My "why I'm Not Christian" Letter

[Vixentrox]

Spot on Loren, spot on. Clergy are liars and perpetrators of the biggest scam humans ever came up with...religion.

[Deva]

Honesty and truth are two different things, my friend. Making a false statement is not telling a lie if the person believes it to be true.

 

Yes, I agree that what they're spreading isn't true. But if they really believe that it is true, then they are not being dishonest by spreading the falsehood.

 

I find it incredible that someone with a Masters Degree or PhD from a University prattling on about the resurrection and "sin" actually believes it. They may actually believe parts of it, but regardless, they have to teach the whole of it though, its their job. It is, to me basically irrelevant and unknowable how much they do or do not personally believe. They lie when they set themselves up as authorities. Loren said this so much better than I could in his excellent previous post.

 

I actually heard a Deacon say she didn't want to preach the controversial passages in Paul's letters because people wouldn't get it. That was an outright lie. It isn't really because we college educated adults wouldn't understand it, its because she didn't believe it herself. Dishonest to the core, yet she was a nice person.

 

Which pretty much proves my point. Some clergy are honest, such as the ones on this site that finally saw through the bullshit. Some never see through the bullshit, though, but that doesn't make them dishonest, it just means they're brainwashed with bullshit.

 

They are also not doing it for a living. I am saying it is a dishonest way to make a living.

 

What gets me is that believers see nonbelievers make ridiculous broadbrushed claims like this, and it can actually serve to strengthen their faith, because it makes it look like we nonbelievers don't know what the hell we're talking about.

 

Call it ridiculous if you like. I call it like I see it, and from my own experience as I previously stated.

 

For me it depends on who it is and what the trust is regarding. I wouldn't trust any member of clergy for much in the way of personal counseling, because the worldview they promote is bullshit (whether they realize it or not). There are some that I know personally and would trust with other things, though.

 

I wouldn't trust them in any capacity. I stand by my statement. By the way, my experience with clergy cannot be called "limited" because I spent 30 years in and out of churches. I got to know a couple of them personally. I actually like one of them, an Episcopal priest, as a person, but she needs to get out and go back to making an honest living IMO.

[Shyone]

This may seem like a non-sequitur, but in my mind it fits.

 

I have always had respect for Aquinas. His writings face the problems of belief head on, and he used the best "logic" of his time to answer them. His Summa Theologiae is his masterpiece, but it was never completed.

 

One day while in the middle of a ceremony, he abruptly and unexpectedly stopped and left. He told his assistant (and I'm paraphrasing), "I can't go on. All I have written is as straw."

 

I was stunned when I read that. I am convinced that he had the same experience as I did and many others here; the kind of epiphany that informs you there is no god. I know what the apologists think. Beatific vision my ass. He saw that what he had written was useless, wrong and not worth continuing.

 

Until that point, he probably believed in all that stuff. His problem was that he was a thinker.

 

Um, how does that relate to the present discussion? Aquinas did once believe. I used to believe. I can't believe that I used to believe, but I did, and I can't assume that others have come to the same conclusion as I even if they have been exposed to the same knowledge or if they are brilliant people in every other respect.

 

I think I'll shut up now.

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

That is interesting about Aquinas. I had never heard that before.

 

My grandfather is an assistant minister at a Nazarene Church. While I think he's a nice enough guy, and I assume hes relatively intelligent, I have to say that I agree with the summation of Loren. His family is woefully dysfunctional. My mom is the only one that 'escaped' as I call it, but I hardly think they consider her freethinking independence a good thing. Their other 3 children have pretty much failed at life and at living up to any kind of morality (let alone the supposed church morality). Their eldest son is 44, he has never managed to live on his own. Every once and a while he gets kicked out because he is addicted to gambling, does coke, crack and pot, drinking and prostitution. He then lives on the streets until he ends up in jail and get taken right back into their home. He is also just the most annoying idiotic person I have ever met and I outgrew him when I was 5 years old. My aunt had 3 kids out of wedlock, got married to their controlling, alcoholic and abusive father, raised the kids to be monsters all of whom beat up on the youngest girl and has finally gotten out of it because her husband is in jail for drugs, assault and robbery and domestic violence. Now the brood lives with my grandparents and I feel bad for them because I have never seen a worse behaved bunch of kids. I have no idea how my aunt will manage, because while her husband beat them, she never punishes them at all. Her sons both have court dates for vandalism, drugs and shoplifting and unfortunately look to be going the way of their father. My other uncle at least has a disability to excuse his inability to hive on his own. He is the only one that goes to church. He also molested me when I was a kid.

