Hi My Name Is Aaron And Im A Christian How Are You Today/nite/morning/afternoon?

[Ouroboros]

If I had a dollar for every time someone used the word troll here, I'd have myself a nice Caribbean Cruise bought and paid for. Of all those times it actually meant anything, I'd be able to buy myself a D.Q. Sunday.

Trolls like D.Q. Sundays...

 

 

[Antlerman]

If I had a dollar for every time someone used the word troll here, I'd have myself a nice Caribbean Cruise bought and paid for. Of all those times it actually meant anything, I'd be able to buy myself a D.Q. Sunday.

Trolls like D.Q. Sundays...

 

 

I remember some people accusing you of being a troll here, despite the fact you're a moderator here. As I said, it's rarely meaningful.

[MrsRoper]

I learned my troll lesson.

[mymistake]

I remember some people accusing you of being a troll here, despite the fact you're a moderator here. As I said, it's rarely meaningful.

 

Are you going to tell us that the word "joking" is rarely meaningful as well? I'm going to have to insert a picture of Futurama Fry.

 

Trolling = joking in such a way that people might confuse it with being serious. In the old days, before the internet, this was called "pulling your leg".

 

Troll = someone who engages in trolling

 

http://artoftrolling.memebase.com/

[blackpudd1n]

This is one problem with the word troll, as MM noted. I call my dad Master of the Trolls, because he's always bloody getting me, or attempting to, with something.

 

However, there is another, more serious form of troll, which we have seen here, too. maybe we need to vote on how we're going to use the word.

[blackpudd1n]

If we continually pounce on every christian to arrive on this forum, denouncing them a troll and attacking them, well, how are we any different to the christians who do the same but in different ways ie. banning someone for joining their forum because they are not a believer?

 

 

I said 'troll.' I meant 'spoof.' The radar went up; that's all I can say. I never hinted at banning or attacked him, something just triggered my suspicions. I may well be wrong.

 

Dammit, lost my post. Bugger.

 

I've got to rush because I'm meeting someone, so please don't think I being narky or curt, just typing this in a rush.

 

I accept that you accidentally used the wrong word.

 

the post was a general one, and not really directed at you, it was more a musing.

 

I quoted you because you used the T-word.

 

I think it gets used a bit too much sometimes, and due to its negative connotations in the age of the internet, can almost be like a call to stacks-on.

 

However, i get that this is an Ex-C forum, so really, any xtians who come could be called trolls. but then again, we don't know, either, how close they are to deconverting, or what doubts they may have

[Antlerman]

Calling someone a troll on an Internet site, particularly a forum means Internet Troll:

 

"In

Internet slang

, a

troll

is someone who posts inflammatory,

^[2]

extraneous

, or

off-topic

messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the

primary intent

of provoking readers into an

emotional

response

^[3]

or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

^[4]

"

 

I really don't take it in any other context when it is used here. A spoofer, a poser, or any otherwise such fake poster whose sole intent is to get a rise out of people. That some posters simply upset others, does not make them a troll. It has to do with their intentions. I think very few people read intentions well. There's lots and lots and lots of bad accusations that flow. That's why we're the mods.

[Spectrox]

The definition of troll that I've heard is something like "someone who goes on to an internet forum to deliberately provoke negative emotional reactions in other members, but doesn't really care about the issues at hand."

 

I've been accused of trolling on Christian sites in the past (and was subsequently banned from several!) although I genuinely cared about the issue and was upfront about my motives from the start. I just couldn't resist taking the piss! Sarcasm was my downfall.

 

I don't think Aaron was a troll. I just think he was a bit thick.

[Ouroboros]

I remember some people accusing you of being a troll here, despite the fact you're a moderator here. As I said, it's rarely meaningful.

Oh, yes, I remember that. It was actually quite funny.

 

I also remember some of the other things I've been called over the years. I can laugh at it now.

[mymistake]

Calling someone a troll on an Internet site, particularly a forum means Internet Troll:

 

"In

Internet slang

, a

troll

is someone who posts inflammatory,

^[2]

extraneous

, or

off-topic

messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the

primary intent

of provoking readers into an

emotional

response

^[3]

or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

^[4]

"

 

I really don't take it in any other context when it is used here. A spoofer, a poser, or any otherwise such fake poster whose sole intent is to get a rise out of people. That some posters simply upset others, does not make them a troll. It has to do with their intentions. I think very few people read intentions well.

