Pre Fall Of Satan, Pre Creation And Post Creation Evil Show That The Bible God Is Self Refuting. (Comments Criticism, Please!)

[centauri]

 

Thumbelina said:

 

@ Centauri

Cite the bible OT text that say the irreverent and censorious (who are very rebellious) will comprehend spiritual things. Cite the OT passage that say that people who use disingenuous practices of pitting different beliefs against each other by using google university as research, while ignoring the biblical stipulation of yielding to God and comparing scripture with scripture, will understand the bible. Dude all you do is read mostly Jewish propaganda and you do EVERY SINGLE THING that Rayskidude said.

 

centauri:

Well like you, rayskidude was an aspiring teacher/preacher that couldn't come up with an actual answer to a very simple request.

You're the zealots that make claims about the Bible displaying self-proving harmony.

If you're going to make such bold proclamations, be prepared to back them up with something more than Christian self-righteousness and imagined scriptural discernment.

The Jewish propaganda is their evaluation of what their scriptures mean.

 

Thumbelina said:

*raised eyebrow* You Centauri are full of shenanigans. You do not (PRESENTLY; I believe you did in the past, you seem to be an avid reader too) search the scripture for truth, you take a doctrine from here and a doctrine from there in order to create confusion (that's the spirit of Antichrist you know; I hope you stop, I still like you and don't want you to not be saved).

 

 

centauri said: You claimed the Bible displayed complete harmony, which isn't the case.

As for your claim that I don't search the scripture for truth, that's subjective.

I'll counter your jab by saying that your standard for truth is obviously much lower than mine.

 

Thumbelina:

The bible does harmonize with itself, darlin'. It is marvelooooous!

Sorry about that, I do see evidence that you searched and searched but your blasphemy annoys and worries me.

How do you determine truth, you infidel, you?!

If the Bible harmonized itself, there wouldn't be contradictions.

Christianity produces many of these contradictions by attempting to create a revisionist theology which is loosely based on the Hebrew scriptures.

 

 

Thumbelina said: How can someone reason with you when you plan on dismissing everything and you do not do what Rayskidude said one is supposed to do to understand?

 

centauri said: Do you take orders from the Pope?

I don't take orders from a pompous missionary.

 

Thumbelina:

I have the bible as canon (a measuring rod for truth) , therefore I am able to throw out the bathwater and keep the baby. I keep what the pope says that is true according to scripture and throw out what is false.

Pompous? Eh, you're the conspircay theorist of the ex-Christians.

Pompous is an appropriate description for a preacher/missionary that tried to create reality out of subjective imaginings and then advertised it as some sort of superior "truth".

 

Thumbelina said: The bible does prove itself to people with open hearts/minds. Show me in the bible where it says scripture is for persistent unbelievers with predetermined hearts. Show me where it says the scoffer has spiritual discernment. You as an unbeliever, an unbeliever, has placed yourself as a discerner of the bible, show the lurkers the scriptures where it says someone with an anti-gospel is able to do that.

 

centauri said:I didn't make the claim about the Bible displaying complete harmony, that was you.

That claim doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

When faced with the reality that it doesn't, you dismiss the problems by dismissing the person pointing them out.

In your universe, no unbeliever is ever qualified to question your claims.

 

Thumbelina:

It truly does harmonize, you just don't see it yet. I'm not dismissing you, how long have we been at this? <--- *rhetorical question* I've been impressed by you, I've said so many times.

It's not a question of impressing anyone.

You've already indicated that "unbelievers" aren't qualified to discern scripture.

However, it's a matter of holding your claims accountable.

You keep claiming it harmonizes when it doesn't.

[Antlerman]

I can't believe how much effort you put into these posts. You must really care about validation from those who don't think like you. A little insecure perhaps?

Agreed.

 

 

Proverbs 18:2 ESV

 

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his [or her] opinion.

That's perfect. Can you add that to her profile, with the words, "I am that fool"?

