issue for others around me. With religion, we must be careful to know when we feel exposed and when we really are... when we need to discuss and defend and when peace is best kept by silence.

 

There is a Buddhist quote which I need to find but I'll butcher it in paraphrase here.

 

"May I speak what is true, may I speak those things which will harm none, and may I speak only when it is essential."

 

Wow, that's butchered... but it's the idea at least.

[dogmatically_challenged]

I have been a member of CF for well over a year.  In that year I have had one single post moderated in any way (apparently directly referring to the male anatomy in a discussion of physiology was too provocative).  I have very rarely been insulted or preached at.  And a few times I have been asked to elaborate on my views.

 

Now... do you think I have helped change more minds in that manner than I would have if I charged in and gave them more 'proof' of how bad un-saved people are?

 

I change people's minds on religion by living my life.  When asked, and it's appropriate to respond, I let people know that I am not a Christian.  Often I will say I am Buddhist or just not explain at all.  That's all I see as reasonable to do.  I have no need to intrude my beliefs into the discussion because I happen to feel there's an elephant in the room which is probably mostly my imagination.

 

The elephant analagy makes me think of when I was a little kid and I did something wrong.  And I would be talking to my mom and I imagined that she knew completely and she was just pretending everything was okay to see if I was going to tell her or if she had to directly ask me.  And finally, in a moment of intense pressure I would blurt out what I had done and I could see on her face that she had no idea before that moment.  I learned quickly that my own feelings and what I know, do not automatically become an issue for others around me.  With religion, we must be careful to know when we feel exposed and when we really are... when we need to discuss and defend and when peace is best kept by silence.

 

There is a Buddhist quote which I need to find but I'll butcher it in paraphrase here.

 

"May I speak what is true, may I speak those things which will harm none, and may I speak only when it is essential."

 

Wow, that's butchered... but it's the idea at least.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If I set up a booth at school and shared free thought that way and debated with any xers that came by my booth would that be wrong?

 

I have helped to keep xianity out of A.A. meetings by showing why it is offensive to praise jesus around some folks. Some folks read the bible and are villianized in some parts of the book. I criticized xianity in order to get jesus out of the meetings. Was this wrong?

 

I mainly criticize the bible with non-xers and half assed xers and they are curious about what I have to share. Is this wrong?

 

ericf. I don't know when or when not to criticize religion. I won't put pressure on folks to be anti-evangelicals, but I'm gonna keep doing what I'm doing. I think it would be better if xer in name only's became apostates as well as letting non-xers know that the bible is bigoted. Lota nonxers don't know that and support a religion as good, even though they never read the book. I think society would be more tolerable if there were more apostates in a communty.

[fallenleaf]

I am not trying to make declarations which define right and wrong; rather, I am trying to explain why I do not believe an overly aggressive approach is productive.

 

You're 16, what the hell are you doing at AA meetings? AA, regardless of mythology discussed, is religious as a function of its very nature. You can argue all day long that this or that god is offensive but at the end of the day you are still stuck wirh a god. If you're stuck in AA meetings and they are using it to evangelize Christianity then draw some lines in the sand. If you're not stuck at the meetings then I don't see why it's your business if a group happens to be Christ heavy.

 

I admit that I think a booth is excessive. I think it embodies exactly what is wrong with Christianity without improving on it. And two wrongs here do not make a right. Again, this is my opinion but I wouldn't like any booth of people at my school pushing religious ideas or non-religious ideas. Yes, I know it is commonly done by Christian groups but that does not make it right.

 

I will admit that learning when to say something and when saying something would not help things, is a hard skill. But chosing your battles is both more productive and won't wear you out. My sister has asked me more about Christianity and beliefs because of my silence than she would have ever heard if I ranted on it constantly.

 

I am not saying that you need to do things "my" way. I am just sharing my thoughts on the matter. Now, personally, I do not care if someone believes. I find that Christians in name only and those who barely believe often ignore and reject the harmful and bigoted teachings and keep only those which make them feel comfortable. Anyway, the beliefs of another do not directly threaten or annoy me until or unless that person attempts to compell me to adopt them as my own.

[dogmatically_challenged]

You're 16, what the hell are you doing at AA meetings?  AA, regardless of mythology discussed, is religious as a function of its very nature.  You can argue all day long that this or that god is offensive but at the end of the day you are still stuck wirh a god.  If you're stuck in AA meetings and they are using it to evangelize Christianity then draw some lines in the sand.  If you're not stuck at the meetings then I don't see why it's your business if a group happens to be Christ heavy.

Part of the condition of living with my aunt was A.A. meetings. To her credit she let me choose my own sponsor, and now lets me choose my own meetings. I and other people scoured other A.A. meetings for atheists and god haters and formed our own group. God is a three letter word at our place and is not allowed to be used in the meetings, neither is religion of anykind welcome. What I did was for nonxers at the home group I used to be a part of. If the courts are going to demand A.A. attendance there are now three groups that is a little more accommodating to the fact that not everyone is a xian, and religion will not be discussed as well as prophets or man gods.

 

I admit that I think a booth is excessive.  I think it embodies exactly what is wrong with Christianity without improving on it.  And two wrongs here do not make a right.  Again, this is my opinion but I wouldn't like any booth of people at my school pushing religious ideas or non-religious ideas.  Yes, I know it is commonly done by Christian groups but that does not make it right.

I am a freethinker to the core and I feel folks should talk about anything and be given the opportunity to see what free thought is. Many do not know what it is. I think free thought makes for better citizens. Free thought is not synonymous with atheism. Plenty of spiritual concepts that do not require blind devotion to holybooks and popes, pastors.. Thanks for pointing this out though. It is an important concern.