 

The word is not very meaningful if you are going to define it by what others can't measure and can't know. You might as well remove the word from the English language if it can only be used to describe the self. You are free to take the word to mean anything you wish but others may not use the word the same way you do. I have never used it with the intent of implying that I can read minds. Would you find it better for us to spell out "Do not allow yourself to be conned by taking that post seriously"? Despite formal definitions that is how I have seen the word used.

 

There's lots and lots and lots of bad accusations that flow. That's why we're the mods.

 

That is not disputed.

[bdp]

...so we play nice until such a time as a Xtian is absolutely shown to be a troll or spoof, or we just stay out of the den. And refrain from addressing the Xtians anywhere else for that matter.

[blackpudd1n]

I am still new enough of a deconvert that I can remember clearly that I was worse than any xtian that I have seen so far on this site. Even as I struggled, I refused to let it show or be known that I struggled. The more I was confronted, the more defensive and thick-headed I became. But the people who would just discuss stuff with me, well they were the ones who learnt about my struggles with xtianity, and they were the ones who helped me slowly find my own way out. The ones that I felt comfortable sharing my doubts with.

 

I can see both sides of the coin. Therefore, it is hard for me to argue one way or another on this matter.

[Antlerman]

...so we play nice until such a time as a Xtian is absolutely shown to be a troll or spoof, or we just stay out of the den. And refrain from addressing the Xtians anywhere else for that matter.

And in all the world of infinite possibilities these are the only two you can come up with?

[Antlerman]

I am still new enough of a deconvert that I can remember clearly that I was worse than any xtian that I have seen so far on this site. Even as I struggled, I refused to let it show or be known that I struggled. The more I was confronted, the more defensive and thick-headed I became. But the people who would just discuss stuff with me, well they were the ones who learnt about my struggles with xtianity, and they were the ones who helped me slowly find my own way out. The ones that I felt comfortable sharing my doubts with.

 

I can see both sides of the coin. Therefore, it is hard for me to argue one way or another on this matter.

Yes, your post illustrates perfectly why I personally, for 99% of the time actually make an effort to hear the person behind the walls of defense, rather than just reacting to the surface things that they present. All those arguments rarely reflect the real person behind them. And we should always try to recognize that the reasons for them holding them as they do, are often the same reasons we all have shared ourselves in our humanness. Maybe someone would respond positively to be called a troll, but I know I wouldn't have for sure. I seriously doubt most people would either.

 

Another side of this is where someone is actually a sociopathic individual who has a hollow soul and sees others as objects to manipulate and amuse themselves with. They essentially are functioning within the lizard brain part of themselves seeing the social world as a human landscape to navigate around in their lizard world, rather than integrating into it. They may either be only playing at religious beliefs as part of that manipulation, or they are part of their psychological dysfunction affirming their illness in broken ways. Those are the people I experience no grief over quickly removing from the site as they are beyond the reach of this community.

 

Sometimes though, I will hit hard at the walls of defenses of some otherwise functional individuals, but not because I'm trying to win some argument with them to prove myself right for myself, but with an eye towards who they are underneath it. It is done for their sake, as some people may not respond to appeals to reason. That goes for a lot of individuals, regardless of their beliefs or lack of beliefs in the supernatural. We like to think reason is the all powerful tool, but it is not. My favorite saying is, "A man convinced against his will, remains of same opinion still". The question to ask is how do you speak to the will?

[Akheia]

AM: I think that can be very hard. Our culture is built around not using reason. We all like to think we're rational, but we're emotional, spiritual beings, not robots. And our defenses, especially with regard to religion these days, can be powerful indeed. Avoiding questions, misdirecting, using liberal numbers of logical fallacies, falling to threats of damnation, and even making personal attacks to distract can all be powerful defensive measures when confronted with something that goes against our internal dialogue's dictates.