 

So my grandpa is a minister, he presided over my mom's and my aunt's weddings, he does marriage counseling, leads sermons and classes on morality - and yet utterly failed to give his kids any kind of actual life skills or a morality to make them productive members of society. My mom got pregnant at 18 and they very nearly disowned her. She married my dad (who wasn't great to her but not horrible either) did the good Christian wife thing for a while but eventually got herself out of it. She always owned up to her responsibilities. That is not something she learned from her religious upbringing but something she figured out for herself. And yes, they resent her for being independent, for having a degree in chemistry, for allowing her kids to think for themselves. So even a minister in my family, who has always been nice (to the point of enabling really) I would not trust for anything. He is purposefully blind to the reality around him, he perpetuates a system he must know fails, he judges someone who is otherwise functional and morally upright but doesn't believe his doctrine. Their way of teaching women to be submissive practically destroyed my aunt's life and probably her children's as well, and only through force of will did my mom overcome it, and allowed their sons to be just horrible and disgusting people without reprimand.

 

K, endrant. More I think about it, more I hate clergy. They have no right to be ignorant of the damage they do.

[Aliix]

He is purposefully blind to the reality around him, he perpetuates a system he must know fails, he judges someone who is otherwise functional and morally upright but doesn't believe his doctrine. Their way of teaching women to be submissive practically destroyed my aunt's life and probably her children's as well, and only through force of will did my mom overcome it, and allowed their sons to be just horrible and disgusting people without reprimand.

 

Ah, the wonders of the Christianity superiority impulse. It is truly a tragedy, if not something of a vicious cycle; as it is recycled through indoctrination from generation to generation. The majority of time I speak to my immediate family; they frequently mention that something is Christian and thus it must be better. My mother commented that a woman she encountered the other day and befriended was a good friend, and "the icing on the cake was that she was Christian", my father when speaking about those who I could consult on my collegiate interests recommended someone who "had a firm Christian theology", my family looks down upon anyone who isn't Christian and believes that Christians are superior in their ability to love. This belief is nothing but a Biblical farce, and apparently, stating that a particular religion makes someone more capable of love is nothing short of outright chicanery. I honestly wonder what will happen when I tell them that I am not a Christian, will they make an exception, or will they panic in desperation as their theory collapses?

[Shyone]

The majority of time I speak to my immediate family; they frequently mention that something is Christian and thus it must be better.

 

I think there are some deep psychological processes occurring here. Something very primitive.

 

Us vs Them, outsiders, We are the ones that (fill in blank) and they are different.

 

We fear differences and are inherently xenophobic.

 

We open our hearts to others when we overcome Xenophobia and expand our horizons. It's not an easy thing to do, but it can be done. I have seen parents defend their gay children who would otherwise freak. I have seen parents defend their criminal children, when they would otherwise have condemned them.

 

All is not hopeless, but rejection of their religion can mean (to them) rejection of their values, their morality, their love, and everything that binds a family together. Some families just can't stand up to that kind of test, and others will heal with time (after initially falling apart).

 

You know them best, so follow your best judgement.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Citsonga, what follows is fairly strongly worded. Please understand that my purpose is not to make you feel bad, but to show how my thinking has gone on this issue, both as a Christian and after. After I read what you said, I wrote what follows. In coming back, I see others have replied and things look like they're getting heated. I'd like to say, let's all calm down a bit. All of you are great folks who I respect, like and enjoy.

 

Thanks, and please understand that my purpose isn't to make you or anyone else feel bad either. As far as "getting heated," I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not heated. When I use caps, bolds or italics, it's for emphasis, not yelling. So please understand that what follows is not out of any disrespect.

 

I truly can say that the whole are lying.

 

No you can't. The whole speak things that aren't true, but that's not the same as lying. Speaking an untruth that you believe to be true is not the same as lying, even if the end result is the same thing. While I agree that many are lying, there are others who simply believe the shit they preach.

