Why Are You Christians So Insincere With Your Hell Beliefs?

[ConureDelSol]

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!

 

Ex nihilo = out of nothing

 

...you probably already knew that and stuff, but I just thought I'd mention that...

[NEWsong]

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.

 

When a person doesn't have a "leg to stand on" logically, they seem to back themselves in the proverbial corner (where dunces sit by the way!) and repeat the same mantra to themselves..."I provoke them, I bother them, I am right, they are wrong"...it is DANGEROUS to listen to such irrational self-talk...EX christians DON'T DO THAT ANYMORE, imho...

 

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.

I agree that speaking TO others rather than speaking AGAINST THEIR VIEWS is the best way to communicate.I see this as "presenting grace" to those "still in delusion". IMHO,Anything less than that to those who are "still where we once were", does not seem to be loving or compassionate.

 

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.

BAA, I can hear and appreciate your compassion for the "waverers" but one way that I could "test" my thinking of my christian beliefs was the ABILITY AND DESIRE TO COME HERE...I had made the choice before I clicked the mouse. I would guess that there are very few who are "wavering"...just a thought. We can take a poll and check this out!

[Antlerman]

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?

Alright, I'm going to add some more thoughts here, just because. I do probably far more work into understanding the nature of reality that you could possibly fathom. I do so in no small part because I believe it helps not just myself, and not just others, but hopefully the whole world - as grandiose as that may seem. I find black and white thinking to be no improvement over Christianity, but merely switching which religion to take that thinking into. Christianity becomes Scientism. I would and will contend your notions of reality are an illusion, and I can support that using science, logic, and reason, let alone my own personal insights. I see doing this important for the world as one small part of advancing our thinking out of the same mode of thinking as the types of Christians we are most familiar with.

 

So as far as doing work, I wonder which of us does more? Unfraid to lose all sense of being assured in our reasoning, since you leveled the charge at me.

 

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

Did you get like that when your fellow Christians didn't present the Gospel correctly? I'm not worried about you speaking your views and hurting others. I like the balance of perspectives. I don't believe there is only one Truth, the Way, and the Life. Do you still, just a different Jesus?

 

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.

It's very rare if I ever don't. I'm patient with your ignorance, aren't I?

[Antlerman]

(continued....)

 

You could be proactive about this by exposing how disconnected she is from reality - but you'd rather debate what reality actually is?

I say she is disconnected from herself. Being disconnected internally makes you disconnected from the world. I think it is important to understand the nature of reality, which for the human being is an existential one. It includes the mind and the soul. But to you, those don't exist, so obviously your idea of reality is different than mine, or hers, or millions of others frankly. So, what you are asking is that we accept your definition of reality, and quit addressing it. Just think like BAA does, and all will be fine and dandy with the world. Sounds so very Christian, doesn't it?

 

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?

Absolutely, and frankly I think I'm more helpful with some people because they, like me, don't think like you. Reality to them is much more than atoms and cells.

 

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?

Hamstrung by questions? I laugh. I experience reality differently than you, and I can guarantee others do as well. I accept that reality looks like an equation to you which with enough thinking about it you'll be safe and secure in your beliefs. I however feel I know too much to think that way any longer. I actually am quite free, not hamstrung by any stretch of the imagination. To you it appears that way because frankly, you don't seem to have any context to relate as your framework of reality doesn't allow for the sort of perspective I offer.

 

Look, I don't want you to agree with me that there's an objective reality out there that we all commonly experience.

I believe there is. I disagree you can understand it with the mind except in limited mediated fashion. You seem to have faith against reason that we can.

 

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.

How am I not? She is disconnected from herself. That's being disconnected from reality. There is no balance, no integration of self in the world, body, mind, and spirit.

 

And what of those Ex-Christians who can't sleep at night because of their terror of Hell?

I say to them that hell is a myth. They should have no fear of the threats of the religious. Why do you think what I say supports a fear of hell? I'd honestly like to know your thinking processes here.

 

I'd wager that they need to see Thumbelina de-fanged more than you need to do right by those who think like you.

I would prefer to help her. Then the fangs, and all these defenses drop naturally. But I don't suspect you understand how that works.