 

@End: I'm afraid I never saw if you answered the question I'd asked back on p. 17 (#325), so I hope you don't mind my reprinting it here:

 

All that means that we get to this point: Your religion is subjective. Mine is subjective. We both lack any external proof or evidence for our beliefs. We're both utterly positive that the natural world reflects the faith we've decided to follow. We both find that our ideal concepts of marriage echo the divine. We both have the warm fuzzies that come from feeling like we've contacted the divine. We both find moral lessons within our respective faith systems. But for some reason you're sure that your religion is superior to mine. Why? You're waiting for revelation, but don't you suppose God's had enough time in the last couple thousand years to make himself clear if he wanted to be understood? If he's that unwilling to share, then he's going to have to understand if I'm unwilling to risk my immortal soul gambling on him when there are way more sensible, humane, and logical ways to live.

 

Or have you moved past thinking that your faith is superior to all other faiths? (Hoping so!)

 

I'd also like to mention that I'd die inside if I found out that my husband's approach to our marriage was being "figuratively dead" for me. That whole discussion made me cringe on End's behalf. I used to think that was a fine and lovely marriage model, but since leaving the church I've found that changed dramatically for me. I want my man alive--sparkling--electric in motion--flowing crisp and pure like water in a mountain stream. It's funny that something like the fundagelical concept of marriage drew End closer to Jesus, but pushed me further away from him and toward other religions where I saw much closer reflections of the good marriages I saw around me.

[blackpudd1n]

Yes, your post illustrates perfectly why I personally, for 99% of the time actually make an effort to hear the person behind the walls of defense, rather than just reacting to the surface things that they present. All those arguments rarely reflect the real person behind them. And we should always try to recognize that the reasons for them holding them as they do, are often the same reasons we all have shared ourselves in our humanness. Maybe someone would respond positively to be called a troll, but I know I wouldn't have for sure. I seriously doubt most people would either.

 

I fully agree with you here, A-Man.

 

Another side of this is where someone is actually a sociopathic individual who has a hollow soul and sees others as objects to manipulate and amuse themselves with. They essentially are functioning within the lizard brain part of themselves seeing the social world as a human landscape to navigate around in their lizard world, rather than integrating into it. They may either be only playing at religious beliefs as part of that manipulation, or they are part of their psychological dysfunction affirming their illness in broken ways. Those are the people I experience no grief over quickly removing from the site as they are beyond the reach of this community.

 

The problem, too, with people who are sociopathic/psychopathic is that they will never admit any wrong-doing, or to being wrong in any way. They are toxic to all around them, and there is currently no therapy to help them- they just learn to give the responses that the therapist wants to hear. So there's not a lot the forum could do for them, anyway.

 

The question to ask is how do you speak to the will?

 

Softly and gently, with respect for the person.

 

I am a very strong-willed person. Being told what to think or do will only ever make me dig my heels in, hard. Bombarding me with reason and logic when I was an xtian would only make me feel threatened, thus provoking the stubborness. I could only speak freely when I felt safe to do so.

 

I don't think a strong will is something that we are necessarily born with. I think many people develop one as a defense or coping mechanism as a response to the circumstances life has thrown at them. Therefore, attacking a person's will could feel extremely threatening on a personal level, in which case the walls will go up.

 

Many people get into christianity or delve into it deeper at difficult times in their life. It is often, I perceive, a band-aid solution for something deeper that they are as yet unwilling or unable to deal with. My concern is that by attempting to disabuse them of their faith, we may be opening up an emotional wound that they are not yet willing or able to deal with. We don't know their stories, or where they come from, which is why I have become loathe to hit too hard and fast. I don't want to damage the person.

 

My sister is still a fundy. While she can drive me nuts at times with her beliefs, I have come to realise that losing those beliefs would force her to deal with a greater pain- the abuse perpetrated against her by our biological mother. The wounds are still too fresh for her. When she fell pregnant, she suffered through nightmares night after night of the abuse. So I go gently with her. She feels safe with me, even in my deconversion and atheism. When she is ready, she will tentatively explore her beliefs. But not yet. And I don't want to see her do so just yet. The time is not right.

