Why Are You Christians So Insincere With Your Hell Beliefs?

[midniterider]

 

Excuse me Centauri, to any sacrilegious pervs around here who have their minds in the gutter, God created a sperm ex nihilio and implanted it in Mary without her feeling a thing (kinda like when He moved Adam's rib).

 

 

 

Ex nihilo? That means "plowing" Mary hard, right? :-) You think he'd at least have the decency to give her a godgasm! Oh God! Oh God!

[mymistake]

Excuse me Centauri, to any sacrilegious pervs around here who have their minds in the gutter, God created a sperm ex nihilio and implanted it in Mary without her feeling a thing (kinda like when He moved Adam's rib).

 

 

 

Ex nihilo? That means "plowing" Mary hard, right? :-) You think he'd at least have the decency to give her a godgasm! Oh God! Oh God!

 

I wish I could give you more than a +1 for that. What delusion is Thumby going off on now? There was no Adam and Eve. There may have never been a Mary. If there was a Mary then she got pregnant just like every other teenage mother does. Again we see Thumby make things up and pretend that her fabrications are the word of God.

[Antlerman]

 

*friendly greeting* Hello.

Hi. Still stubbornly believing I see. How's that going for you?

 

 

 

I did not bother you since last year.

The more I talk with skeptics, the more the bible proves true.

Skeptic? Me? To label me a 'skeptic' is absurd. I do use healthy skepticism as anyone with a brain should, including you. But that doesn't make me 'a skeptic'. I simply see the world differently than you. That you can't see from another point of view at all without branding them 'deceived, skeptic, unbeliever, sinner', etc., makes you in fact rightly called, "narrow-minded." Yes, that fits best. God on the other hand is "big mind." Your narrow-mindedness demonstrates how far from God you really are. At least hopefully some light might break through to show that to you....

 

It's kind of funny. I was going to ask this person I know who feels studying apologetics in order to be able to defend why he believes is important, what the true importance of that really is? I was going to ask him to ask me to defend my beliefs, and see the sort of answer I would give. Maybe we can try that. Why don't you ask me to defend my beliefs and lets contrast how you would respond versus me. Sound like an interesting experiment?

 

I had intended to get back to you but never found the time. Besides I use the bible A LOT and you don't so atm I don't see it working. Also, I am not very tactful. My goal is not to be mean, if you were an atheist ... j/k . OK, so I tend to bug atheists/agnostics more, I don't know why I do.

I know why you do. It's because they are easier to deal with for you. All you feel you need to do is hide behind the Bible and quote it back to them. Whereas I go straight to the heart of the matter, your relationship to yourself with God. You don't want to look at that because you are what I see in you - fearful, hiding behind religious shields to protect you from exposing your soul to your own conscious mind in the light of infinite Truth.

 

Eventually, one way or another, all those religious facades will disintegrate, through action of your will in a conscious choice, or through the cruel reality of the world tearing them from you and leaving you in despair, forcing a release into a genuine freedom of your soul. Better to face that now than at the end. That way you can live your whole life free, rather than with the weight of your self-imposed chains of religious bondage, hiding you from your own soul. In other words you wear your religion as a shield from God.

[bornagainathiest]

Hey A-Man!

Why not take Thumby out of her comfort zone and see if she'll answer any of those questions of mine?

Or somethiing similar of your own, perhaps?

Could be interesting, eh?

How disconnected from reality is she?

Why not find out?

BAA.

 

Antlerman,

 

I am serious about this.

 

So long as you engage with Thumbelina over any matters concerning the Bible, the Biblical God, the nature of God, divinity or anything similar, you will not be taking her outside of her comfort zone and therefore NOT helping her.. As you've suggested beforehand, she uses that book to screen herself off from reality. Therefore, it's simply futile to converse with her about the very tools she uses to seal herself off from real life.

 

If you want to show her mercy and kindness, a dialog about who's concept of God is better just doesn't cut it.

No. If you really want to help de-program her, then it's necessary to show her how her Bible-based beliefs do not connect with reality. Hence the scientific nature of my listed questions. Science describes reality very well, but the Bible does not. We both know this from talking to Creationists. They use scripture to deny the true reality we all live in.

 

So, if you can show Thumbelina that she is living in a state of denial, then you really will be helping her.

 

There's a secondary benefit from this, if you do go for it.

 

Up to now she's carefully avoided any discussion about Science vs. Scripture.

If she refuses to go where you ask her, any lurkers or waverers seeing her refusal will take note and will dismiss her evangelical overtures. They are therefore spared any future pain they might have suffered if she'd been able to get her hooks into them. (I assume that we are agreed on this, btw. That others should be guarded against Thumbelina's toxic and harmful strain of self-delusion - as a mercy and a kindness to them. Yes?)

 

So, in all seriousness and sincerity A-Man, please re-consider your approach to dialog with her.

Continuing as-is or as-before will be (imho) of no benefit to anyone.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

You can believe whatever makes you feel good.

However, your personal whims, speculations, interpretations, opinions etc, are not binding on anyone here.