 

Less words, more action A-Man.

How about it?

 

BAA.

Less words, more reason. How about that?

 

Keith

[bornagainathiest]

Hello Antlerman.

 

I accept that you and I don't see things in quite the same way. Maybe we never will. But perhaps we should just accept that and look to the possibility of a more fruitful dialog, sometime in the future, ok?

 

I also accept that I had a number of misunderstandings about the function of this site. Thank you for enlightening me here.

 

Anyway, this is what I would have liked (past tense, please note) to have seen happen and why.

 

Whenever Thumbelina tries to evangelize in this forum, certain members (me included) take it upon themselves to try and neutralize her influence by taking issue with her in different ways. In the past I tackled her head-on, arguing about Biblical hermeneutics and similar. These days, whenever she claims to give the "correct" interpretation of scripture, I use information from other Christian websites to contradict her, demonstrating that her take is not "correct". I show that ALL Christians who claim to be guided into God's one and only truth by the Holy Spirit are, in fact, using totally subjective modes of scriptural interpretation. Consequently, there is no singular and ultimate truth to be found within Christianity - it is all a matter of personal choice.

 

Now, here's where I could be very wrong A-Man and where you might have to help me out.

It's my opinion that by doing this, I am helping others who are in the throes of de-converting from Christianity. I judge that it is not enough for me to make the simple assertion that Thumbelina is wrong and/or deluded - I have to demonstrate that she is. I do so, using the process described above.

 

As I said, other members have their own modes of doing the same thing.

Some (you'll know who I'm talking about here )specialize in eloquently demonstrating that Christianity is an upstart religion that twists and debases Judaism for it's own ends. Once again, it is not enough for said members to simply assert that this is so - they have to justify and show it to be the case. I'm pleased to say that they do a very fine job, citing chapter and verse where needed and explaining how and why Thumbelina (specifically) and Christians (generally) are either in error or deliberately perpetrating falsehoods.

 

My point is that assertion is not enough - Thumbelina's beliefs should have been actively demonstrated to be invalid - in this case, scinetifically invalid. That was the reason why I had hoped you might put certain questions to her. If she had ignored them or put you on ignore, her actions would be a clear sign to all that she had something to hide. This would have helped to negate her influence far better than anything I could do. If I were to now go ahead and question her myself, her continued silence towards me would not really be indicative of anything much. That is why I looked to you.

 

Now, I readily admit that my conclusions - about her and about her effects on people and about the efforts some of us have made to de-fang her - all of these may be at fault. So that is why I've couched the above in the past tense.

 

I now see that this was not a viable course of action and I will no longer press you on this matter.

 

Thank you for being even-handed and thoughtful about this. I admit to being hot-headed and this is a shortcoming I must work on.

 

Thanks again,

 

BAA.

[Antlerman]

Whenever Thumbelina tries to evangelize in this forum, certain members (me included) take it upon themselves to try and neutralize her influence by taking issue with her in different ways. In the past I tackled her head-on, arguing about Biblical hermeneutics and similar. These days, whenever she claims to give the "correct" interpretation of scripture, I use information from other Christian websites to contradict her, demonstrating that her take is not "correct". I show that ALL Christians who claim to be guided into God's one and only truth by the Holy Spirit are, in fact, using totally subjective modes of scriptural interpretation. Consequently, there is no singular and ultimate truth to be found within Christianity - it is all a matter of personal choice.

So you see that you yourself have changed tactics since it was ineffective in the past. Ditto. BTW, I support your approach. It's not the only one, which you yourself recognize by changing your own tactics. Some people have other insights you don't. That hopefully will be appreciated by you some day.

 

Now, here's where I could be very wrong A-Man and where you might have to help me out.

It's my opinion that by doing this, I am helping others who are in the throes of de-converting from Christianity. I judge that it is not enough for me to make the simple assertion that Thumbelina is wrong and/or deluded - I have to demonstrate that she is. I do so, using the process described above.