[mymistake]

Christians who come here are punched out by the same cookie cutter. They come here to defend the faith. They delude themselves into thinking they have the Real True Truth. They see us as victims who have been deceived by the Devil. They assume that what we write will be dangerous lies. And when they run out of explanations they will get angry. That is what happens when a false belief is exposed. The natural result is anger. So if you have to use a definition that is based on intent they will never fit it. It's not their intent to get a rise out of us. It is their intent to follow the instructions in their Bible.

 

Are they individuals? Of course. They were individuals before the Christian template was applied. The Christian template is not uniform in effectiveness due to different churches and different lengths of time spent in Christianity. Though it often can't be known there will be a big variation in how close each one is to leaving Christianity.

 

I'm not interested in their intent. I see that as being irrelevant. We can't really know their intent anyway. It's something we can only guess at. Much of the intent comes from the Christian template so figuring out the individual intent under the templet is problematic. That is why I don't use an intent-based definition. In my opinion what matters is what can we salvage. When I am begging somebody to not be offensive and he is telling me he understand just how offensive his actions are but he promised us he would continue so he will continue to offend us that is a hopeless situation. It really doesn't matter what the guy intends or why he has a disconnect. Before that we had another one who had this habit of saying all the wrong things to one of our suicidal members. I don't have to know the intent or wait for my friend to off himself. The situation was bad. It doesn't matter if the trouble maker is delusional, or good intentioned or whatever. The situation, the relationship, the events, those are what matter.

 

Do I advocate attacking Christians on sight? No. Those paying attention will notice I don't do that. When I see a new Christian I welcome them and let them know how things go. It's a friendly heads up on the mistakes that other Christians made and admiration for the good choices made by Catholic Kitty. If the Christian does not behave his/herself do I attack then? It depends on just how rude they are being. I prefer to politely reason with them and give them more chances. However I recognize that some people simply do not respect polite behavior and will not listen to polite words. It's an imperfect world.

[Guest end3]

AM: I think that can be very hard. Our culture is built around not using reason. We all like to think we're rational, but we're emotional, spiritual beings, not robots. And our defenses, especially with regard to religion these days, can be powerful indeed. Avoiding questions, misdirecting, using liberal numbers of logical fallacies, falling to threats of damnation, and even making personal attacks to distract can all be powerful defensive measures when confronted with something that goes against our internal dialogue's dictates.

 

@End: I'm afraid I never saw if you answered the question I'd asked back on p. 17 (#325), so I hope you don't mind my reprinting it here:

 

All that means that we get to this point: Your religion is subjective. Mine is subjective. We both lack any external proof or evidence for our beliefs. We're both utterly positive that the natural world reflects the faith we've decided to follow. We both find that our ideal concepts of marriage echo the divine. We both have the warm fuzzies that come from feeling like we've contacted the divine. We both find moral lessons within our respective faith systems. But for some reason you're sure that your religion is superior to mine. Why? You're waiting for revelation, but don't you suppose God's had enough time in the last couple thousand years to make himself clear if he wanted to be understood? If he's that unwilling to share, then he's going to have to understand if I'm unwilling to risk my immortal soul gambling on him when there are way more sensible, humane, and logical ways to live.

 

Or have you moved past thinking that your faith is superior to all other faiths? (Hoping so!)

 

I'd also like to mention that I'd die inside if I found out that my husband's approach to our marriage was being "figuratively dead" for me. That whole discussion made me cringe on End's behalf. I used to think that was a fine and lovely marriage model, but since leaving the church I've found that changed dramatically for me. I want my man alive--sparkling--electric in motion--flowing crisp and pure like water in a mountain stream. It's funny that something like the fundagelical concept of marriage drew End closer to Jesus, but pushed me further away from him and toward other religions where I saw much closer reflections of the good marriages I saw around me.

 

Having reviewed the definitions, I find Christianity to be true for me. I doubt some of the stories are factually true, yet they represent the truth from the result or entailment, if I am using that word correctly, of the factual truth. For example, Adam from the dust of the ground Although some may interpret God whipping up Adam much like Santa whipped up Frosty after he melted, there is science that speculates man came from the ooze, the earth. It would essentially be true that man was from the dust.