 

I stopped reading her posts months ago.

Me too. I don't wish to sin against the Bible by reading the posts of a fool.

[Ouroboros]

I never see that in you. Ever.

Maybe she's not a real Christian?

[Antlerman]

I never see that in you. Ever.

Maybe she's not a real Christian?

Of course not. She's just a windbag trying to make herself feel good about herself. It's all about her and her sick relationship with her religion, and trying to validate herself to her god. She uses us.

 

I've half a mind to just cut her free. I've yet to see anything of value with her. Never does she listen or discuss. Just preaches and preaches. It's only about her.

[centauri]

 

Thumbelina said: The Jewish propaganda is that God says all nations are to be blessed and given the opportunity for salvation and the Jews are exclusivist and don't give two shakes about the salvation of non Jews.

 

Centauri said: Jewish interpretation of their own scriptures makes far more sense than Christian ones, especially in cases where Christian writers ripped a verse out of context, which they did repeatedly.

 

Thumbelina:

Jewish interpretation of some portions of scripture does not make more sense! Their interpretation leaves out non Jews from the picture of salvation. The Jews have the ten commandment law so why do they not share it with their fellow man if they think keeping the law is the way of salvation. Many people do not keep the law.

Non-Jews are not left out of the salvation picture.

Read your bleeping scriptures!

 

Isa 56:1-8

Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.

Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.

Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the Lord, speak, saying, The Lord hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.

For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;

Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.

Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;

Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

The Lord God, which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.

 

Gentiles will be fully accepted into God's fold if they observe the same covenant that Jews recognize.

 

These are Christian Bible titles for this passage:

 

ESV-Salvation for Foreigners

NIV-Salvation for Others

God's Word Translation-Salvation for All People

NKJV- Salvation for the Gentiles

 

There is no need for an illegal human sacrifice called "Jesus" in this.

Salvation is granted by doing the work of keeping the covenant and is open to all people.

This is further confirmed by Ezek 18:20-27.

[centauri]

You are similar to Heretic in that you're somewhat helter skelter in trying to find a gospel; it ends up a discombobulated mess, an anti gospel as it were. You're not as looney as Heretic though, you have read and have been reading about the laws and you seem to understand some of them but you isolate texts to support the Jewish view (that Christ isn't God and is unnecessary) and you do it without the HS.

The Hebrew deity is not a three headed hydra where God becomes a man.

God repeatedly tells his people that he is not a man and does not change.

There is no need for a dying king messiah because each person saves themselves through proper action.

Repenting and keeping the law achieves salvation (Ezek 18:20-27).

The theological mess is created when Christianity decides to overrule God and creates its own version of theology, borrowing bits and pieces from Judaism and spinning them into a new religious doctrine.

 

 

Centauri said: There are Christian denominations that don't believe Jesus is God.

A discombobulated mess would describe Christianity, which cannot agree on even basic doctrine.

As for having the Holy Spirit, would you care to try proving that you have it?

 

Thumbelina:

Truth is determined by the Word and NOT by any church denomination. Every church and every member has freedom of choice to embrace sola scriptura or NOT. The bible says people grow in grace and knowledge but they have a part to play in it, they have to be WILLING to advance. Some believers grow faster than others, everyone is not going to be at the same level at the same time!

How can I prove the HS to someone who does not believe? If you believed then your spirit would bear witness with my spirit that the bible is true and God loves us

In other words, claims about having the Holy Spirit are founded on personal subjective opinion and nothing more.

 

Thumbelina said: You tie the hands of God with your choice; you tie the hand of the Christian who is willing to point out the scripture. However, there are certain things that I see you find questionable but your ears are stopped and you don't dialogue, you just automatically dismiss it by using the Jewish propaganda.

 

 

Centauri said: Indeed, the nerve of those uppity Jews.

They can't even interpret their own scriptures properly without having a Christian around to explain it to them.