This is where I would enjoy a discussion with you about epistemology some day. This is a valid approach you are taking, but not the only one. I believe in an epistemological pluralism, that ways of knowing and validating truth are not limited to the emperic-analytic sciences. You still don't acknowledge the truth that "A man convinced against his will, remains of same opinion still". Logic and reason are not the only way people arrive at truths, and that to speak to the mind and the heart are far more 'real reality' than being Mr. Science. To understand psychology is very important, and I'll add to this to understand the spiritual nature of others likewise plays a huge influence in how they arrive at truth. My problem with Positivism, which you clearly seem to espouse, is that nobody truly lives life that way, and in fact it is a hypocritical philosophy as a result.

 

My point is that assertion is not enough - Thumbelina's beliefs should have been actively demonstrated to be invalid - in this case, scinetifically invalid.

And it is spiritually broken as well. Something only I am pointing out, and can demonstrate beyond mere assertion. There are ways to validate truth in the other domains of knowing as well. It's not all some subjective free-for-all as you assert.

 

That was the reason why I had hoped you might put certain questions to her. If she had ignored them or put you on ignore, her actions would be a clear sign to all that she had something to hide. This would have helped to negate her influence far better than anything I could do. If I were to now go ahead and question her myself, her continued silence towards me would not really be indicative of anything much. That is why I looked to you.

If you were looking to me as a moderator to hold her to answering others questions, that's another matter. I wasn't clear that I was being asked to.

 

Now, I readily admit that my conclusions - about her and about her effects on people and about the efforts some of us have made to de-fang her - all of these may be at fault. So that is why I've couched the above in the past tense.

 

I now see that this was not a viable course of action and I will no longer press you on this matter.

 

Thank you for being even-handed and thoughtful about this. I admit to being hot-headed and this is a shortcoming I must work on.

 

Thanks again,

 

BAA.

Well, I would enjoy us picking up some of our earlier discussions again. Hopefully you can see that where I understand things is far from some subjective sinkhole. It's hardly that.

[Rev R]

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.

BAA,

 

If I may interject a thought here. Earlier you mentioned dragging Thumb out of her comfort zone and here you mention de-fanging her. Is it not this sort of open and hostile conflict exactly where the comfort zone lies for the apologist? Are they not steeled for this style of discussion?

 

An evasive fighter can not be beaten simply with an onslaught of straight punches. They have to be controlled through tempo, unorthodox angles and "turning the attacker's spear on himself".

[bornagainathiest]

To the Antlerman...

 

Not being blessed with a lot of time this weekend, I just can't do justice to the many points you raise. Sorry 'bout that!

 

But, Yes, your pluralism and relativism both puzzles and disturbs me.

 

For me 2+2=4, not 5 or 3 or -4 or a banana. Always. Inevitably. Irrevocably. Otherwise, how would anything ever work?

 

The empty gas tank doesn't allow my car to start up and run until it's filled up again. Nor is this scenario changed by time or location. A car without gas that has been transported back to the Jurassic period still won't start up. Nor will one that's been shifted thru space to a planet in the Andromeda galaxy. Nor by adopting a new mode of thought, a new philosophical paradigm or a new whatever. There's just one solution - that dictated by the common reality we all inhabit. Fill the gas tank.

 

Unless, of course, you know different? (Just teasing! )

 

I'll address your replies more fully asap.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

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.

BAA,

 

If I may interject a thought here. Earlier you mentioned dragging Thumb out of her comfort zone and here you mention de-fanging her. Is it not this sort of open and hostile conflict exactly where the comfort zone lies for the apologist? Are they not steeled for this style of discussion?

 

An evasive fighter can not be beaten simply with an onslaught of straight punches. They have to be controlled through tempo, unorthodox angles and "turning the attacker's spear on himself".

 

Hi RevR.

 

Good points.

 

You might well think that Thumbelina is 'steeled' as you suggest, but I have observed that since March 2010, in her 860 posts, she's never once divulged any details about her stance re: the origins of life, human evolution, the history of this planet and similar.

 

Any mention of how and where and why humans came to be is always couched in terms of the Genesis narrative. Everything she says or quotes is Biblical or at least, Bible-related. It's almost as if, for her, any other possible explanation just doesn't exist. Taking this and her declared disaste of "the secular world" (as she describes it) I conclude that for her, scripture has primacy over everything else. This would make her a dyed-in-the-wool Bible literalist and most likely a Young Earth Creationist.