 

The consensus says regarding my stance on "dead to self", this would be a bad choice. If I facilitate, as I stated, the things in this world that are alive to me and make me alive, then total committment to those endeavors would not be the flowing crisp.water from the mountain stream?

 

And, for discussions sake, suggestions to embrace my faults is the best mechanism for fault correction. Phanta and I had this conversation a few months back....suggesting that acknowledgement of our faults is truely liberating. And I believe it is. What seems to happen for me, is by acknowledging the faults, I am allowing them continued presence as not the best, but ok if I still do them on occasion......if this makes sense. I would prefer to remain in that walk in another's shoes, gracefilled approach to behavior modification. It seems more correct.

[florduh]

...we should come to people with different beliefs with an open mind so that we can learn and observe, that’s why me, a christian, is here talking with atheists...

Nobody is born a Christian, but most of us did become Christian at some point. At a later point we realized the folly of Christianity because of its inconsistencies, lack of evidence, incompatibility with known science and history, major problems with Biblical texts and their histories, uselessness of prayer, whatever the reasons were. The fact that deconversion is so painful for so many attests to the sincerity of previous Christian beliefs.

 

We therefore have nothing to learn regarding Christianity. It isn't a new concept to us. Anyone wanting to learn why people leave the religion (permanently and for real, not as "backsliders") can read volumes on this website alone.

[Akheia]

I don't understand your question re: "dead to self." What do you mean? Can you give an example? (And why in the world am I being asked to kowtow to your favorite method of fault correction? Dude, you're even older than I am. Do you even know how bad that sounded? You're an adult. It's not anyone else's job to fix you. Figure out when you're wrong, and address it.)

 

And to restate the question I'd asked back on p. 17 (again): What do you think about the validity of other religions for their adherents? If they are not valid, why not, given the things I've written about regarding their general similarity of claims?

[Guest end3]

Look at it this way......if I am endeavoring in horse training, then I am alive in the life of the horse in that the selfishness of my needs are gone for the time that I am concentrating on the horse. How much better to be alive in what also produces life for another by being "dead to self". If I "die" for my wife, then the very thing I value, her life, is alive moreso and subseqently makes me less selfish and alive myself as I value her qualities in my life.

 

Kind of satisfies the both definitions as y'all have shortsightedly presented them. No biggie. That's why I'm here.....lol.

 

A joke people. Unwind thy panties.

 

Edit: I'll quit with the bad humor. Apologies.

[Guest end3]

And to restate the question I'd asked back on p. 17 (again): What do you think about the validity of other religions for their adherents? If they are not valid, why not, given the things I've written about regarding their general similarity of claims?

 

Please remember where I said this was a "damn good question" back a few posts ago. My thoughts are unsure on this. In other words, I don't definately know whether the various religions are seeing the same God but by different names and perspectives. As I had said, the book of Mark......Jesus chastises his followers for not being able to "see the Spirit of God" essentially. It's hard to deny love when you see it regardless of the name it falls under. Now, that being said, I think the particular correct explanation would be with the Bible and Christ.

[Akheia]

End, seriously. Please stop with the misogynistic belittling. My panties, twisted or not, are none of your motherfucking business and irrelevant to the discussion, and you said it purely to be an asshole and you know it. You really have a lot of trouble telling when to pull back on the throttle, don't you? Here's some goddamned fault correction for you: You need to stop speculating about women's panties and calling them "dear" and whatnot. It's not cute and it's not funny. I do not accept that behavior.

 

I'm having a lot of trouble seeing any kind of love in how you act. You swerve from rigid woman-infantilizing asshole to bizarre, nonsensical mystic all in one fell swoop. I don't see you and think "Wow, what an amazing Christian," or even "Wow, what a loving person," that is for fucking sure. Isn't that what a true Christian is supposed to make people think?

 

I'll continue this more interesting conversation regarding seeing God by other names once you can move past trying to infantilize me.

 

Edit: I see your apology, appreciate it, and want to continue our discussion. Thank you.

[Akheia]

@End: What do you mean by the correct explanation?

[Guest end3]

Edit: I see your apology, appreciate it, and want to continue our discussion. Thank you.

 

I get that. I'll stop