 

I will admit that learning when to say something and when saying something would not help things, is a hard skill.  But chosing your battles is both more productive and won't wear you out.  My sister has asked me more about Christianity and beliefs because of my silence than she would have ever heard if I ranted on it constantly.

My apraoach needs an overhaul, no doubt. I focus mainly on nonxers and half assed xers. There are many nonxers and half assed xers that support the bible as good. I attack the bible more than people anyways. That book is not a real method or guide and therefore should not be supported by anyone as there is no way to unite all xers on what scripture says. That book should not be considered the word of a god.

 

I am not saying that you need to do things "my" way.  I am just sharing my thoughts on the matter.  Now, personally, I do not care if someone believes.  I find that Christians in name only and those who barely believe often ignore and reject the harmful and bigoted teachings and keep only those which make them feel comfortable.  Anyway, the beliefs of another do not directly threaten or annoy me until or unless that person attempts to compell me to adopt them as my own.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thats what some Jews thought when they decided to stay in Germany during the time of hitler. I say its time to reduce the number of people who support the bible as the word of a god. To reduce the number of nonxers who call the bible and xianity good.

[fallenleaf]

Why is your aunt compelling you to attend AA meetings?

 

 

Note: I want to talk about other things you are saying as well but I am in workshops all day and can't really post long responses without drawing attention.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Why is your aunt compelling you to attend AA meetings?

Note: I want to talk about other things you are saying as well but I am in workshops all day and can't really post long responses without drawing attention.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When I lived in Idaho, my relatives live close by my mom and dad. Some men in my family are quiet alcoholics. Women in my family are absolute control freaks in addition to some of the men. Alcoholism is swept under the rug kind of, but my aunt saw that I should not go that route. Alcoholism runs in the family. The men. Yes some of my relatives are silent sufferes of xian control and most are big fat fucking hypocrites.

 

I have had regular access to booz between the age of 9 and 14. I knew were some of my uncles kept thier booz, as well as having older cousins buy me booz when I had enough money to get them drunk as well. I did odd jobs for money. I also sold weed.

[fallenleaf]

Were you demonstrating signs of addiction or were you just reacting to the environment you were in? Having lived with an alcoholic, I believe that many people are quick to jump on the "alcoholic" bandwagon because they are told that they have a problem by people who believe any drinking at all is a problem or because it offers an excuse to avoid responsibility for their own actions. I am not going to try and compare the upbringing of my old roommate and what you have told me but I question the necessity. I suspect that your aunt is over-reacting and diagnosing you based on her beliefs and not on evidence of a real problem. Or maybe you are a problem drinker and I am completely wrong... in either case it is not right to be forced into a program if you're morally opposed to it. I agree that at least one woman in your family is a control freak but that's the only one I know about.

 

Also, I fear that you are using phrases with definitions I am not sure of. For example, the term "quiet alcoholic" is almost meaningless to me. Is this the same thing as a functional alcoholic except with no impact on their social interations? And above, you used the term "free thought" and implied that this was contradictory with theism when my definition of the phrase would be "any thought or belief which is free -- aka Not controlled by obligation or the will of another." If non-theistic free thought is the only acceptable thought... where's the freedom? If a person willingly chooses to blindly follow a book or diety... isn't that a free thought and choice they have? Not to get too far off tangent but what about a person who likes to be submissive (in a Dominant/submissive lifestyle)? Is that not a free choice because making it puts them in the position where they blindly obey another? And don't people have a right to believe and think things which make them happy and fulfilled in life?

 

And the bible... does it have to be the word of God for a person to consider it good? Does it need to be ethical for it to be good? In that case, can we ever use the subjective word, good, when talking about a horror movie -- which is surely not an ethical guide? What position are we in to try and judge the tastes and preferences of another's mythology? I know people who are huge fans of Star Wars and practically adopt it as their beliefs... I don't really like the movies and don't even consider them that artistic and entertaining... so can we declare this a bad mythology because it does not appeal to my aesthetic?

 

In short, on what basis do we declare the bible unacceptable for others because we find it unacceptable to us? And what does it matter that we attack what other people believe about it? I share my opinion on the book and my problems with it but in an informational and non-confrontational way. I believe that education is the best way to deal with this "problem" and that education works best when it is welcome by the educated. This doesn't mean all people wish to be educated but isn't that their choice? Don't they have the freedom to believe exactly as they want?

 

As for the Jews in Hitler Germany... I will choose not to invoke "Godwin's Law" here because this isn't meant to be a debate. But I believe that the comparison is out of order and thus does not merit further dissection. When the Christian Right starts gassing Catholics... remember to bring it back up.

[dogmatically_challenged]

ericf

I agree that at least one woman in your family is a control freak but that's the only one I know about.

You are right and wrong at the same time. I have a history of not being able to drink without drinking till I puke and passed out. It has been like that since I took my first drink. Also, you are right about my aunt. She often thinks EVERYONE who drinks is an alcoholic. You got her pegged.

 

ericf

Also, I fear that you are using phrases with definitions I am not sure of.  For example, the term "quiet alcoholic" is almost meaningless to me.  Is this the same thing as a functional alcoholic except with no impact on their social interations? 

More than just that. It is my own definition. They not only -try- to hide the fact that they go to taverns, but they -try- to hide thier drinking before work. During work. After work. Because they are not violent and verbaly abusive jerks while drunk they will probably die of it. Not only are they not a pain in the ass, they really arent very socialble outside of taverns. They are pretty quiet in church. They really don't defend themselves if some one tries to provoke them or criticize them. They are pussy whipped sorry old men.