 

In order for a member of the damned clergy to become a member of the damned clergy, they must give personal approval to those doctrines. Either they believe them or they don't. If they don't, then they must lie in order to remain in their clerical position. If they believe them, they must support them in order to not be lying. In order to support them, they must understand them. If they can understand them and still not see the problems, then how can I say they are telling the truth when they claim to be competent to do their job?

 

Competence is a separate issue. There are ministers who believe that it's not a matter of their competence level, but a matter of God's calling. In other words, they expect God to use them DESPITE their inadequacies. It's a matter of their "trust in God" instead of a trust in themselves.

 

Don't forget that one of my points was that without professional training, even a high-school drop-out like me was able to see problems readily, and find tons of damning information very easily. And these guys, as a whole, have had twenty centuries and literally millions of personnel available to get their house in order, yet they, as a whole, haven't even had the professionalism to face or even notice these issues. It's their job to notice.

 

But some people are either more indoctrinated or more gullible than you. It doesn't make them dishonest if they are constantly bombarded with Christian doctrine to the point that they can't see through it, it just makes them brainwashed.

 

For them to not even notice these problems let alone deal with them, is nothing other than malfeasance.

 

That depends on their level of brainwashing. I can speak from experience, because, even though I didn't pursue a clergy type position, I did actively study the Bible, apologetics and other Christian materials, as well as listen to a lot of Christian radio programming, quite a bit over a period of 14 years, memorizing hundreds of verses and trying to "grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus." I even once had a degreed youth pastor several years older than myself tell me (not jokingly) that I knew more about the Bible than he did.

 

I wrote Christian lyrics for a Christian band, taught Bible studies and Sunday school, and gave a lot of standard apologetics arguments, but I WAS NOT LYING!!!! I HONESTLY BELIEVED that stuff!!!! It would not have been much of a leap for me to have been a preacher giving the same points from the pulpit, but had I done so, I WOULD HAVE DONE SO HONESTLY. Wrongly, of course, but still HONESTLY.

 

You seem to fail to understand the depths to which one can be brainwashed with religious bullshit. If I could make my #1 priority studying the Bible and it took me 14 years before I began to see through the nonsense, I know DAMN WELL how ingrained that worldview was in my mind, HOW DIFFICULT it can be to think outside the box, and that the SAME THING can happen with ministers.

 

Where do most Christians go when they have questions? They pray and/or check out what other Christians say. They don't typically jump the fence right away and become freethinkers, and they get their answers from others sharing the same bullshit worldview. It's not easy for a lot of people to break away from that worldview when that's all they're exposed to, and the same goes for clergy who are in the same boat.

 

If a single member of any other profession had such lax standards, they would certainly be guilty of such. A doctor may be a very nice person, and sincerely believe that the knowledge they have on tap is all they need, but if they are unaware of the importance of blood-typing, let alone insistently denying that blood-typing exists, they would truly be guilty of gross and dangerous professional incompetence.

 

...The whole reason the doctor example is workable is that we understand that it's completely reasonable to hold a physician fully accountable due to his handling of life and death issues. If he doesn't know something, he damn sure ought to be able to recognize the shortcoming and rectify it.

 

Those are separate issues from a profession that supposedly has "God" on its side and that any doubt is a tool of Satan.

 

How could I possibly call the damned clergy honest or sincere as a whole, when they act precisely as though they've never even noticed that they may in fact have such ethical obligations?

 

I NEVER ONCE ASKED for you to call the "clergy honest or sincere as a whole." I challenged your claim that as a whole they're all liars, but I did NOT claim that as a whole they are honest and sincere. I have stated a few different times already that I fully acknowledge that there are dishonest clergy, and I even said that they may even be the majority. So please don't exaggerate my position into something it's not, because I'm only claiming that SOME are honest and sincere (albeit wrongly so).

 

If they don't know something that they should know, then they are incompetent. If they don't correct it, that's gross negligence. If they do deal with it, yet lie about what they found, that's malfeasance.

 

I addressed the incompetence part previously. Here I just want to acknowledge that I agree completely that lying about what one finds is malfeasance. Not all clergy have done that, though.

 

There's no place of refuge for them. They are abject, regardless of how sincere they, or we, may think they are. And giving them more credit than is due by saying that some are sincere is exactly what I did for years when I was a Christian.