They represent your spin and perceptions and do not represent some mythical absolute objective doctrine.

 

Nor do Thumbelina's beliefs agree very well with our common reality.

 

The diversity of languages is down to God dealing with the Babylonians and their Tower?

All humanity originated from just two individuals - mud man and rib woman?

The Earth is as old as the Bible says it is, no more and no less?

 

Need I go on?

 

BAA.

[Prestissimo]

@NewSong

 

I was just wondering about that. Why the promise of eternal live. If I burn for ever in hell, isn't that eternal live too?

 

 

Exactly. Only the righteous will inherit eternal life. The wicked are mortal and WILL die.

 

As BAA once pointed out, Christians don't agree with each other on this subject:

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/48624-the-cross-and-the-resurrection/page__view__findpost__p__721561

[Antlerman]

Hey A-Man!

Why not take Thumby out of her comfort zone and see if she'll answer any of those questions of mine?

Or somethiing similar of your own, perhaps?

Could be interesting, eh?

How disconnected from reality is she?

Why not find out?

BAA.

 

Antlerman,

 

I am serious about this.

 

So long as you engage with Thumbelina over any matters concerning the Bible, the Biblical God, the nature of God, divinity or anything similar, you will not be taking her outside of her comfort zone and therefore NOT helping her. As you've suggested beforehand, she uses that book to screen herself off from reality. Therefore, it's simply futile to converse with her about the very tools she uses to seal herself off from real life.

I respectfully disagree with you, in part. I do not engage her in Biblical hermeneutics, but to discuss the nature of a God-experience in ones life is not some conceptual thing. It is the underlying heart of why you end up with the sort of cognitive denials you see in her, being unable to integrate what is otherwise legitimate into her daily life. Her frameworks are broken. Where I disagree with you is that I do not believe anyone actually deconverts because of logic and reason. There is a favorite saying of mine that says it all, "A man convinced his will, remains of same opinion still".

 

I believe logic and reason are powerful tools, and I certainly support speaking the truth of these in this discussion. But I believe you are in error to think that arguments alone are going to convince the heart.

 

If you want to show her mercy and kindness, a dialog about who's concept of God is better just doesn't cut it.

I think your understanding is stuck there. It's not a conceptual argument. It's experiential reality, whether you choose to call that experience God or not. I know what that experience is, and it has a very specific nature to it that is universally shared. How people talk about it, the various mental frameworks we and or culture create will of course differ. It is however itself, the experience of that, beyond linguistic frameworks. It is a non-verbal experiential reality. It is not something penetrated by reason. Therefore, again, logic arguments don't, and simply cannot touch it.

 

No. If you really want to help de-program her, then it's necessary to show her how her Bible-based beliefs do not connect with reality. Hence the scientific nature of my listed questions.

Again, I do believe that a spiritual mind has to coexist and integrate with a rational mind, so these arguments touching on science are in fact very valuable. If you have to take your mental sense and lie to yourself about reality, than your spiritual sense becomes in dissociation. This is how I personally see where Thumbs is at. In dysfunction. A spiritual heart can embrace a rational mind. So by all means, create the crisis of mind, but hearing with the heart again is not going to come through logic arguments. It takes both, a crisis of mind and spirit. Right now she's living in both a rational and spiritual fracture.

 

Science describes reality very well, but the Bible does not.

Depends which reality you are referring to, of course. If you mean scientific things like cosmology and history, yes, it doesn't match our understanding today. But is that all the Bible is? A book of science? To someone like Thumbs, she can take an experience of God and find words in there that match that for her. And you know what? That's perfectly valid. Why shouldn't it be? It's no different than hearing someone else describe their own experiences and relating to them. That's considered truth too.

 

The entire crux of the problem is that it becomes this conflation that because this over here resonates with you, that therefore it means the whole thing is Authoritative in all areas. That's what she does, and perhaps what you do as well in showing how because it's wrong in this area, it is completely worthless. That's the same approach, just from opposite ends. It's doing what the Christian does, except in reverse. Baby and bathwater.

 

So, if you can show Thumbelina that she is living in a state of denial, then you really will be helping her.

If you can show her how that her experiences are valid, but not the only way to understand them, then you will really be helping her, IMHO.

 

There's a secondary benefit from this, if you do go for it.

 

Up to now she's carefully avoided any discussion about Science vs. Scripture.

If she refuses to go where you ask her, any lurkers or waverers seeing her refusal will take note and will dismiss her evangelical overtures. They are therefore spared any future pain they might have suffered if she'd been able to get her hooks into them. (I assume that we are agreed on this, btw. That others should be guarded against Thumbelina's toxic and harmful strain of self-delusion - as a mercy and a kindness to them. Yes?)

 

So, in all seriousness and sincerity A-Man, please re-consider your approach to dialog with her.

Continuing as-is or as-before will be (imho) of no benefit to anyone.

I hear your point of view, but I disagree with it for the above reasons. I see it as a value to those who are out there as well who think like me.