 

But how can this conclusion ever be tested?

By confining herself exclusively to scripture, she never reveals how old she thinks the Earth and the universe is. She never talks about evolution, germ theory, languages, mental illness and so on. That's why I phrased my questions (see post # 301) to tackle these issues. Does she think that diseases can be reprimanded and commanded to leave people, as Jesus once did? Does she consider all mental illness to result from demonic possession? Does she believe that all human languages originated at the Tower of Babel? Were the dinosaurs killed by Noah's Flood? And so on.

 

We simply don't know any of these things because she's either been careful never to reveal them, or to talk about them exclusively in a Biblical setting, not a present-day one. I speculate that since the Bible is her comfort zone, asking questions about how scripture relates to the real world will have the effect of taking her out of her comfortable, Bible-shielded haven. I think she knows this and carefully avoids it, which is why she makes quite sure that she doesn't hand us anything we can use against her.

 

So taking your point about an evasive fighter, Rev... there's no spear to turn back upon her. She hasn't revealed one that we can use. Simply asserting that diseases are caused by microscopic organisms and not demons will simply cause her to ignore the assertion and carry on as before. Ditto any of my other questions. Yet, I'd wanted Antlerman to put them to her, so that she could be seen to be a refusenik - something that I can't do because she's got me on 'ignore' anyway. Ok, that would have been a less helpful outcome, but it could then be used against her in the future - perhaps as a warning to newbies and lurkers. "Don't bother questioning Thumbelina about the real world, she lives entirely between the pages of the Bible!"

 

That help?

 

BAA.

[Antlerman]

An evasive fighter can not be beaten simply with an onslaught of straight punches. They have to be controlled through tempo, unorthodox angles and "turning the attacker's spear on himself".

Beautifully put!

[Antlerman]

But, Yes, your pluralism and relativism both puzzles and disturbs me.

Not to take time myself here, but I'll just jump on this. Your characterization of me as extreme postmodernist is incorrect. I believe in hierarchies! Are you sure you are aptly applying this to me? However, the world does not need to look as some great white wash of valueless pluralism in order to not be a binary equation of true/false. There are many ways to see truth, some have greater value and lesser value depending on where you are positionally.

 

The world is multidimensional, and truth to a caveman isn't truth to a modern man in the city. Of course we are in fact dealing with the mind here, which according to you doesn't exist. Your math example applies only to things like relatively stable environments such as nature. Not the mental world of ideas and perceptions, as much as you wish to rid that from humans to make life easier to understand.

[midniterider]

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?

 

Nah, god rolled over and fell asleep. :-)

[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!

 

Ex nihilo = out of nothing

 

...you probably already knew that and stuff, but I just thought I'd mention that...

 

Yeah, I looked it up prior to posting. :-) I was just being a smart ass, though I think I'm in Thumb's killfile so it wouldn't make a difference.

[bornagainathiest]

Hello AntlerMan.

 

I'm back again, with sufficient time in hand to begin to respond to your points.

Wherever I've 'snipped out' sections of our dialog is where, after some thought, I now agree with you or, at least, can see now see the relevance of what you were saying and am prepared to listen and learn. Ok?

 

Antlerman wrote...

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.

 

Antlerman replied...

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.

 

Yes, further discussion might well be the best way forward.

 

With that in mind, I feel it's important to level with you.

I never made it to college, so everything I've learned about Astronomy, Cosmology, Geology and Palaeontology has been self-taught. In any scientific discipline outside of those, my knowledge and understanding are, at best, superficial. This is also true of such things as Metaphysics, Philosophy, Epistemology and whatever else it takes to formulate cogent and valid arguments. No formal training and no self-instruction either. Perhaps that goes some way to clarifying my errors?

Ok, I can readily see that learning how to avoid fallacies and epistemological errors is to my benefit, but I have a reservation about doing this learning here, out in the open, so to speak. Here's why.