 

For me, it's not a matter of trying to "give them credit," it's a matter of honestly assessing the situation from the angle of one (myself) who was extremely brainwashed on just about the same level as a minister.

 

Actually, if you want to talk in terms of giving them credit, then I should point out that it appears that YOU are giving them more credit than I do in terms of intellect and freethinking ability.

 

So for me to say that, as a whole, the damned clergy are lying sacks of shit is putting it so nicely that it practically makes me a saint for my mercy and gentleness.

 

Loren (The Kind and Gentle)

 

And yet wrong. Even if the percentage of clergy who aren't "lying sacks of shit" is only 5% (just an arbitrary figure, of course), that doesn't change the fact that they're not all "lying sacks of shit."

 

Take care....

[★ Citsonga ★]

Honesty and truth are two different things, my friend. Making a false statement is not telling a lie if the person believes it to be true.

 

Yes, I agree that what they're spreading isn't true. But if they really believe that it is true, then they are not being dishonest by spreading the falsehood.

 

I find it incredible that someone with a Masters Degree or PhD from a University prattling on about the resurrection and "sin" actually believes it.

 

First off, not all clergy members have degrees, or even any formal training. Some small churches have part-time ministers who work other jobs through the week and preach on Sundays. Some of them do so without being paid, or with very little pay. They just feel that "God" has called them to do that.

 

Second, as incredible as it may seem, it wouldn't surprise me in the least for someone with a seminary degree to believe all that shit. If one is constantly bombarded with the Christian worldview and Christian apologetics and Christian arguments, then it would not be difficult at all to conceive of that person believing it to be true. I know, because I pretty much did the same thing, just not in seminary.

 

By the way, my experience with clergy cannot be called "limited" because I spent 30 years in and out of churches. I got to know a couple of them personally.

 

And how in the hell is that NOT limited? Until you have experience with EVERY minister in the world, your experience IS limited. All of our experiences are limited, as it is impossible for it to not be so.

 

Just because in your time in and out of churches and your experiences with a few ministers you didn't find any of them to be honest does NOT mean that NO clergy is honest. Please read my comments to Loren above regarding brainwashing.

 

Finally, please don't misunderstand me. I don't mean you any disrespect. It's just that saying that all clergy are dishonest because you knew a few who were dishonest is somewhat like someone saying that all doctors are dishonest because they knew a few who were dishonest. You can't extrapolate your limited experiences out to every member of clergy.

 

Take care....

[★ Citsonga ★]

They rely on doing this for a living wage.

 

My previous post reminded me of this quote, which I forgot to respond to.

 

Though most ministers do it for a living wage, not all do. Some do it for no financial compensation, and some do it for very little compensation.

[Deva]

And how in the hell is that NOT limited? Until you have experience with EVERY minister in the world, your experience IS limited. All of our experiences are limited, as it is impossible for it to not be so.

 

Gee, thanks a lot for minimizing my experiences. It is hard for me to take you seriously when you say you don't mean any disrespect. Your attitude reflects it in the above remark.

 

The word "limited" means, in the context you wrote the first time, that I am ignorant because I just don't have enough experience to assess the situation. That is false. You don't have "experience with every minister in the world" either. I have seen enough, they are living a lie. I totally agree with Loren. Think what you like. If you want to continue to defend the clergy, go right ahead, but I am not ignorant or stupid. Go throw a party with your clergy friends and tell them you won this particular argument. I really don't give a damn.

 

I am not so stupid as to believe all ministers are highly educated. I am just glad I saw through their game a long time ago.

[★ Citsonga ★]

And how in the hell is that NOT limited? Until you have experience with EVERY minister in the world, your experience IS limited. All of our experiences are limited, as it is impossible for it to not be so.

 

Gee, thanks a lot for minimizing my experiences. It is hard for me to take you seriously when you say you don't mean any disrespect. Your attitude reflects it in the above remark.

 

The word "limited" means, in the context you wrote the first time, that I am ignorant because I just don't have enough experience to assess the situation. That is false. You don't have "experience with every minister in the world" either.

 

Huh? I'm sorry, but if you've assumed that I have an attitude, it's a faulty assumption, and I apologize if I haven't been clear. I don't see how I couldn't have been clear, though, when I stated very clearly in the very paragraph you quoted, "All of our experiences are limited." In other words, mine too. If you see my comment about limitedness as belittling you, then it's belittling me too, because I included myself. So please don't make that faulty assumption, because that was not at all my intent.