 

ericf

And above, you used the term "free thought"  and implied that this was contradictory with theism when my definition of the phrase would be "any thought or belief which is free -- aka  Not controlled by obligation or the will of another."  If non-theistic free thought is the only acceptable thought... where's the freedom?

Free Thinker

 

ericf

If a person willingly chooses to blindly follow a book or diety... isn't that a free thought and choice they have?

Staw man and an attempt at equivication at what free thought is. It is in the dictionary. Yes, it is thier right by Law, just as it is my right by Law to turn folks on to Free thought. But they aren't being very ethical in spreading the mind virus to some one who could have a mind of thier own and cherry pick hatred out of a book that is considered the word of a god. They choose thier security blanket and endorse it at the expence of those who are not xers. Not hetro.Not theist. Not of this denomination or that of denomination. This is very, very selfish of them.

 

If your world view is based on bigotry and idiotic do's and don'ts which allegedly was handed down from THE creator of existence, and that anyone who goes against these bigoted and senseless tenents are vile and worthy of punnishment; then it logicaly follows that some time, some where, some how, you will discriminate for or against people, places and things, based on this irrational and bigoted world view. I am a Humanist and feel that although we can not have perfect protection, we can make life more pleasant for all, by reducing damage. Reducing the number of people who support the bible as perfectly good for teaching morality and reducing the number of people who support the bible as the word of a god will help in reducing damage.

 

ericf

Not to get too far off tangent but what about a person who likes to be submissive (in a Dominant/submissive lifestyle)?  Is that not a free choice because making it puts them in the position where they blindly obey another?  And don't people have a right to believe and think things which make them happy and fulfilled in life?

Buy Law yes. However, the Law does not have a lot going for it in preventing future damage caused by something that is considered good. Xianity is considered a good religion. In the example you pointed out with the S&M bondage, thier is a method that can be used which will greatly reduce your chancesof getting hurt or hurting others. The bible is not a method. 30000 denominatins and counting. If the bible was a relyable method thier would be only one church. Some methods in doing things can be demonstrated to be reliable in its claims. Xers don't all agree with what is xian and not xian. The bible can not be used teach what a true christian is. Also, the hate speach in the bible can incite the xer, (psalms for example) and make them forget about other scripture. This makes that book dangerous as well and not just the fact that the bible is not consistent in filling people with loving and kind thoughts. I think religion or morality should do only that and be consistent in that.

 

I have very little patience for equivocation. Don't let the words free thought be a stumbling block for you here old man. We know what free thought is to deists, agnostics and atheists. This was what I was talking about. It is in dictionaries.

 

"One who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation." I understand that this is a process that everyone is going through and each person does it at thier own speed. Rational inquiry and rational speculation is what is being encouraged here. These things should be encouraged. This is the meat and tater's of Free thought. Rational thinking. Critical Thinking. I have a long ways to go myself; Be'ens I recognoze that fact I will not stagnate. I will be a conscientious citizen...eventualy.

 

ericf

And the bible... does it have to be the word of God for a person to consider it good?  Does it need to be ethical for it to be good?  In that case, can we ever use the subjective word, good, when talking about a horror movie -- which is surely not an ethical guide?  What position are we in to try and judge the tastes and preferences of another's mythology?  I know people who are huge fans of Star Wars and practically adopt it as their beliefs... I don't really like the movies and don't even consider them that artistic and entertaining... so can we declare this a bad mythology because it does not appeal to my aesthetic?

If the bible is considered literature and not the word of a god, it can be questioned. If a person chooses to potentially cheat themselves out of a friendship with a homosexual or athiest just because they agreed with the bible writer, they are free to question the bible writer if the gay aquantence objects to the cold shoulder. But if you are a brainwashed roob you can't really do that now can you.

 

What I and others have to sell is a real product that can demonstratably enrich ones life. The bible is a lie and causes damage. It is bigoted. Bigotry can cheat you out of a good friendship with another person. Bigotry can cause people to do harm, indirectly or directly. Don't make me sick AUB on your ass. He would be the best person to ask about these things. I think I put enough into this in light of some one not really interested in working with me on this. I find these questions self defeating and not in the spirit of trying to find a better way of doing and believing. I have a very practical heart and will correct myself for what is practical if I am aware of my own stupity. The bible is very obsolete if it even ever was really necessary. There are less bigoted religions.

 

ericf

In short, on what basis do we declare the bible unacceptable for others because we find it unacceptable to us?  And what does it matter that we attack what other people believe about it?  I share my opinion on the book and my problems with it but in an informational and non-confrontational way.  I believe that education is the best way to deal with this "problem" and that education works best when it is welcome by the educated.  This doesn't mean all people wish to be educated but isn't that their choice?  Don't they have the freedom to believe exactly as they want?

Why I am I getting the same vibe I get when talking to an xer apologist? I have ZERO tolerance for this bull. Some free thinkers have a product to sell that is superior in maximizing freedom, protection and tolerance in a way that flexability and consistency can win over the other using CRITICAL THINKING and EMPATHY. Perfection is not what is promised here, just superior methods in human beings agreeing more often than not. Fighting less often. The bible is not a method in achieving this. I think free thinkers can sell this product, it is a matter of getting started. As far as education goes I agree. Turning people on to Free Thought may stoke the fires in wanting to be educated, if we can sell people. Knowlege is power. There may be a way to sell people on this truth. Does not hurt to let people try.