 

Here's the real problem, for many people who have experiences of God and deeply value these, to be presented with rational arguments about why they aren't "real" will not fly. So what you have is one voice saying "take your pick, reason or fantasy delusion". What do you think the response will be if they don't consider their experience to be fantasy delusion? You in effect drive them straight into fundamentalist arms, because they are the ones who validate it to them, albeight in a spiritually dysfunctional way. So the real damage in my opinion is to deal with the spiritual factor by trying to get rid of it in the equation because of a failure to be able to integrate it. Is it spirituality at fault or the system of thought? This is the problem with Positivism and why it fails miserably. I say reason and spirit, both, each validated and respected, but in a way they are able to legitimately integrate.

 

Denial of science. Denial of spirit. Same business. It's just Christianity version 1.1. "This is truth. No, this is truth." "This is reality. No, this is reality". "I have evidence!" No, I have evidence!" Same thinking.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

You're welcome.

[mymistake]

So long as you engage with Thumbelina over any matters concerning the Bible, the Biblical God, the nature of God, divinity or anything similar, you will not be taking her outside of her comfort zone and therefore NOT helping her.

 

I disagree as well. As much as I would love for someone who Thumby reads to grab my questions and present them as their own anybody who forwards my ideas, or yours, will end up joining us in Thumby's killfile. If anybody tries to take her out of her comfort zone she will just ignore the questions and then ignore the poster.

 

Do not underestimate her ability to hide her head in the sand.

[Prestissimo]

@Antlerman

Wow, that was a strong argument. I was just going to start a topic asking how to deal with the empirical factor. Most debates end with the Christian saying: "I have 'felt' Jesus, so it's true no matter what you say". You really showed an insightful view on the matter. Thanks!

[Antlerman]

@Antlerman

Wow, that was a strong argument. I was just going to start a topic asking how to deal with the empirical factor. Most debates end with the Christian saying: "I have 'felt' Jesus, so it's true no matter what you say". You really showed an insightful view on the matter. Thanks!

Thank you. I value that. You definitly should start that topic. I would love to have a full thread on this. Please do so.

[centauri]

So the Bible is the word of God except for when the Bible doesn't support Christianity. When the Bible doesn't support Christianity then make up whatever does support Christianity and pretend the Bible says what you made up.

Great summation of the entire mess.

[NEWsong]

The more I talk with skeptics, the more the bible proves true.

The more you talk, the more you prove the Bible isn't true, and the more you prove you're deluded.

 

When I was "a christian", I would never "GLOAT" that I am bothering someone or BRAG that I WANTED TO bother atheists with what I believed to be the truth at the time... That isn't even "speaking the truth in love"...it is, imho, being an IDIOT and hypocrite...I would have and still do, consider this PRIDE and ARROGANCE; two things that "GOD" abhors...

 

The more WE talk, the more SHE digs her heels in her delusion so she doesn't have to DEAL WITH THE TRUTH that we are trying to present to her...THIS IS PROVING to me that she may be just another oridinary unthinking christian who does not want to KNOW the truth

(don't confuse me with LOGIC and FACTS; leave me in my delusion better yet, JOIN ME and we can "rule the universe" together" ) but JUST FEEL IMPORTANT to present herself as the "expert" on all knowledge and wisdom...THIS is NOT christianity or any religion even worth talking about.

 

I have really tried to follow this thread; it is going no where because the christian side WILL NOT ENGAGE IN A THOUGHTFUL discussion.

[Prestissimo]

@Antlerman

Wow, that was a strong argument. I was just going to start a topic asking how to deal with the empirical factor. Most debates end with the Christian saying: "I have 'felt' Jesus, so it's true no matter what you say". You really showed an insightful view on the matter. Thanks!

Thank you. I value that. You definitly should start that topic. I would love to have a full thread on this. Please do so.

 

You're welcome. Ok, will do.

[NEWsong]

I am sorry that I have "been out of the loop" and seemed to get caught up with idiotic statements; just working through the "illogical christian thinking"....

ON topic: I agree with Antlerman...

I do not engage her in Biblical hermeneutics, but to discuss the nature of a God-experience in ones life is not some conceptual thing. It is the underlying heart of why you end up with the sort of cognitive denials you see in her, being unable to integrate what is otherwise legitimate into her daily life. Her frameworks are broken. Where I disagree with you is that I do not believe anyone actually deconverts because of logic and reason. There is a favorite saying of mine that says it all, "A man convinced his will, remains of same opinion still".

 

I agree and had to contemplate this and apply it to my life; HAD I deconverted for "logical reasons alone"...I will have to answer NO. It was an experiential collision between "what I wanted to believe and what I had believed as a christian" WITH "what I was REFUSING to look at because it conflicted with my beliefs"...the MEER FACT and ACKNOWLEDGEMENT that I would NOT consider any logical argument AGAINST christianity was enough for me to see that I was NOT READY or ABLE or WILLING to TRY to come out of my delusion to consider it...convinced of MY OWN WILL...rather than look at any "facts". It is COMMON PRACTICE to explain our experiences BY using the bible and thus "justifying" our behavior with "god's approval"...Cognitive dissonance is what results. DENIAL ensues.