 

I was just stating it as a fact. We are all limited in our experiences, myself included and yourself included. It is quite silly, then, to broadbrush a huge group of people as all being dishonest just because of one's limited experiences. This practice is a form of prejudice, not all that much unlike racism. To assume that you know with certainty the motive of someone you've never met and don't know hardly anything about is ridiculous.

 

Think what you like. If you want to continue to defend the clergy, go right ahead, but I am not ignorant or stupid.

 

No, I don't think what I like, I think what makes sense. And I am not defending the clergy as a whole, as I've acknowledged OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN that there probably are a lot of them who are "lying sacs of shit" and know damn well that there are serious problems with their arguments. All I'm saying is that there are others who really, honestly believe what they preach.

 

Think what you like. If you want to continue with your prejudicial broadbrushing, go right ahead, but I am not ignorant or stupid regarding the fact that some are just brainwashed, not dishonest.

 

Go throw a party with your clergy friends and tell them you won this particular argument. I really don't give a damn.

 

I don't hang out with clergy, other than my father-in-law (and that's as a relative, not as a minister), so there won't be any parties. Most clergy make me uncomfortable, because of the nonsense of the religion, so I try to avoid most of them.

 

But, hey, you can go hang out with your prejudicial friends and pretend you won this particular argument. I don't really give a damn.

 

I am not so stupid as to believe all ministers are highly educated. I am just glad I saw through their game a long time ago.

 

I agree that they're not all highly educated. In fact, that's part of the problem.

 

Different ministers have different education levels, different IQ levels, different social backgrounds, different experiences, different integrity levels, etc. So how in the world can you assume that they all have the same motives?

 

As a final point, let me throw this out there. My father-in-law, whom I know very well, happens to be a minister. I strongly disagree with a lot of his beliefs, but I've seen enough from him and the family to know the kind of person he is. Do you really think that you, who have never met him and don't know a goddamn thing about his character or personality, just happen to know his motives better than I do?????

 

I feel bad that he's brainwashed with bullshit, but that's pretty much the extent of it, he really believes the bullshit. That's a fact, regardless of the way you want to erroneously label him a "lying sack of shit."

 

I really wish that you could see how your broadbrushing position isn't any better than when Christians broadbrush all atheists as nothing but a bunch of liars.

 

Anyway, I think I've said enough. This issue has grown old with me, so I really don't have much desire to pursue it any further. Besides, the thread has been sidetracked long enough.

 

I do apologize if my comments sound harsh, I'm really just trying to make a point, that's all.

 

Take care....

[♦ nivek ♦]

Loren,

 

For an under-educated working class guy you post with words filled with iron.

 

Easy to look your extimony over "years ago" and in turn mentally file it under "Neat Shit To Remember".

 

Well hell, with my rem'brin' tool not working on all 3.28 cylinders rereading your experience and thoughts is a damn_good_thing.

 

Thanks again for having a "good pen" and desire to use it here. Even we olde tymers here benefit from a decent read.

 

I have.

 

kevinL

[Franko47]

Just catching up with this now. A good read, Loren. As Nivek stated, very basic, no heavy terminology required.

 

 

I especially liked the logic of your remarks concerning "sacrifice" and the references to original Judaism. I need to look at that stuff more closely; there's a lot of interesting theology there. Stuff that contradicts Christian doctrine, as set down from the Council of Nicea. I also believe it's a reason that Jews and Judaism have been persecuted for so long; but that's another can of worms.

[MathGeek]

I have to agree, Loren. For being a self-professed uneducated guy, your deconversion experience seeems rather autodidatic to me. I have a college degree myself and I learned more from that letter than I ever did from some clergyman.

 

This is an aside, but a fair one I think. As a young person, I remember playing Chess and seeing that the two bishops always moved diagonally to everybody else. In the first computer version I ever played, the bishop when he was the attacking piece would take his staff and stab his opponent brutally. In the film Highlander, the battle sequence that kills Duncan MacLeod the first time contains a snippet where the clergyman stabs an enemy and then does the sign of the Cross. I really think the makers of games and films understand at a primitive level that religion is a virus and it makes people commit unspeakably evil acts. A recent treatise by Dr. Darrel W. Ray calls religion "The God Virus". If anything, maybe the clergy as discussed in this thread aren't indoctrinated so much as they are infested with an unspeakable infection that must be quarantined, even if certain personality traits are not fundamentally altered at all.