 

ericf

As for the Jews in Hitler Germany... I will choose not to invoke "Godwin's Law" here because this isn't meant to be a debate.  But I believe that the comparison is out of order and thus does not merit further dissection.  When the Christian Right starts gassing Catholics... remember to bring it back up.

I never said it would happen. It CAN easily happen if people get slack. History may repeat itself from time to time and why take chances just to coddle bigoted superstition?

 

Godwin's Law is a ploy to keep us off guard when the nazi's come back to rule the world. hehe!

[fallenleaf]

Whoa... calm down man. No need to get all flustered and start lashing out at random here. No need to call me an old man or threaten to sick AUB on me... as if I haven't been here reading his posts in the past.

 

Remember, it is okay for people to disagree with you without you needing to prove yourself to them. That's the core issue we're dancing around here and I feel you've just run into it again. Disagreement with you does not make for an attack on you.

 

The quiet alcoholics you describe are what I know as functional alcoholics. They manage to have a job, perform in society as much as they wish, and keep up with the things they must to live. A functional alcoholic is like any other functioning drug addict. They may depend on a substance but it hasn't destroyed them[, yet]. It's not the best thing in the world and it would be ideal if they would seek help and get clean. Again, it's their life though... and if they don't have the strength to change it and are "stable" being pussy whipped old men... let them be. Their addiction, from the way you described it and by definition, is harming the bare minimum amount of people.

 

Why I am I getting the same vibe I get when talking to an xer apologist? I have ZERO tolerance for this bull.

 

I wouldn't know... do Christian apologists give off a tolerance vibe which gets your goat? Because tolerance is what I am talking about here... not acceptance... not liking it... but tolerating it. Most Christian apologists I know aren't big on the tolerance message; although, I have seen several liberal apologists who tried to claim the bible was a bastion of tolerance.

 

You don't like my comparison to the way you use "free thought" and the actual meaning of freedom. Of course I took the broad meaning of the phrase and not the narrow technical meaning it has come to adopt because I wished to make a point... and a serious one at that. We can not proclaim to be purveyors of free thought if we define certain forms of thought as unacceptable. In the narrow [technical] sense this means we encourage thought which denies revelation as a reference but it's more than that... freedom is so much more than being free from having a god telling you what is right and wrong. Freedom is about being able to make poor choices and deal with those consequences.

 

If you want to talk about strawmen, your allusion to 30000 different denominations as proof that the bible is not a viable or reliable guide is about the biggest strawman we'll find in this thread. The fact that there are many approaches to something does not prove that it's invalid.

 

What I and others have to sell is a real product that can demonstratably enrich ones life. The bible is a lie and causes damage.

 

What part of this is a real product? If I tell people to not eat fast food because it is bad for them... what product am I selling? Which part demonstratably enriches their life? I happen to know an ex-pastor of mine who woke up to the reality of his religion as a fraud and he's in a pit of despair trying to drown away his pain with cocaine and booze. Is he better off now than when he had a little self-deception? When he believed he was helping others, and they willingly paid for that service they also believed he provided, what harm came from the fact that his efforts were based on a delusion? And how much pain and suffering does he have to go through now before we can say that he's worse off without it?

 

Don't rip the blanket off my bed and tell me you're giving me the wonderful "product" of being able to feel the breezes on my skin while I sleep. You propose to remove something which brings comfort and joy to people and the vast majority of the time causes no harm at all. I can't even name the "Christians" I know who believe in God, believe Jesus died for them, and pretty much leave it at that. They don't really worry about the rest of it because they believe that it's all in God's hands and he can be trusted. This means they aren't out beating up gay men or shunning sinners... it just means that at the end of the day they can look up and believe there's something up there that care about them. Who am I to tell them the only one looking back is themselves?

 

You put on airs of being morally superior to these people because you know better than they do what is good for them. They have their own parents... they don't need you to be their parent as well. The world does not need you to save it from itself.

 

Trust me, I believe that Christianity will fade away and die. That one day only vesigial chunks of it will remain in human culture. But I don't believe that day will come in this decade but it will come. I don't see that drawing more attention to it is helping that process.

 

Anyway, you're letting your hatred and anger towards Christianity affect your approach towards dealing with it. I promise you, when it comes to being abused by a religion, I've probably got you beat. I know there are people here who, likewise, beat me in that area but I was raised in a very controlling fundamentalist church and home. And I managed to do that as a "free thinker." (Yes, I think AA is excessive for you... but if that's the biggest thing I had to complain about, I would have been a very happy teen.) And believe me, there were days when I felt exactly like the words you're saying here. There were days I would have prayed for the death of the belief... if I had anyone to pray to. But they passed. Now I know, or rather am resigned to the fact, that I won't be able to change the world. I'm not going to be the one to finally convince everyone that they're wrong.

 

But... I can start with those around me. Slowly teaching them to tolerate and eventually accept my non-belief and thus feel comfortable questioning their own beliefs. I admit it's not as exciting as bare-knuckle boxing them into submission but it's more effective. And I judge effective not by them converting to a different belief but by letting go of the bigotry and dogma... by learning to question on their own and of their own will.

 

I had a friend message me tonight. We had talked about the bible and creationism a while ago. I explained my problems with it and some of the things biologically that I felt strongly supported the idea that it wasn't literal. This was months ago... and he listened politely but didn't accept it at the time. Instead, he went out and looked into it himself and looked at the stuff I explained and the arguments for both sides. Tonight he let me know that he's moved to a position of theistic-evolution. I consider that a major victory because it's him thinking for himself. He's adopting his old ideas to fit his new understanding... and his old ideas do still include a creator God. But that's what it's all about... teaching them to walk on their own and at their own pace. Not shoving them out into the cold all at once and demanding they "just accept it."