 

A spiritual heart can embrace a rational mind. So by all means, create the crisis of mind, but hearing with the heart again is not going to come through logic arguments. It takes both, a crisis of mind and spirit. Right now she's living in both a rational and spiritual fracture.

Nicely put A-man!

BAA said:

If she refuses to go where you ask her, any lurkers or waverers seeing her refusal will take note and will dismiss her evangelical overtures.

Yes, she will not discuss anything but spout off "her reasons" why she is right...

BAA said:

They are therefore spared any future pain they might have suffered if she'd been able to get her hooks into them. (I assume that we are agreed on this, btw. That others should be guarded against Thumbelina's toxic and harmful strain of self-delusion - as a mercy and a kindness to them. Yes?)

I want to TOTALLY DISEMPOWER HER in this...I am NOT bothered by her...I am not pained, she causes me NO suffering, she has NO power and neither does the IMPOTENT words that she vomits...Toxic???? it is more IDIOTIC..."harmful strain of self-delusion"...DEFINITELY TO HER but not to me and I would suspect NOT to anyone else here who has deconverted. We did not "slide" into deconversion; we thought and worked our way out of bondage of religion; she is STILL BOUND.

A-man said:

Here's the real problem, for many people who have experiences of God and deeply value these, to be presented with rational arguments about why they aren't "real" will not fly. So what you have is one voice saying "take your pick, reason or fantasy delusion". What do you think the response will be if they don't consider their experience to be fantasy delusion? You in effect drive them straight into fundamentalist arms, because they are the ones who validate it to them, albeit in a spiritually dysfunctional way. So the real damage in my opinion is to deal with the spiritual factor by trying to get rid of it in the equation because of a failure to be able to integrate it. Is it spirituality at fault or the system of thought? This is the problem with Positivism and why it fails miserably. I say reason and spirit, both, each validated and respected, but in a way they are able to legitimately integrate.

I remember that I "felt" that I was LIVING THE TRUTH, the BEST life in the world and would no sooner EVEN CONSIDER it to be a myth or fantasy (though they are different) anymore that I would ever have believed that I could become an EX christian. I believe that it BECOMES who we are because who we are is needing to be validated; christianity does it. Most people will probably always take "fantasy over real life" any day because it is "fun" and more familiar and does not challenge them to think about HOW THEY TRULY ARE IN REAL LIFE!!!!

 

imho, we are "not fighting" against "flesh and blood" but PRINCIPALITIES and POWERS...ahem...the real question is; "WHO IS REALLY DECEIVED?"...those who KNOW that they HAD BEEN DECEIVED or those (Thumby) who DENIES that she could ever be deceived?"

[Antlerman]

@Antlerman

Wow, that was a strong argument. I was just going to start a topic asking how to deal with the empirical factor. Most debates end with the Christian saying: "I have 'felt' Jesus, so it's true no matter what you say". You really showed an insightful view on the matter. Thanks!

Thank you. I value that. You definitly should start that topic. I would love to have a full thread on this. Please do so.

 

You're welcome. Ok, will do.

Let me know when you do so I don't miss it.

[Thumbelina]

 

*friendly greeting* Hello.

Hi. Still stubbornly believing I see. How's that going for you?

 

 

 

I did not bother you since last year.

The more I talk with skeptics, the more the bible proves true.

Skeptic? Me? To label me a 'skeptic' is absurd. I do use healthy skepticism as anyone with a brain should, including you. But that doesn't make me 'a skeptic'. I simply see the world differently than you. That you can't see from another point of view at all without branding them 'deceived, skeptic, unbeliever, sinner', etc., makes you in fact rightly called, "narrow-minded." Yes, that fits best. God on the other hand is "big mind." Your narrow-mindedness demonstrates how far from God you really are. At least hopefully some light might break through to show that to you....

 

It's kind of funny. I was going to ask this person I know who feels studying apologetics in order to be able to defend why he believes is important, what the true importance of that really is? I was going to ask him to ask me to defend my beliefs, and see the sort of answer I would give. Maybe we can try that. Why don't you ask me to defend my beliefs and lets contrast how you would respond versus me. Sound like an interesting experiment?

 

I had intended to get back to you but never found the time. Besides I use the bible A LOT and you don't so atm I don't see it working. Also, I am not very tactful. My goal is not to be mean, if you were an atheist ... j/k . OK, so I tend to bug atheists/agnostics more, I don't know why I do.

I know why you do. It's because they are easier to deal with for you. All you feel you need to do is hide behind the Bible and quote it back to them. Whereas I go straight to the heart of the matter, your relationship to yourself with God. You don't want to look at that because you are what I see in you - fearful, hiding behind religious shields to protect you from exposing your soul to your own conscious mind in the light of infinite Truth.