 

My main reason for spending so much time in the Lion's Den is to kill and eat the Christians who foolishly come here. If my acts of Xian-i-cide help others escape from the hurt of Christianity, so much the better.

What I think would be equally foolish of me is to reveal too much about myself here, where cunning and mendacious Christians can read about my shortcomings and turn these weaknesses against me. RevR's notion of turning the spear against the user comes to mind. Why should I give my prey any advantage or any ammunition to use against me?

So, A-Man, the answer to your offer is a definite and resounding, 'Yes!', but with the condition that it be done privately, away from the gaze of the enemy. I hope that's not an impossibility. We can work something out, I'm sure.

 

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.

 

The mental?

Ah well, that all depends on what you mean by that word. Until I have a clearer idea, I simply cannot say if I accept it's existence or not. Sorry 'bout that. Discussion about this too, is eagerly awaited by me. Having next to no idea about things Psychological or Biological, I have much to learn.

 

(Wags a gently admonishing finger in A-Man's direction.)

Now I must correct you on a limitation of your knowledge and understanding... of me.

 

I do not consider the spiritual to equal mythic beings.

On the contrary, my definition of the spiritual is derived from my (somewhat sketchy) knowledge of the ancient Greek language. Being an avid amateur astronomer since my teens, I've self-taught myself to recognize and read the Greek symbols associated with the constellations. Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta and so on. So, when I became a born-again evangelical Christian, I found that I could read (haltingly) the NT scriptures, when I first opened a Greek InterLinear New Testament.

 

The word Pneuma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneuma and it's derivatives are translated as the English word/s spirit, spiritual and spirituality. Now, my take (right or wrong, seeing as nobody ever taught me this stuff) is that there's a dichotomy at work here. The material and the spiritual. So, I don't accept the existence of the spiritual, if it's defined as something that is as real as the physical but which cannot be investigated by the physical. Such a supernatural state of being might as well not exist if it has to be invoked to explain that which we cannot currently understand by natural means. "Here be dragons!"

 

Is my position epistemologically fallacious?

Well, I just don't know... ...but I am willing to learn about other definitions of what the spiritual might be. Quite how the physical, mental and spiritual interact is definitely worth learning about.

 

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.

 

Yes, A-Man, I now see and receive your point/s.

In the light of this post, can you now understand my 'adamantine' ways of thinking? Is this still, rather curious? I hope not, in both cases.

 

And, Yes again. I now appreciate the reasonable sense of your words.

If a narrow field of self-tuition equals a narrow take on reality, then perhaps you can now see how and why I'd like to 'widen' myself, metaphorically speaking.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Antlerman]

Ok, I can readily see that learning how to avoid fallacies and epistemological errors is to my benefit, but I have a reservation about doing this learning here, out in the open, so to speak. Here's why.

 

My main reason for spending so much time in the Lion's Den is to kill and eat the Christians who foolishly come here. If my acts of Xian-i-cide help others escape from the hurt of Christianity, so much the better.

What I think would be equally foolish of me is to reveal too much about myself here, where cunning and mendacious Christians can read about my shortcomings and turn these weaknesses against me. RevR's notion of turning the spear against the user comes to mind. Why should I give my prey any advantage or any ammunition to use against me?

I see a discussion in the Colosseum more appropriate, but not because you may appear weak to Christians (believe me you're a major leg up from most of them already). I see it beneficial to dig into these areas to clear up misconceptions, and frankly better arm most of us in being better able to penetrate to the real heart of the matters. Hacking away at the left arm of a right-armed person is not the most effective way to disarm them. To be able to turn the spear of the 'user' against them (you must work in technology, I know of no one else but us who refer to people as endusers), you have to see their points of balance which involve the whole body, not just the weapons in their hands.

 

You're far from vulnerable, but you can be more effective once you have a broader understanding of what you are up against.

 

So, A-Man, the answer to your offer is a definite and resounding, 'Yes!', but with the condition that it be done privately, away from the gaze of the enemy. I hope that's not an impossibility. We can work something out, I'm sure.

How does the Colosseum sound? Trust me, you're not weak. I respect your knowledge.