 

Anyway, I am off to bed. Don't take this like I am attacking you here. Don't worry about needing to defend yourself all the time. That must get very tiring. It's just me talking... and having a different opinion... one I am trying to express and share but not one I expect you to adopt.

[dogmatically_challenged]

oops not yet.

[dogmatically_challenged]

ericf

The quiet alcoholics you describe are what I know as functional alcoholics. They manage to have a job, perform in society as much as they wish, and keep up with the things they must to live. A functional alcoholic is like any other functioning drug addict. They may depend on a substance but it hasn't destroyed them[, yet]. It's not the best thing in the world and it would be ideal if they would seek help and get clean. Again, it's their life though... and if they don't have the strength to change it and are "stable" being pussy whipped old men... let them be. Their addiction, from the way you described it and by definition, is harming the bare minimum amount of people.

I especially agree that my uncles are harming very few people. I am not required to help a drunk who does not want help. I can love them as they are, but I am not required to help them against thier will. This is what I was taught in A.A. literature. I believe in much of A.A. philosophy minus god and miracles.

 

ericf

I wouldn't know... do Christian apologists give off a tolerance vibe which gets your goat? Because tolerance is what I am talking about here... not acceptance... not liking it... but tolerating it. Most Christian apologists I know aren't big on the tolerance message; although, I have seen several liberal apologists who tried to claim the bible was a bastion of tolerance.

 

ericf

In short, on what basis do we declare the bible unacceptable for others because we find it unacceptable to us? And what does it matter that we attack what other people believe about it?  I share my opinion on the book and my problems with it but in an informational and non-confrontational way.  I believe that education is the best way to deal with this "problem" and that education works best when it is welcome by the educated.  This doesn't mean all people wish to be educated but isn't that their choice? Don't they have the freedom to believe exactly as they want?

I am trying to sell a product. A real one. Not bullshit. Not empty threats and bribes like the buy-bull. Everything in red, in your post, I agree with mostly. I addressed those.

 

"what does it matter that we attack what other people believe about it?" I am talking about aproaching nonxer's and half assed xer's about these things. Any "True Christian' that asks will be served. Thier choice. It is everyones choice to listen or not. From my experience in school some half assed xers and nonxers are curious. This is my point. You can never really know who is interested if you do not give them the opportunity to CHOOSE. Not everyone thinks to go to the library or owns a computer. I see nothing wrong with giving the people a choice. I am a Libertarian. I understand some of what you are talking about in freedoms. I can give folks the opportunity to see what free thought is all about. I can also share with them what is in the bible. It is my right to talk to them and thier choice to listen or not. I have no intention of hounding the same people offline. Online is different depending on the situation. The debate forums for example.

 

"on what basis do we declare the bible unacceptable for others because we find it unacceptable to us?"

This is xer apologetics you used. This.

 

Your an ExChristian. Answer your own question. You can answer it yourself. The bible is the cornerstone of xianity. That book is thier, heh, "method" in salvation. Thier method of knowing right and wrong. The bible has bigotry in it. How many times do I have to point this out? How do we make all churchs teach only tolerance and love? The bible has a little something for almost any personality type. Remember what I said about psalms? There are other scriptures that get folks riled up. The book does not really come with instructions on how to deal with inconsistencies and contradictions. There are many bibles. To say that book is the word of a god is very dangerous, because it is an inconsistent book in teaching love and respect. Not every one who picks that book up is a bible scholar and not every pastor cares for his flock, but has an agenda of hatred or greed. That book should be debunked and forgoten or simply kept as an ancient comic book. People have the right to the OPPORTUNITY of knowing the truth about the bible and xianity. Especially in light of xianities track record past and present.

 

If you want to talk about strawmen, your allusion to 30000 different denominations as proof that the bible is not a viable or reliable guide is about the biggest strawman we'll find in this thread. The fact that there are many approaches to something does not prove that it's invalid.

No it is not a staw man. The bible is inconsistent in teaching love and respect. PERIOD. Don't make me share inconsistencies and contradictions that YOU YOURSELF ARE ALL READY AWARE OF. As I said the bible is the cornerstone of xianity and while xers may have a method of ,heh, "harmonizing" scripture; the bible itself is not a real method for teaching empathy and equality. It is bigoted. It can only deal with no brainer problems. Things people can figure out through using thier human abilities. There are many, many different denominations because of contradictions and inconsistencies in that book.

 

What do the Liberal xers or liberal fundies do to protect us? NOTHING! They don't speak out against hate from other churches, they don't try and steal the hate mongers flock away from them. I say screw the Liberal xers. I do not care to coddle them in thier addiction to fairy tales. People deserve the opportunity to know about the bible, its history and the brutal history of xianity past and present.

 

You don't like my comparison to the way you use "free thought" and the actual meaning of freedom. Of course I took the broad meaning of the phrase and not the narrow technical meaning it has come to adopt because I wished to make a point... and a serious one at that. We can not proclaim to be purveyors of free thought if we define certain forms of thought as unacceptable. In the narrow [technical] sense this means we encourage thought which denies revelation as a reference but it's more than that... freedom is so much more than being free from having a god telling you what is right and wrong. Freedom is about being able to make poor choices and deal with those consequences.