 

Eventually, one way or another, all those religious facades will disintegrate, through action of your will in a conscious choice, or through the cruel reality of the world tearing them from you and leaving you in despair, forcing a release into a genuine freedom of your soul. Better to face that now than at the end. That way you can live your whole life free, rather than with the weight of your self-imposed chains of religious bondage, hiding you from your own soul. In other words you wear your religion as a shield from God.

 

 

Aman, I was just acknowledging you as a person and not looking for a debate.

 

I was not calling you a skeptic. You asked this: "Hi. Still stubbornly believing I see. How's that going for you?" and I answered. I was not referring to you.

 

I use the bible because I am a disciple of Jesus and that is what He did. When people or the devil approached Him with some mess, He said "It is written"; those who had an ear heard and those who didn't scoffed. I am FREE to believe what I want, am I not? Just as you are FREE to believe what you want to.

 

I really was just glad to see you about and was just saying hello to you.

[Antlerman]

 

*friendly greeting* Hello.

Hi. Still stubbornly believing I see. How's that going for you?

 

 

 

I did not bother you since last year.

The more I talk with skeptics, the more the bible proves true.

Skeptic? Me? To label me a 'skeptic' is absurd. I do use healthy skepticism as anyone with a brain should, including you. But that doesn't make me 'a skeptic'. I simply see the world differently than you. That you can't see from another point of view at all without branding them 'deceived, skeptic, unbeliever, sinner', etc., makes you in fact rightly called, "narrow-minded." Yes, that fits best. God on the other hand is "big mind." Your narrow-mindedness demonstrates how far from God you really are. At least hopefully some light might break through to show that to you....

 

It's kind of funny. I was going to ask this person I know who feels studying apologetics in order to be able to defend why he believes is important, what the true importance of that really is? I was going to ask him to ask me to defend my beliefs, and see the sort of answer I would give. Maybe we can try that. Why don't you ask me to defend my beliefs and lets contrast how you would respond versus me. Sound like an interesting experiment?

 

I had intended to get back to you but never found the time. Besides I use the bible A LOT and you don't so atm I don't see it working. Also, I am not very tactful. My goal is not to be mean, if you were an atheist ... j/k . OK, so I tend to bug atheists/agnostics more, I don't know why I do.

I know why you do. It's because they are easier to deal with for you. All you feel you need to do is hide behind the Bible and quote it back to them. Whereas I go straight to the heart of the matter, your relationship to yourself with God. You don't want to look at that because you are what I see in you - fearful, hiding behind religious shields to protect you from exposing your soul to your own conscious mind in the light of infinite Truth.

 

Eventually, one way or another, all those religious facades will disintegrate, through action of your will in a conscious choice, or through the cruel reality of the world tearing them from you and leaving you in despair, forcing a release into a genuine freedom of your soul. Better to face that now than at the end. That way you can live your whole life free, rather than with the weight of your self-imposed chains of religious bondage, hiding you from your own soul. In other words you wear your religion as a shield from God.

 

 

Aman, I was just acknowledging you as a person and not looking for a debate.

 

I was not calling you a skeptic. You asked this: "Hi. Still stubbornly believing I see. How's that going for you?" and I answered. I was not referring to you.

 

I use the bible because I am a disciple of Jesus and that is what He did. When people or the devil approached Him with some mess, He said "It is written"; those who had an ear heard and those who didn't scoffed. I am FREE to believe what I want, am I not? Just as you are FREE to believe what you want to.

 

I really was just glad to see you about and was just saying hello to you.

Fair enough. But I should clarify, Jesus never quoted the Bible. It didn't exist when he lived. He quoted the law and the prophets. So, it seems a true follower of Jesus shouldn't quote the NT, but the Old Testament only.

[agnosticator]

Excuse me Centauri, to any sacrilegious pervs around here who have their minds in the gutter, God created a sperm ex nihilio and implanted it in Mary without her feeling a thing (kinda like when He moved Adam's rib).

 

Oh no!!!!! It was a spiritual impregnation! The Godsperm was a metaphor for Agape Love. His godly metaphorical Shaft metaphorically implanted the Godsperm into her metaphorical uterus! God really injected Agape into her submissive little brain. It was a mind f*#ck!

[BrotherJosh]

Oh no!!!!! It was a spiritual impregnation! The Godsperm was a metaphor for Agape Love. His godly metaphorical Shaft metaphorically implanted the Godsperm into her metaphorical uterus! God really injected Agape into her submissive little brain. It was a mind f*#ck!

 

Do you think they cuddled, metaphorically, afterward?

[agnosticator]

The more WE talk, the more SHE digs her heels in her delusion so she doesn't have to DEAL WITH THE TRUTH that we are trying to present to her...THIS IS PROVING to me that she may be just another oridinary unthinking christian who does not want to KNOW the truth

(don't confuse me with LOGIC and FACTS; leave me in my delusion better yet, JOIN ME and we can "rule the universe" together" ) but JUST FEEL IMPORTANT to present herself as the "expert" on all knowledge and wisdom...THIS is NOT christianity or any religion even worth talking about.

