Did Your View And Treatment Of Other People Change After Leaving Christianity?

[Kuroikaze]

Suppose, a person answered "no", does this mean their current treatment of people was reflective of when they were a Christian. Is so what does that say about their Christian experience.

Maybe nothing, it probably says more about the way they were raised.

 

Now suppose a person answered "yes", then we have two possibilities. Their current treatment of people is worse then before or their current treatment of people is better then before. Let's suppose it is the former. Then this implies a goodness stemming from Christianity.

 

I didn't see a lot of this answer, but I am not sure this is quite as cut and dried as you want to make it.

 

Now let's suppose it is the latter. Then this says something about their Christian experience.

 

Now you are stacking the deck. It could just as easily suggest that the religion itself is corrupt.

 

Think of the people in the middle ages, and even those today in Uganda who are burning witches. You might want to say that there is something wrong with them personally, or wrong with they way they experience Christianity, but can one HONESTLY say, when the scriptures have a passage that clearly says "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," that practicing Christianity has nothing to with their choice?

[OrdinaryClay]

For goodness sakes. The point of interest is the change or lack of change. I'm well aware of the hackneyed attacks against Christianity. Whether someone genuinely changes tells you something about their professed experience.

[OrdinaryClay]

So what is the third option?

[bdp]

Should have figured OC was setting up a 'no-win' scenario. I'm not playing with him anymore.

[OrdinaryClay]

Should have figured OC was setting up a 'no-win' scenario. I'm not playing with him anymore.

I don't understand what you mean by win. For someone who does not believe in God what is a "win" in the situation I described?

[Snakefoot]

Should have figured OC was setting up a 'no-win' scenario. I'm not playing with him anymore.

I don't understand what you mean by win. For someone who does not believe in God what is a "win" in the situation I described?

If change = yes, then you trot out the "no true xtian/Scotsman" fallacy.

 

If change = no, then you trot out the "no true xtian/Scotsman" fallacy.

[Vigile]

So what is the third option?

 

I'm pretty sure we already outlined it for you. Re-read our responses.

[Kuroikaze]

So what is the third option?

 

That Christianity actually encourages certain behaviors which we now find objectionable.

[Ouroboros]

Suppose, a person answered "no", does this mean their current treatment of people was reflective of when they were a Christian.

I think my treatment of other people are based on who I am. My version of Christianity, and my belief in specific tenets, were based on what I felt was right, just like you do. You pick and choose the things of the Bible that you feel are valid and important, and discredit the things you don't relate to. We filter it based on who we are. You don't become a good person by being a Christian, you're a good person who becomes a Christian.

 

Is so what does that say about their Christian experience.

Nothing, since I've met extremely nice atheists, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc.

 

If the person's good attitude is a reflection of their religion, then all religions are true.

 

My family (while we were still Christian) were in dire need of help (financial and emotionally), and we got it from some wealthy Jewish friends. They helped us in ways no Christian ever done.

 

Hence, Judaism must be true, and Christianity false... or?

 

Now suppose a person answered "yes", then we have two possibilities. Their current treatment of people is worse then before or their current treatment of people is better then before. Let's suppose it is the former. Then this implies a goodness stemming from Christianity. Now let's suppose it is the latter. Then this says something about their Christian experience.

Not really.

 

You manipulate the choice of definitions of the words to fit your belief.

 

If they are better now, it is a reflection of what they became. To say that it is a reflection of what they were in that case, but it's not in the other, you're stacking the cards in your favor.

 

Your disingenuous way of arguing is showing, and it's very revealing how deceptive Christianity is. Just based on your arguing, I wouldn't want to turn back.

 

Mat 7:20

(20) Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

That means that if people have better fruit now, it reflects what they are now.

 

If the fruit was bad as Christians, then it was a sign of how bad Christianity was.

[Shyone]

Should have figured OC was setting up a 'no-win' scenario. I'm not playing with him anymore.

I don't understand what you mean by win. For someone who does not believe in God what is a "win" in the situation I described?

I'm not really feeling great right now, but I will present a very abbreviated version that includes the concerns of those who have left Christianity.

 

Ok, here it is. The essence of how you view the world without considering other viewpoints. First I present the choices you suggest are completely explanatory:

 

1. Treatment changed (yes)

a. Current treatment worse than before leaving Christianity

1). Goodness stemming from Christianity

b. Current treatment better than before leaving Christianity

2). "Something" related to Christian experience.