 

Either way, I went to a few churches and the clergy may have been nice enough to talk with me before and after services, but beyond that they never called me back to church. At the last church I regularly attended, the priest has called me and asked why I haven't been to the local church in almost a year. His theatric style got me to go back for a little while since he framed the plight of rural Catholic churches in terms of spiritual warfare. He even bragged that 2 new members were received into the congregation late last year, but after I fell away again, my wife (the apathetic believer she is) admitted that she couldn't stand the priest here. While I won't paint every clergyman as a charlatan, the ones I've encountered are apathetic to losing membership. That apathy is rather criminal especially in area where the population of the nearby towns don't exceed 2,000 people.

[Shyone]

As a young person, I remember playing Chess and seeing that the two bishops always moved diagonally to everybody else. In the first computer version I ever played, the bishop when he was the attacking piece would take his staff and stab his opponent brutally.

 

Battle Chess! Yes, I remember that.

[Franko47]

At some point, I've always noticed there are distinct levels of what I call "intellectual dishonesty" on the part of Christian intellectuals and clergy; at least educated clergy, not the fundie pastors that got their certification off the back of a cereal box.

 

A guy I used to know who was a minister could go on and on about theology, talk about complicated aspects of philosophy, the dialectical, throw big words around and pretty well sound like "he had it together". However, where it all broke down is when I would ask him if he seriously believed in "demons", "dark arcane forces" and a "lucifer" whose only purpose was to "continously mess with humans" for reasons that in all honesty, sounded ridiculous.

 

This is often where clergy and other "intellectuals" come to the precarious "fork in the road". To admit to the virtual existence of these superstitious tenets opens the door for some pretty strong challenges; and I've found in most cases that many will profess or pay lip-service to such belief, but I can tell from an observational point of view that they don't really believe in this stuff. I often use this method as a key element of my "battle gear". I often point out as I draw them into my "Logic Trap" that they are engaging in intellectual dishonesty, and remind them as educated persons, with knowledge of history and psychology, that they are in fact supporting a system of archaic superstition and lies. It can get pretty interesting from there, and they usually get flustered and try to change the subject.

 

I think many clergy end up in a situation where they realize that much of Christian belief is a bit childish, but they have to maintain their general system of belief because it's still important to "reinforce faith". Even if it means paying lip-service to things they personally no longer believe in. On the other hand, sure, there are fundy pastors out there who are totally caught up in the psychosis, especially within the Pentecostal world, for instance.

 

 

Can we ever really say that any religious person who promotes their faith system isn't practicing "intellectual dishonesty" ? People lie all the time, and after a while sometimes aren't aware of it. Even in the fact of mounting counter-evidence. Trying to promote any system of belief that lacks empirical evidence, and suffers from logical incongruity is going to be a tricky business at best.

 

I'm not sure I've been totally clear here, perhaps others can comment. In my experience, I just think it's harder to draw that fine line in regard to pastors, priests, evangelists, etc, in regards to what they truly believe as opposed to the habit-forming nature or luxery of representing a system of mythical fantasy in the first place.

[Shyone]

 

I'm not sure I've been totally clear here, perhaps others can comment. In my experience, I just think it's harder to draw that fine line in regard to pastors, priests, evangelists, etc, in regards to what they truly believe as opposed to the habit-forming nature or luxery of representing a system of mythical fantasy in the first place.

I get your point, and I completely agree. There have to be some tenets that educated religious people simply cannot believe in, just as there are "laws" in the old testament that they should admit are abhorrent, but they have to "pay lip-service" to the ideas to keep the entire scheme from crumbling.

 

In all honesty, I suspect that some have lost faith in something that leads to something else, that leads to... and they find themselves without a proverbial leg to stand on. They are, for all practical purposes, atheists.

 

It would be similar if I were practicing some form of medicine based on a lie, but my income depends on it. Do I keep offering ineffective treatments and charging them? I would find some way to rationalize it, but I suspect I would be in that same trap.

 

Fortunately, I can be honest when I think a treatment is ineffective. And some are.