 

I have really tried to follow this thread; it is going no where because the christian side WILL NOT ENGAGE IN A THOUGHTFUL discussion.

 

You're right. Her heels are buried deep. And she isn't presenting a view that's original, since I've heard it all before.

 

It's hard to be humble for the Lord Jeeeeesusssssss! So keep on 'a preachin!!!! Be a good witness to them heathins!!!!!

[agnosticator]

Do you think they cuddled, metaphorically, afterward?

 

They embraced in an eternal afterglow!!!!

[bornagainathiest]

Hey A-Man!

Why not take Thumby out of her comfort zone and see if she'll answer any of those questions of mine?

Or somethiing similar of your own, perhaps?

Could be interesting, eh?

How disconnected from reality is she?

Why not find out?

BAA.

 

Antlerman,

 

I am serious about this.

 

So long as you engage with Thumbelina over any matters concerning the Bible, the Biblical God, the nature of God, divinity or anything similar, you will not be taking her outside of her comfort zone and therefore NOT helping her. As you've suggested beforehand, she uses that book to screen herself off from reality. Therefore, it's simply futile to converse with her about the very tools she uses to seal herself off from real life.

 

Thank you for your thoughtful reply Antlerman.

 

You raise some good points and it's only right that I respond to them.

 

I respectfully disagree with you, in part. I do not engage her in Biblical hermeneutics, but to discuss the nature of a God-experience in ones life is not some conceptual thing. It is the underlying heart of why you end up with the sort of cognitive denials you see in her, being unable to integrate what is otherwise legitimate into her daily life. Her frameworks are broken. Where I disagree with you is that I do not believe anyone actually deconverts because of logic and reason. There is a favorite saying of mine that says it all, "A man convinced his will, remains of same opinion still".

 

I believe logic and reason are powerful tools, and I certainly support speaking the truth of these in this discussion. But I believe you are in error to think that arguments alone are going to convince the heart.

 

I accept what you say about arguments alone.

 

However, convincing her is not the sole issue here. Yes, it would be a kindness and a mercy to set her free from her delusion, but there is another important issue (which I've already mentioned) to be addressed here. That of the mental well-being of the lurkers, the waverers and the undecided. I'm of the opinion that for their sakes, Thumbelina should be exposed as an arch-denialist and/or a refusenik.

 

When it comes to denailism, it's not that difficult to demonstrate how disconnected she is from reality. (What is reality? See below.) Logic and reason are powerful tools, especially so when used with hard evidence and solid data. They should suffice to show that the Bible alone does not agree with reality. Seeing this happen, the lurkers and others will be more readily encouraged to disengage themselves from the clutches of Christianity - which is part of the charter and purpose of this forum.

 

If Thumbelina refuses, then the outcome is much the same... the undecided will see that, take note and once again be helped in their journey out of darkness and into freedom and light. Call me provocative if you like A-man, but as far as I can see, by NOT helping the waverers, we are therefore hindering them and inflicting unneccesary suffering on them by our failure to act.

 

 

If you want to show her mercy and kindness, a dialog about who's concept of God is better just doesn't cut it.

I think your understanding is stuck there. It's not a conceptual argument. It's experiential reality, whether you choose to call that experience God or not. I know what that experience is, and it has a very specific nature to it that is universally shared. How people talk about it, the various mental frameworks we and or culture create will of course differ. It is however itself, the experience of that, beyond linguistic frameworks. It is a non-verbal experiential reality. It is not something penetrated by reason. Therefore, again, logic arguments don't, and simply cannot touch it.

 

Now here's where you and I diverge, I'm sorry to say.

 

As far as I'm concerned personal experience is far too subjective to be of any help.

How can you assert or prove that your experiences of anything are more valid than hers if you're not prepared to use those great, objective levellers - logic and reason? Your subjective experiences cannot be compared to her hers because you have no common framework. Her subjective experiences remain hers and yours remain yours and the two of you can (and have been) going round and round in circles without resolving anything.

 

In the meantime, the lurkers are still struggling with their nightmares and doubts and you are doing nothing to help them.

 

No. If you really want to help de-program her, then it's necessary to show her how her Bible-based beliefs do not connect with reality. Hence the scientific nature of my listed questions.

Again, I do believe that a spiritual mind has to coexist and integrate with a rational mind, so these arguments touching on science are in fact very valuable. If you have to take your mental sense and lie to yourself about reality, than your spiritual sense becomes in dissociation. This is how I personally see where Thumbs is at. In dysfunction. A spiritual heart can embrace a rational mind. So by all means, create the crisis of mind, but hearing with the heart again is not going to come through logic arguments. It takes both, a crisis of mind and spirit. Right now she's living in both a rational and spiritual fracture.

 

Sorry, but I don't accept the existence of the spiritual. I'm a hard-core Atheist, Reductionist, Materialist. As such, I can't comment on anything above, except to agree with you that Thumbelina is mentally and emotionally troubled. I hope that we can agree on that.

 

Science describes reality very well, but the Bible does not.