 

The material and the spiritual. So, I don't accept the existence of the spiritual, if it's defined as something that is as real as the physical but which cannot be investigated by the physical. Such a supernatural state of being might as well not exist if it has to be invoked to explain that which we cannot currently understand by natural means. "Here be dragons!"

I would agree with you wholeheartedly that viewing the spiritually in the same light as the physical is erroneous. To use it to explain natural phenomena is mythological in thinking. But the spiritual itself is not mythological and is in fact 'real', because it is experienced. It is as real as living inside your world of thoughts (the mental domain). It's called spiritual because it is of a different order than mere thoughts, or mere physical. The physical is real. The mental is real. The spiritual is real. We are all these in ourselves. It is not some 'thing' out there, but the essence of us 'in here and everywhere'. We can get into this more later.

 

Let me know if the Coliseum is OK to discuss some of these things in depth.

[bornagainathiest]

Dear AntlerMan,

 

Ok, I can readily see that learning how to avoid fallacies and epistemological errors is to my benefit, but I have a reservation about doing this learning here, out in the open, so to speak. Here's why.

 

My main reason for spending so much time in the Lion's Den is to kill and eat the Christians who foolishly come here. If my acts of Xian-i-cide help others escape from the hurt of Christianity, so much the better.

What I think would be equally foolish of me is to reveal too much about myself here, where cunning and mendacious Christians can read about my shortcomings and turn these weaknesses against me. RevR's notion of turning the spear against the user comes to mind. Why should I give my prey any advantage or any ammunition to use against me?

I see a discussion in the Colosseum more appropriate, but not because you may appear weak to Christians (believe me you're a major leg up from most of them already). I see it beneficial to dig into these areas to clear up misconceptions, and frankly better arm most of us in being better able to penetrate to the real heart of the matters. Hacking away at the left arm of a right-armed person is not the most effective way to disarm them. To be able to turn the spear of the 'user' against them (you must work in technology, I know of no one else but us who refer to people as endusers), you have to see their points of balance which involve the whole body, not just the weapons in their hands.

 

Good stab! Not quite on target, tho'.

If I had to say why I wrote what I did, I'd fess up to several years of Wu Shu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_martial_arts training. (Not the Sports, the real deal.) The notion of using an opponent's energy and momentum (or weapon) against them, probably comes from there.

 

You're far from vulnerable, but you can be more effective once you have a broader understanding of what you are up against.

 

So, A-Man, the answer to your offer is a definite and resounding, 'Yes!', but with the condition that it be done privately, away from the gaze of the enemy. I hope that's not an impossibility. We can work something out, I'm sure.

How does the Colosseum sound? Trust me, you're not weak. I respect your knowledge.

 

Then, in the spirit of mutual respect, I accept.

However, I'll need a little time to collect, collate and coordinate certain things. Also, the pace will be s-l-o-w. That's just the way I am. Acceptable?

 

The material and the spiritual. So, I don't accept the existence of the spiritual, if it's defined as something that is as real as the physical but which cannot be investigated by the physical. Such a supernatural state of being might as well not exist if it has to be invoked to explain that which we cannot currently understand by natural means. "Here be dragons!"

I would agree with you wholeheartedly that viewing the spiritually in the same light as the physical is erroneous. To use it to explain natural phenomena is mythological in thinking.

 

Agreed.

 

But the spiritual itself is not mythological and is in fact 'real', because it is experienced.

 

Raises a Spock-ish eyebrow. Fascinating!

 

It is as real as living inside your world of thoughts (the mental domain). It's called spiritual because it is of a different order than mere thoughts, or mere physical. The physical is real. The mental is real. The spiritual is real. We are all these in ourselves. It is not some 'thing' out there, but the essence of us 'in here and everywhere'. We can get into this more later.

 

Intriguing, A-Man.

 

Earlier, you wrote this...

"I do probably far more work into understanding the nature of reality that you could possibly fathom. I do so in no small part because I believe it helps not just myself, and not just others, but hopefully the whole world - as grandiose as that may seem."

 

I see conviction and certainty in your words.

(Rhetorical.) What is it that you know? How did you come to know this? What is this line of work?