[Loren]

Thank you all again for your wonderful responses! To read that my "words are filled with iron," gave my ego a big, veiny erection. Just what my already massive ego needs!

 

I just wanted to make a quick post to let you know I will be back to this. I particularly have been enjoying replying to Citsonga and want to reply again, but right now I don't always have the energy to write the kind of (hopefully) well thought out response he deserves. The back and forth with him has helped me a lot to get out of myself and what's going on, so it's been really therapeutic. I'd also like to say that I admire his insisting on avoiding "painting with a broad brush." That only comes from a love of justice and hatred of injustice. That's particularly laudable considering that he's applying it to a group that I strongly suspect he would not consider to be a friend.

Putting principles before personalities shows real depth. One of the few things the apostle Paul said which I still agree with was when he pointed out that anyone can do right toward those they already love. It takes much more to do right to or for those we don't love.

 

I mentioned my low energy right now because of stuff happening in my life. That thread can be found here.

 

Thank you all.

 

I'll be back!

[Deva]

I'd also like to say that I admire his insisting on avoiding "painting with a broad brush." That only comes from a love of justice and hatred of injustice. That's particularly laudable considering that he's applying it to a group that I strongly suspect he would not consider to be a friend.

 

I wasn't going to revisit this thread, but have to say I totally agree with you on this point as well, Loren.

 

I have made the valuable self-discovery that I am not there yet.

[lighteclectic]

This category was the first I visited on this site, and this thread the first that I read from start to finish. There is so much great discussion and commentary here that I'm really not sure if adding a reply will add value. So I'm doing the self-serving thing and jumping in, I suppose.

 

My journey away from the church started many years ago, still in childhood, raised fundie and sheltered not unlike a mushroom in the basement. We were not allowed to think for ourselves, and with good reason. Thinking will get you into trouble. I'll write my own exit bio another day, but I will say that while I found the intellectual inconsistencies fairly early on (at 10 I started to get queasy reading some parts of the OT, which I read through twice before the age of 15) it was easier at that age to simply bury my intellectual disagreements and reside on the emotion of faith. I was baptized at 6, 12 and 16, each time because I was convinced that I had "really" converted. Though I buried my mind's objections, my heart finally gave way and I had to acknowledge that even the basic teachings of Jesus weren't honored in the church. Later as I read that everything Christianity accepts as Jesus' story was actually cobbled from several pagan religious and cultural traditions that had preceded it, I realized the utter fallacy of the religion and let it go completely. At this point there was no need for me to try and rationalize or seek to communicate rationale with the apologetics. There was truly nothing new under the sun. And the world was no different before or after that realization.

 

I, too, try to avoid painting anyone with a broad brush, though with the nonsense being spewed by right-wingnuts these days it is really tough. Hate is such an ugly thing. So while I agree for the most part with what Loren wrote in her responses, I would personally avoid blanket statements in principle just to steer clear of the same error which we hold them accountable: damning all because of the actions/inactions/illusion/dishonesty (etc) of a few. I think we can all agree that policy will always have exceptions, which is why principle is so important.

 

My best to all -- look forward to more engaging conversations.

[Shyone]

This category was the first I visited on this site, and this thread the first that I read from start to finish. There is so much great discussion and commentary here that I'm really not sure if adding a reply will add value. So I'm doing the self-serving thing and jumping in, I suppose.

 

My best to all -- look forward to more engaging conversations.

Welcome, and I'm sure there will be plenty of engaging conversations. You will note that no two of us are alike, but we share some ideas from time to time.

[★ Citsonga ★]

I'd also like to say that I admire his insisting on avoiding "painting with a broad brush." That only comes from a love of justice and hatred of injustice. That's particularly laudable considering that he's applying it to a group that I strongly suspect he would not consider to be a friend.

 

I wasn't going to revisit this thread, but have to say I totally agree with you on this point as well, Loren.

 

I have made the valuable self-discovery that I am not there yet.

 

I must say "Thanks" to both of you for your kind words.

 

Since my last post, I actually avoided this thread until just now. I was afraid that things were headed in a heated direction, and I didn't want to go that way, so I just stayed away.

 

I do indeed detest injustice, and I do indeed no longer consider clergy my friends (apart from my father-in-law, of course, but that's as a family member). Thanks again for your kind words.

 

Take care....