Depends which reality you are referring to, of course. If you mean scientific things like cosmology and history, yes, it doesn't match our understanding today. But is that all the Bible is? A book of science? To someone like Thumbs, she can take an experience of God and find words in there that match that for her. And you know what? That's perfectly valid. Why shouldn't it be? It's no different than hearing someone else describe their own experiences and relating to them. That's considered truth too.

 

The entire crux of the problem is that it becomes this conflation that because this over here resonates with you, that therefore it means the whole thing is Authoritative in all areas. That's what she does, and perhaps what you do as well in showing how because it's wrong in this area, it is completely worthless. That's the same approach, just from opposite ends. It's doing what the Christian does, except in reverse. Baby and bathwater.

 

So, it comes down to what is reality, does it?

You'd prefer to procrasinate and meditate about that question at length, rather than do a little necessary work and help those poor s.o.b.'s who come to this forum seeking help and comfort and freedom from unstable religious freaks like Thumbelina?

 

If I sound angry, it's because I am.

Not with Thumbelina - she's a terminal case, imho. No, I'm ticked off with you, Antlerman. As a Moderator and someone she's currently in dialog with, you have both the authority and opportunity to act with kindness and empathy towards those seeking help. You could be proactive about this by exposing how disconnected she is from reality - but you'd rather debate what reality actually is?

 

If Ex-Christian.Net is resource to assist those leaving Christianity and you're a Moderator of this resource, don't you therefore have any responsibility to assist the needy in their time of need? Are you so hamstrung by questions about the nature of reality that you're rendered impotent, when you should be rolling up your sleeves and getting your hands a bit dirty, actually helping people?

 

Look, I don't want you to agree with me that there's an objective reality out there that we all commonly experience. I'm not asking that. Nor do I particularly want to engage in a debate with you about what reality is. Not here, Not now.

All I'd like to see from you is a little more help where it's needed. Confronting Thumbelina with her disconnection with reality is one small way to do this.

 

So, if you can show Thumbelina that she is living in a state of denial, then you really will be helping her.

If you can show her how that her experiences are valid, but not the only way to understand them, then you will really be helping her, IMHO.

 

There's a secondary benefit from this, if you do go for it.

 

Up to now she's carefully avoided any discussion about Science vs. Scripture.

If she refuses to go where you ask her, any lurkers or waverers seeing her refusal will take note and will dismiss her evangelical overtures. They are therefore spared any future pain they might have suffered if she'd been able to get her hooks into them. (I assume that we are agreed on this, btw. That others should be guarded against Thumbelina's toxic and harmful strain of self-delusion - as a mercy and a kindness to them. Yes?)

 

So, in all seriousness and sincerity A-Man, please re-consider your approach to dialog with her.

Continuing as-is or as-before will be (imho) of no benefit to anyone.

 

I hear your point of view, but I disagree with it for the above reasons. I see it as a value to those who are out there as well who think like me.

 

And what of those Ex-Christians who can't sleep at night because of their terror of Hell? I'd wager that they need to see Thumbelina de-fanged more than you need to do right by those who think like you.

 

Here's the real problem, for many people who have experiences of God and deeply value these, to be presented with rational arguments about why they aren't "real" will not fly. So what you have is one voice saying "take your pick, reason or fantasy delusion". What do you think the response will be if they don't consider their experience to be fantasy delusion? You in effect drive them straight into fundamentalist arms, because they are the ones who validate it to them, albeight in a spiritually dysfunctional way. So the real damage in my opinion is to deal with the spiritual factor by trying to get rid of it in the equation because of a failure to be able to integrate it. Is it spirituality at fault or the system of thought? This is the problem with Positivism and why it fails miserably. I say reason and spirit, both, each validated and respected, but in a way they are able to legitimately integrate.

 

Denial of science. Denial of spirit. Same business. It's just Christianity version 1.1. "This is truth. No, this is truth." "This is reality. No, this is reality". "I have evidence!" No, I have evidence!" Same thinking.

 

Thanks,

BAA.

You're welcome.

 

Less words, more action A-Man.

How about it?

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Belated apologies if I came across rude or insensitive, A-Man.

 

It's not my place to tell you how to run things. However...

 

...one question that I reckon deserves consideration is this.

 

"Is Ex-Christian.Net simply a passive resource for the needy or is it an active one, where agressive Christian evangelists are not only given free speech, but ALSO actively challenged about the absurdity of their beliefs wherever possible?"

 

(Deep sigh.)

Sorry about that rant. Please don't be upset.

I'm just worried about toxic agents like Thumbelina being given leave to spread their poison around, unchallenged.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Antlerman]

Belated apologies if I came across rude or insensitive, A-Man.

 

It's not my place to tell you how to run things. However...

I don't have time to address the rest of this previous to this, but I should make it perfectly clear. My opinions stated above have nothing to do with "running things". I am speaking as a member of the site in this view. It is not a moderation policy.

...one question that I reckon deserves consideration is this.