 

A more realistic assessment might include other possiblities, some of which you don't want to consider:

 

1. Treatment changed (yes)

a. Current treatment worse than before leaving Christianity

1). Goodness stemming from Christianity

2). Realistic assessment of behavior - not all people claiming to be Christians are good.

3). Reciprocal behavior - leave Christianity and be considered an outcast, unworthy, dangerous, sinful.

b. Current treatment better than before leaving Christianity

1). "Something" related to Christian experience

a). Suggests specific personal interaction, individual church, wrong doctrines, bad pastor

2). Christianity inhibited their goodness because of primary doctrines of Christianity

. Saved versus unsaved, avoid nonchristians, heaven versus hellbound, etc.

c). Outside of Christianity, all people are equal, all worthy, no us versus them; enhanced empathy for others.

[bdp]

Should have figured OC was setting up a 'no-win' scenario. I'm not playing with him anymore.

I don't understand what you mean by win. For someone who does not believe in God what is a "win" in the situation I described?

 

last time - I'm not playing with you anymore.

[Ouroboros]

For goodness sakes. The point of interest is the change or lack of change. I'm well aware of the hackneyed attacks against Christianity. Whether someone genuinely changes tells you something about their professed experience.

If we turn it around:

 

If a person becomes a better person as an atheist, it is a sign that they have found something better.

 

If an atheist becomes a Christian, that only proves that they had a bad experience and false understanding of atheism.

[bdp]

'professed' - what an asstard.

[Shyone]

For goodness sakes. The point of interest is the change or lack of change. I'm well aware of the hackneyed attacks against Christianity. Whether someone genuinely changes tells you something about their professed experience.

If we turn it around:

 

If a person becomes a better person as an atheist, it is a sign that they have found something better.

 

If an atheist becomes a Christian, that only proves that they had a bad experience and false understanding of atheism.

Much more concise than what I wrote, and more to the point.

[Ouroboros]

Much more concise than what I wrote, and more to the point.

Thanks.

 

Poor Clay, he thinks he's so smart. But ignorance is a bliss and a delusion.

[bdp]

My mama raised me better than Xtianity made me.

[Ouroboros]

One thing I can say about American Christians, they're not as kind, tolerant, and forgiving as the Swedish Christians. So perhaps Swedish Christianity is the true version, and the American Christianity is from the devil? It must be. Clay convinced me. There seems to be far more de-conversions going on in US than Sweden. It was extremely rare that people left Christianity in Sweden. So there you have it. By Clay-logic, American Christians are evil.

[Phanta]

For goodness sakes. The point of interest is the change or lack of change. I'm well aware of the hackneyed attacks against Christianity. Whether someone genuinely changes tells you something about their professed experience.

 

Do you think this can be isolated in us? People are influenced by MANY things. Biochemical changes, secular influences, traumatic experiences, etc. Unless someone is in total "Christian" (hard to define, another problem) isolation, you can't reasonable make sweeping conclusions from this question.

 

My Christian experience was poor, confusing and stressful. I grew into a much better person when I grew up, after forsaking all Christian groups and most Christian company. I matured! Due to a variety of influences.

 

Please consider that you are making gross oversimplifications about human growth. People with no Christianity (my best friend) mature into better people as they age.

Phanta

[OrdinaryClay]

Did your view and treatment of other people change after leaving Christianity? Do you notice any material change in how you acted toward or treated them after leaving?

But I treat people differently online than I do in real life.

Why?

[OrdinaryClay]

Suppose, a person answered "no", does this mean their current treatment of people was reflective of when they were a Christian.

I think my treatment of other people are based on who I am. My version of Christianity, and my belief in specific tenets, were based on what I felt was right, just like you do. You pick and choose the things of the Bible that you feel are valid and important, and discredit the things you don't relate to. We filter it based on who we are. You don't become a good person by being a Christian, you're a good person who becomes a Christian.

 

Is so what does that say about their Christian experience.

Nothing, since I've met extremely nice atheists, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc.

 

If the person's good attitude is a reflection of their religion, then all religions are true.

 

My family (while we were still Christian) were in dire need of help (financial and emotionally), and we got it from some wealthy Jewish friends. They helped us in ways no Christian ever done.

If you don't mind me asking, did you leave for rational reasons (studied your way out) or did you leave because of the way other Christians treated you? You said before you were a Christian for 30 yrs, no? That is a long time. Why 30yrs? Why not 10 or something.