I all ready told you some Free Thinkers have a product to sell. People can buy it or not. All I am saying is that people should have the opportunity to choose. If they are not aware of what the bible really is and are interested in knowing if offered, then I have injured no one. What is this talk of freedom here? I am a Libertarian and I understand the concept of freedom. I ain't talking about passing laws to burn bibles and round up xers in camps. I'm talking about changing minds. Folks can listen or not. I think its thier mistake if they don't. Thier choice to listen or not. I think there are more people that would be interested than some realize.

 

There is nothing shady or sinnister in telling people about the bible or the xian track record of hate, destruction and bigotry; past and present. In my original post I even said that I only really deal with nonxers and half assed xers. Not real xians really. Not unless they come to me, or prosylitize in my vicinity. A part of Free thought is rational inquiry and rational speculation. Sharing ideas is a big part of Freethought. People can make mistakes while using reason. We don't need to make sensless mistakes again and again and again due to xian brainwashing from a mythology book. Free Thought is more beneficial than the xer religion. I think I can sell some people on that. I have.

[dogmatically_challenged]

What part of this is a real product?

Ethics with reason and empathy as its foundation. A decent model can be built on this. An objective way to meet our goals of maximizing protection and freedoms without damaging others. That is a start. It is something people can do for themselves while using others as sounding boards. Intelligent social animals free of the bondage of religion can do this. The bible is not any kind of reliable method in discouraging bigotry. It can only solve no brainer moral dilemas. Some people will be interested in what some Free Thinkers have to sell.

 

You propose to remove something which brings comfort and joy to people and the vast majority of the time causes no harm at all.

They can choose. Xianity is like a rapist that treats its wife and children kindly...in some intances. It only takes one xer to permently ruin lives. Just one.

 

Trust me, I believe that Christianity will fade away and die. That one day only vesigial chunks of it will remain in human culture. But I don't believe that day will come in this decade but it will come. I don't see that drawing more attention to it is helping that process.

Why did you not just say this in the first place. This is most likely. Still if there can be a bible belt there can be a secular belt. It is possible. Heck its possible that a community can be mostly apostates and nonxians. I should have told you that the main point of this is votes. The country was split in half with dub....ya. I know damn well that xer morons vote based on thier religious ideologies and the whores in washington like to pander to xers. Both the democrooks and the republicrooks. Those mother fuckers sell everyone out. Only a few dems and conservatives worth anything most are whores. Especially neocons. They just tell people what they want to hear and at worst actually try to pass bigoted Laws. Laws that want to hold back science. War mongering. Free Thought make people better voters and citizens. Better citizens than they were. We might get better politicians if we were better citizens.

 

Anyway, you're letting your hatred and anger towards Christianity affect your approach towards dealing with it.

No disagreement here.

 

I promise you, when it comes to being abused by a religion, I've probably got you beat. I know there are people here who, likewise, beat me in that area but I was raised in a very controlling fundamentalist church and home. And I managed to do that as a "free thinker." (Yes, I think AA is excessive for you... but if that's the biggest thing I had to complain about, I would have been a very happy teen.) And believe me, there were days when I felt exactly like the words you're saying here. There were days I would have prayed for the death of the belief... if I had anyone to pray to. But they passed.

If you say you had it bad I believe you without question. I won't mess around there. I am an alcoholic. I not only inherited it I actually abused alcohol enough to become addicted. I really really never want to stop at one drink so I leave it alone. I too have lived in very abusive and controling fundy homes. I have lived in three different households. My aunt that I live with now is still a fruit cake but she at least is less controlling. So I should count my blessings, but you are right. I am still angry.

 

Now I know, or rather am resigned to the fact, that I won't be able to change the world. I'm not going to be the one to finally convince everyone that they're wrong.

Maybe there is a middle road. I don't know. I'll get black eyes along the way I'm sure.

 

But... I can start with those around me. Slowly teaching them to tolerate and eventually accept my non-belief and thus feel comfortable questioning their own beliefs. I admit it's not as exciting as bare-knuckle boxing them into submission but it's more effective. And I judge effective not by them converting to a different belief but by letting go of the bigotry and dogma... by learning to question on their own and of their own will.

Stop making so much sense. This is excellent treatment for brainwashed xers. I can understand what you are saying here. It's brilliant.

 

Anyway, I am off to bed. Don't take this like I am attacking you here. Don't worry about needing to defend yourself all the time. That must get very tiring. It's just me talking... and having a different opinion... one I am trying to express and share but not one I expect you to adopt.

I feel a little guilty for being a prick. I do not agree with everything you have pointed out, but I agree with your technique of action through very little action.

 

But... I can start with those around me. Slowly teaching them to tolerate and eventually accept my non-belief and thus feel comfortable questioning their own beliefs. I admit it's not as exciting as bare-knuckle boxing them into submission but it's more effective. And I judge effective not by them converting to a different belief but by letting go of the bigotry and dogma... by learning to question on their own and of their own will

I want to do this at home. It will take a while for me emotionaly to pull this off. I panick when she starts in with me about her beliefs. I have a very short fuse. This will take practice.

[fallenleaf]

I am afraid that the many different denominations only prove that the bible as a guide is inconsistent... not that it is invalid or ineffective. It doesn't even prove that it is unreliable as that proof would require that you prove that on every level of morality a sect of Christainity conflicts with another. Which sect promotes adultery and murder as good and moral acts? Which one says that stealing is a good way to please God?

 

Differences and inconsistencies do not prove something is ineffective. Think of the many different treatments for cancer. The fact that some work for some people and not for others does not mean they are ineffective or invalid methods of treatment... just that they are not consistent.