 

"Is Ex-Christian.Net simply a passive resource for the needy or is it an active one, where agressive Christian evangelists are not only given free speech, but ALSO actively challenged about the absurdity of their beliefs wherever possible?"

 

(Deep sigh.)

I'm not clear if you have the impression I ever said you shouldn't challenge the absurdity of their beliefs. I thought I made it abundantly clear that I support that and agree with it too, but I don't agree that it alone to the exclusion of the other approach, which I mainly take, should be the only thing. You essentially told me what I was doing was wrong. I showed how it isn't. But I did not say yours was wrong. Are you thinking in an "either this or that" mindset? True/False? I say both, not one or the other.

 

I'll get to the rest later.

[Antlerman]

but there is another important issue (which I've already mentioned) to be addressed here. That of the mental well-being of the lurkers, the waverers and the undecided. I'm of the opinion that for their sakes, Thumbelina should be exposed as an arch-denialist and/or a refusenik.

I'm of the opinion that there is not just one type of lurker out there, and that rather than presenting a monological view - yours in this case because it resonates with you, I believe that without others perceptions, mine in this case, and dealing with those pressing questions they may have, can be helpful to them. The opposite can occur if they instead get the impression that leaving the fold mean they must think like you, or me, or any single mind. That would discourage them from leaving the fold. Diversity is important because people are diverse. I know for a fact that many people in fact have been helped through how I approach and present things, while they were on the verge of being driven off by the sort of monological, "this is how it is" line or reasoning. I believe reason is fulfilled in being reasonable.

 

Seeing this happen, the lurkers and others will be more readily encouraged to disengage themselves from the clutches of Christianity - which is part of the charter and purpose of this forum.

The mission of this site is not to deconvert, or persuade to deconvert anyone. That's not my opinion, BTW, but I know this from the webmaster of this site. That said however, I certain embrace speaking to others what has been valuable to us and how that may help them as well. This is where you are very mistaken in your thinking. You project onto others that they and their experience somehow mirrors your own, and that what you have to say is the silver bullet for them because it was for you. I'm not under any such delusions, which is why I believe your voice is important, and my voice is important. Those who resonate with your views and understanding will be helped, just as those who do with mine. Just look at the positive responses other members here in this thread agreed with me. Certainly not everyone does, and that's fine. But the point is, people 'out there' in fact to relate to me as well.

 

Call me provocative if you like A-man, but as far as I can see, by NOT helping the waverers, we are therefore hindering them and inflicting unneccesary suffering on them by our failure to act.

If you don't see it, than I suggest you look at the comments in this thread in my response to you in raising this as an issue for you. You assume others aren't helped, but logic and reason alone should tell you that since I think like this, others do as well.

 

I think your understanding is stuck there. It's not a conceptual argument. It's experiential reality, whether you choose to call that experience God or not. I know what that experience is, and it has a very specific nature to it that is universally shared. How people talk about it, the various mental frameworks we and or culture create will of course differ. It is however itself, the experience of that, beyond linguistic frameworks. It is a non-verbal experiential reality. It is not something penetrated by reason. Therefore, again, logic arguments don't, and simply cannot touch it.

 

Now here's where you and I diverge, I'm sorry to say.

 

As far as I'm concerned personal experience is far too subjective to be of any help.

How can you assert or prove that your experiences of anything are more valid than hers if you're not prepared to use those great, objective levellers - logic and reason? Your subjective experiences cannot be compared to her hers because you have no common framework. Her subjective experiences remain hers and yours remain yours and the two of you can (and have been) going round and round in circles without resolving anything.

Much of what you say here is invalid. I can compare my experiences with hers, as well as with yours. You have a very, what I would call, fallacious understanding of epistemology. This can be another discussion outside this thread.

 

In the meantime, the lurkers are still struggling with their nightmares and doubts and you are doing nothing to help them.

I'm not? How do you qualify that judgment of me? Sounds like a religious proclamation to me there..

 

Again, I do believe that a spiritual mind has to coexist and integrate with a rational mind, so these arguments touching on science are in fact very valuable. If you have to take your mental sense and lie to yourself about reality, than your spiritual sense becomes in dissociation. This is how I personally see where Thumbs is at. In dysfunction. A spiritual heart can embrace a rational mind. So by all means, create the crisis of mind, but hearing with the heart again is not going to come through logic arguments. It takes both, a crisis of mind and spirit. Right now she's living in both a rational and spiritual fracture.

 

Sorry, but I don't accept the existence of the spiritual. I'm a hard-core Atheist, Reductionist, Materialist. As such, I can't comment on anything above, except to agree with you that Thumbelina is mentally and emotionally troubled. I hope that we can agree on that.

Do you accept the exististence of the mental? If you don't then, yes discussion will be nigh impossible with you. If you do however, than it's just one more step to understand what spiritual is. You mistake your ideas that spiritual = mythic beings. That is a limitation of your knowledge and understanding.

 

 

I think I've made my point here. It's surprising you are so adamant in your way of thinking being the only thing that will be helpful to others. That's rather curious. I hope what I said here makes reasonable sense.