 

 

Hence, Judaism must be true, and Christianity false... or?

 

Now suppose a person answered "yes", then we have two possibilities. Their current treatment of people is worse then before or their current treatment of people is better then before. Let's suppose it is the former. Then this implies a goodness stemming from Christianity. Now let's suppose it is the latter. Then this says something about their Christian experience.

Not really.

 

You manipulate the choice of definitions of the words to fit your belief.

...

Your disingenuous way of arguing is showing, and it's very revealing how deceptive Christianity is. Just based on your arguing, I wouldn't want to turn back.

I thought the question was pretty clear. Sure I tried to word it so the information of interest was obtained, but this is no different then a teacher wording an exam question so you can find out of the student understands what you think they understand. There is nothing nefarious with doing so.

 

If they are better now, it is a reflection of what they became. To say that it is a reflection of what they were in that case, but it's not in the other, you're stacking the cards in your favor.

Clearly, change involves a before and after in both cases. I don't understand your point.

 

 

Mat 7:20

(20) Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

That means that if people have better fruit now, it reflects what they are now.

 

If the fruit was bad as Christians, then it was a sign of how bad Christianity was.

You have a category mismatch there. Your first possibility involves the person, and the second a general organization. I would suggest that to make a proper point you should stick with a category through your point - organization or individual.

[OrdinaryClay]

For goodness sakes. The point of interest is the change or lack of change. I'm well aware of the hackneyed attacks against Christianity. Whether someone genuinely changes tells you something about their professed experience.

If we turn it around:

...

If an atheist becomes a Christian, that only proves that they had a bad experience and false understanding of atheism.

Yes, exactly, you can flip it around, and as I said it says something about the persons experience prior to the change.

[OrdinaryClay]

For goodness sakes. The point of interest is the change or lack of change. I'm well aware of the hackneyed attacks against Christianity. Whether someone genuinely changes tells you something about their professed experience.

 

Do you think this can be isolated in us? People are influenced by MANY things. Biochemical changes, secular influences, traumatic experiences, etc. Unless someone is in total "Christian" (hard to define, another problem) isolation, you can't reasonable make sweeping conclusions from this question.

 

My Christian experience was poor, confusing and stressful. I grew into a much better person when I grew up, after forsaking all Christian groups and most Christian company. I matured! Due to a variety of influences.

 

Please consider that you are making gross oversimplifications about human growth. People with no Christianity (my best friend) mature into better people as they age.

Phanta

Aren't you making a gross over simplification in your last statement about your friend?

[Snakefoot]

For goodness sakes. The point of interest is the change or lack of change. I'm well aware of the hackneyed attacks against Christianity. Whether someone genuinely changes tells you something about their professed experience.

If we turn it around:

...

If an atheist becomes a Christian, that only proves that they had a bad experience and false understanding of atheism.

Yes, exactly, you can flip it around, and as I said it says something about the persons experience prior to the change.

 

In other words, the ex-xtian had a bad experience with a church or other xtians, but that was a problem with an institution or individuals, not a problem with gawd/Jeebus. Jeebus and gawd, who are magically each other plus the holey spook, which is also them and they are him, are perfect and deserving of our worship. Don't blame good gawd for what bad people did to cause you to turn away.

 

Did I get that about right?

 

[NotBlinded]

I thought the question was pretty clear. Sure I tried to word it so the information of interest was obtained, but this is no different then a teacher wording an exam question so you can find out of the student understands what you think they understand. There is nothing nefarious with doing so.

The word is "than"...sorry that has been bugging the hell out of me.

 

Anyway, we are not your students so when you phrase things in a way for us to answer that reflects your biased understanding, you are simply being deceitful. Don't come here thinking you are teaching us something. If you want to discuss your understanding, fine, but do it as an equal, not a superior.

 

God, you rub me the wrong way...

[Snakefoot]

I thought the question was pretty clear. Sure I tried to word it so the information of interest was obtained, but this is no different then a teacher wording an exam question so you can find out of the student understands what you think they understand. There is nothing nefarious with doing so.

(1) The word is "than"...sorry that has been bugging the hell out of me.

 

Anyway, we are not your students so when you phrase things in a way for us to answer that reflects your biased understanding, you are simply being deceitful. Don't come here thinking you are teaching us something. If you want to discuss your understanding, fine, but do it as an equal, not a superior.

 

(2)God, you rub me the wrong way...

1.

2. He rubs me the wrong way, too--and so does FeetOfClay.