 

Proving that the bible is an inconsistent guide is easy... using that as proof that it's not valid or effective is harder. I agree that the bible solves simplistic moral issues and does it in a simplistic manner... if anything it's a morality primer.

 

Anyway, I think you'll find there is a lot of common area between the two of us. You can ask almost anyone on this site who knows me and they will confirm that I mess with Christians all the time. And I've even been told by several people that my method of messing with them is cold, unfeeling, and borders on cruel. It's not something I deny... too much... but, for the majority, I do not seek to change them. That's the cold part... I don't care about helping them. I mess with them for my own amusement and without concern about enlightening them. I think most of them will wake up on their own... their belief is dying out so I am content to amuse myself by baiting them.

 

Anyway, the anger and the attacking just feeds into their paranoia... you're still playing their game. And you've picked the "bad guy" role. You're playing a part on their stage and according to their script. It's more fun to respond with lines from Tennessee Williams or Gilbert and Sullivan when they're prompting you with Shakespeare. Or maybe just to fart in their general direction and take a bow.

 

If not for any other reason, that's why I reject the aggressive role. I've been called mule-headed by every person I've ever respected. I have a reputation for refusing to accept roles forced upon me by others... simply because the role is forced and not because I have any reason to reject it.

 

Of course, there's tons of other reasons which I believe logically support my actions but I'll admit that my mule-headedness plays a role. I refuse to be what they demand I should be.

 

Anyway... rand mode = off.

[dogmatically_challenged]

ericf

I am afraid that the many different denominations only prove that the bible as a guide is inconsistent... not that it is invalid or ineffective. It doesn't even prove that it is unreliable as that proof would require that you prove that on every level of morality a sect of Christainity conflicts with another. Which sect promotes adultery and murder as good and moral acts? Which one says that stealing is a good way to please God?

 

Differences and inconsistencies do not prove something is ineffective. Think of the many different treatments for cancer. The fact that some work for some people and not for others does not mean they are ineffective or invalid methods of treatment... just that they are not consistent.

 

Proving that the bible is an inconsistent guide is easy... using that as proof that it's not valid or effective is harder. I agree that the bible solves simplistic moral issues and does it in a simplistic manner... if anything it's a morality primer.

Over all xianity is good for nothing other than a security blancket and giving one a sense of communty. I don't fault xers for wanting the sense of community however.

 

Only the rare xers are caring "do gooders" or hateful bigots. one hateful xer can have more of an impact on many than one do gooder xer. Just one xer can destroy the lives of many. It is always easier to destroy or harm.

 

The only way for the average human animal to find the best methods in doing what is in the best interests of themselves and by extension others, is to use reason and empathy and not worship primitive and undynamic things like a holybook. The bible taken as a whole is invalid as a moral compass. At best it only solves the no brainer moral dilemas. It is not consistent or useful and niether is any dogma's that come from it. Are you saying that the few xers who do good do so because of a certain flavor of xianity that can actually draw on scripture specifically? In some cases yes and many cases no.

 

Pastors sometimes come and go and what remains is the flock. New churches and denominations will appear like always. Even in the same denomination folks got different beliefs. The bible remains the same no matter the new doctrine or spin a pastor emphasies. The NT is a mixed bag as well as being unclear if O.T. laws should be upheld or not, or what is still in effect. The bible is the cornerstone of xianity yet they all cherry pick it. That is a part of what "harmonization" is. If the book itself is unclear and such a mixed bag then it simply should not be used. It should be debunked and put in the fiction section of our bookshelves.

 

Anyway, I think you'll find there is a lot of common area between the two of us. You can ask almost anyone on this site who knows me and they will confirm that I mess with Christians all the time. And I've even been told by several people that my method of messing with them is cold, unfeeling, and borders on cruel. It's not something I deny... too much... but, for the majority, I do not seek to change them. That's the cold part... I don't care about helping them. I mess with them for my own amusement and without concern about enlightening them. I think most of them will wake up on their own... their belief is dying out so I am content to amuse myself by baiting them.

I was just being an ass. I have a very short fuse and your nice treatment of me has made that painfully real to me. Thank you.

 

Anyway, the anger and the attacking just feeds into their paranoia... you're still playing their game. And you've picked the "bad guy" role. You're playing a part on their stage and according to their script. It's more fun to respond with lines from Tennessee Williams or Gilbert and Sullivan when they're prompting you with Shakespeare. Or maybe just to fart in their general direction and take a bow.

Yes. There are other ways and better ways to put things. Heck, I even feed my own paranoia sometimes. heh.

 

If not for any other reason, that's why I reject the aggressive role. I've been called mule-headed by every person I've ever respected. I have a reputation for refusing to accept roles forced upon me by others... simply because the role is forced and not because I have any reason to reject it.

Me too. Still, due to this discussion with you I will tweak my approach. I may even change more of what I feel and believe in the future. I still believe strongly that methods are very important and that is one real reason I reject the bible and dogmas built on it as inferior and that xianity stops progress as well as condones or encourages bigotry and harm.

 

Of course, there's tons of other reasons which I believe logically support my actions but I'll admit that my mule-headedness plays a role. I refuse to be what they demand I should be.

I am the same. I am only getting my thoughts out there for folks who feel the same way I do. You just helped in mellowing things out a little. Its all good to me. Not only that but your style I think can be effective also. If anything the bible being attacked could prod liberal fundies and liberal xers to get out there and rebuke the extremists. As I said its all good.