I hope some answers will be forthcoming - in due time.

 

It's odd.

A strange mixture of excitement and nervousness. I feel like a man about to set sail into uncharted waters. Vulnerable, yet confident. At ease, yet unsettled. I haven't felt like this for a long, long time.

 

What's over that horizon? No. Please don't tell me right now. There's a proper time and it'll come soon enough.

 

Let me know if the Coliseum is OK to discuss some of these things in depth.

 

It is. I should be ready sometime around the middle of next week.

 

C u there... friend.

 

BAA.

[Antlerman]

 

It's odd.

A strange mixture of excitement and nervousness. I feel like a man about to set sail into uncharted waters. Vulnerable, yet confident. At ease, yet unsettled. I haven't felt like this for a long, long time.

That's cool. I look at it this way, to be truly rational means we have to expand our horizons in understanding. I see this as a friendly exploration of ideas and a sharing of experiences and insights. I've spent a great many years diving into these waters, and frankly it's incredible. I'm hardly claim Answers with a capital A. I don't see my views as immutable, but I do see them as well-founded and practical. I can say with some certainty where I have gone, my own understanding has taken me into waters I couldn't have foreseen. The result is frankly profound in my own life. A much more penetrating vision, if you will.

 

Let me know if the Coliseum is OK to discuss some of these things in depth.

 

It is. I should be ready sometime around the middle of next week.

 

C u there... friend.

 

BAA.

Do you wish to start the topic? Just a general discussion, or some specific area?

[bornagainathiest]

Here's what I'd like to do, A-Man.

 

I'll write up my understanding of where I think we humans fit into the cosmos.

In it I'll address the concept of MEANING and say why I think it's a purely human notion that we falsely impose on a totally indifferent universe.

 

This should be a good place to start - to see if there are any fallacies, misunderstandings and/or false assumptions on my part. Stuff that I've overlooked or (un?)consciously ignored.

 

Therefore, let's test it together and see what happens, ok?

 

BAA.

[Antlerman]

Here's what I'd like to do, A-Man.

 

I'll write up my understanding of where I think we humans fit into the cosmos.

In it I'll address the concept of MEANING and say why I think it's a purely human notion that we falsely impose on a totally indifferent universe.

 

This should be a good place to start - to see if there are any fallacies, misunderstandings and/or false assumptions on my part. Stuff that I've overlooked or (un?)consciously ignored.

 

Therefore, let's test it together and see what happens, ok?

 

BAA.

It's a beginning. Let me know when you've started 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.

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.

 

Jesus quoted the law and the prophets which was the OT, if His people did what they were supposed to do then God would not have had to expound via a NT. A follower of Jesus quotes the entire bible because the entire bible is in harmony and tne NT complements the OT.

[Thumbelina]

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!

 

Ex nihilo = out of nothing

 

...you probably already knew that and stuff, but I just thought I'd mention that...

 

I know, God can do that!

[Prestissimo]

because the entire bible is in harmony and tne NT complements the OT.

 

[Thumbelina]

because the entire bible is in harmony and tne NT complements the OT.

 

 

You know atheist, the only reason you feel that way is cuz atheists like to run ahead of God and go off on tangents. The meek people won't feel like you, you know.

[Antlerman]

Jesus quoted the law and the prophets which was the OT, if His people did what they were supposed to do then God would not have had to expound via a NT. A follower of Jesus quotes the entire bible because the entire bible is in harmony and tne NT complements the OT.

Which of course, that verse in 1 Timothy 3:16 is not referring to the New Testament. It didn't exist when that 2nd century author writing in Paul's name said that. That was referencing the only scriptures that existed - the law and the prophets. The entire so-called "Bible" you believe is being referred to in 1 Timothy does not include any of the New Testament books. So, you quoting other books as "scripture", such as 1 Timothy, is blasphemy. Be careful, or the God of Love might smite you with worms.

[Antlerman]

because the entire bible is in harmony and tne NT complements the OT.

 

 

You know atheist, the only reason you feel that way is cuz atheists like to run ahead of God and go off on tangents. The meek people won't feel like you, you know.

Do you consider yourself meek?