[dr_funkenstein]

Oh man I'm just butting into this topic but I'm absolutely completely pee'd off with CF. I went on there last Friday and I'm already banned. I was copping abuse left right and centre. Xians who would say the most offensive condescending things, to which I would respond with usually calm reasoned responses (but occasionally sarcasm, highlighting how absurd their position is).

 

I made no secret of the fact that I was there to try and deconvert people. I wanted to give xians another voice - one that says "it's ok to be honest with yourself. You know deep down that what you believe in doesn't make sense, is barbaric and ultimately damaging. Don't be afraid of being true to yourself and throwing away pointless beliefs in an invisible man that lives in the sky".

 

Well I'm banned. Surprise surprise.

 

[dogmatically_challenged]

Oh man I'm just butting into this topic but I'm absolutely completely pee'd off with CF. I went on there last Friday and I'm already banned. I was copping abuse left right and centre. Xians who would say the most offensive condescending things, to which I would respond with usually calm reasoned responses (but occasionally sarcasm, highlighting how absurd their position is).

 

I made no secret of the fact that I was there to try and deconvert people. I wanted to give xians another voice - one that says "it's ok to be honest with yourself. You know deep down that what you believe in doesn't make sense, is barbaric and ultimately damaging. Don't be afraid of being true to yourself and throwing away pointless beliefs in an invisible man that lives in the sky".

 

Well I'm banned. Surprise surprise.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have a lot of respect for heathens like you. I can't deal with fundies who are not really curious. I have a short fuse when it comes to hard headed denial.

 

I only debunk the bible and the silly notion that the bible teaches morality to people who are really curious, like half assed xians and non xians. Yea there are non xians who believe that the xian religion is something that automatically makes people good people.

[dogmatically_challenged]

There are many non xers have that idea. There are many half assed xians that show some curiousity as well. Sometimes fundies, but not usually.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Still not every xian forum is as hard heaeded as CF. If you got skill in dealing with fundies that is a good thing. Not all xer forums are gonna ban you so quickly.

 

I think its cool you got people skills.

[dr_funkenstein]

Well I realised pretty quickly that a lot of those xians really don't live up to the whole WWJD mentality. They're downright nasty, or they just say inflammatory crap that makes you want to scream and smack your head against the wall.

 

Like one of them for example came into this debate halfway through and proclaimed that because we atheists were using the word "God" a lot that we must therefore have God on our hearts and deep down we must really be longing for a relationship with him. I mean, personally I take offence at some xian trying to tell me what's going on in my mind when she had no idea at all. But then you take the bait and show up the argument for how foolish it is and what do you get? Abuse, flaming, and when you complain to the mods, you get banned. Not them - me!

 

Honestly I'm starting to wonder whether it's worth it. I think I'm going to change my tune - if a xian wants to know what I believe, I'll tell them. But I'm not going to go out of my way to preach to them. Let them waste their lives on pointlessness. Many of them are just too thick to even understand what's wrong with what they believe in.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Well I realised pretty quickly that a lot of those xians really don't live up to the whole WWJD mentality. They're downright nasty, or they just say inflammatory crap that makes you want to scream and smack your head against the wall.

Yet these kinds aren't really curious. Some of them might be, but are quiet and unfortunately you got banned because your people skills and argumentation was a serious threat to the lie that xianity is.

 

Like one of them for example came into this debate halfway through and proclaimed that because we atheists were using the word "God" a lot that we must therefore have God on our hearts and deep down we must really be longing for a relationship with him. I mean, personally I take offence at some xian trying to tell me what's going on in my mind when she had no idea at all.

They are very insecure. They are in denial that they themselves have doubts they do not wish to confront honestly. They are hard headed.

 

 

But then you take the bait and show up the argument for how foolish it is and what do you get? Abuse, flaming, and when you complain to the mods, you get banned. Not them - me!

It it a tactic perhaps of getting rid of you? I dunno. They are not reasonable.

 

Honestly I'm starting to wonder whether it's worth it. I think I'm going to change my tune - if a xian wants to know what I believe, I'll tell them. But I'm not going to go out of my way to preach to them. Let them waste their lives on pointlessness. Many of them are just too thick to even understand what's wrong with what they believe in.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is worth it because you have people skills and a few will see that xianity has not a leg to stand on with your interaction with the other xers.

 

Stil, a little time spent with non xians and curious xers can do a lot of good as well.

[dogmatically_challenged]

I am so glad you happened upon this thread dr_funkenstein. I thought I was alone in seeing that deconverting xians is a good and respectable persuit.

[Guest Challenger]

I am so glad you happened upon this thread dr_funkenstein. I thought I was alone in seeing that deconverting xians is a good and respectable persuit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So what would you call it, sort of "reverse witnessing"?

[dogmatically_challenged]

So what would you call it, sort of "reverse witnessing"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As far a decoverting Xers yes. Not being closeted could bring curious people to ask Free Thinkers questions. Going door to door is not really smart IMHO. There can be appropriate forums or situations online and offline. We will all have to decide for ourselves what situations are appropriate.

 

If xians have the right to evangelize in a country then heathens do also.

 

 

Recently, I have made a lot of mistakes in priority, I believe. Free Thought is more important.

 

Spreading Free Thought is good for everyone. Even Christians that do not deconvert can question authority more often. Free Thinkers make for better citizens and better citizens can give us better politicians. Every one who is a Free Thinker is one at thier own speed, which is better than no questioning or valuing the fact that knowlege is power. Education and questioning prevents manipulation more often.

 

As far as being deconverted, I think people my age are ripe for that.