 

Thumblina:

The Jews have egg on their faces, they KNOW their prophecy said that Messiah was supposed to show up in the first century but because He did not show in the WAY they wanted Him to they rejected Him. They then had to revise the scripture to suit their private beliefs.

The theological egg is smeared all over the face of Christians, who claim that a messianic impostor was the genuine article.

It's little wonder the Jews rejected Jesus.

Jesus never sat on the throne, lacked the pedigree to be king, was never anointed king, and never performed the job requirements as defined in the Hebrew scriptures.

A revision is once again performed by Christians, who wave away all these problems by saying it doesn't matter, Jesus is the king messiah anyway.

They revise the scriptural stipulations to suit their private beliefs, which are then foisted on the world as divine, absolute truth.

It's basically a fraud dressed in clerical garb, the handiwork of religious three card monte dealers.

 

 

Centauri said: Am I wasting your time?

Then I'm delighted to do so.

Every minute you spend here is one less minute you have to be jamming your rancid theology into the skull of some poor person in an effort to dominate them.

 

Thumbelina:

Father forgive him ...

I suspect the Grand Inquisitor said the same thing to those undergoing trial for failing to kiss the buttocks of the Church.

It assumes one needs "forgiveness" for making observations that run counter to the doctrine of the religious machine.

 

Thumbelina said: *mad* That's not very nice Centauri! I had a crazy-as-a-fruit-bat atheist on another cite do the same trick except he used the SAB website; it's a way of closing ones ears and causing others to stumble too.

 

Centauri said: As I wrote earlier, holding you accountable is not a "trick".

 

Plugging your ears and not comparing the scriptures is a trick.

You haven't established that my scriptural observations are any less valid than yours.

Actually, my four questions were straightforward and should be easy to answer if the Bible is in harmony as you claimed.

[midniterider]

Hi, Thumb! Glad to have you back. You're just in time for Pagan Pride Day! Drop that cross, pick up a pentacle and join the fun! Let out your inner Crowleyan...or Gardnerian. September 22 is the Fall Equinox and Mabon, celebrating the second harvest!

 

As it is said in the holy scripture, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law!"

[centauri]

Maybe you'd like to look into this post?: http://www.ex-christ...is/#entry806900

It's about the prohecies in Daniel that points to the arrival of the Messiah.

 

Here are some problems with your cited apologetic:

 

"After 62 weeks we come to the arrival of the Messiah.

Q.What does the word Messiah mean?

 

A. It means anointed."

 

The arrival of a prince would be after 7 weeks (or 49 years) not 62 weeks (or 434 years).

 

Dan 9:25-26(ESV)

Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built againwith squares and moat, but in a troubled time.

And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

 

After 62 weeks an anointed one would be cut off.

This can't be the same person as the prince because a "week" is seven years.

62 weeks is 434 years.

The second person is not designated as being a prince, but simply anointed.

 

"Q. What was the act that anointed Jesus Christ?

 

A. Baptism"

 

Jesus was never anointed king by anyone.

A proper king is anointed with special anointing oil and is anointed by a high priest or prophet.

That's God's law.

The baptism of Jesus didn't do a thing with regard to establishing Jesus as king.

 

"The text said until Messiah, the Prince, so Jesus has two names here.

 

In the book of Daniel, Jesus is called different names. He's called Prince of the Host, Prince of the Covenant, Prince of princes etc.

In the prophetic chapters of Daniel, excluding the historical chapters, every time the word Prince appears, it applies to Jesus Christ. Isaiah called Jesus the Prince of Peace. Peter, in the early chapters of Acts calls Jesus the prince twice."

 

Jesus isn't mentioned in the Book of Daniel.

The claim that every time the word prince appears it applies to Jesus is a lie.

Isaiah never mentioned Jesus either.

Jesus never qualified to be a king nor did he ever perform the job requirements.

 

"Q. When was Jesus anointed?

 

A. At His baptism. See John 1:32, 41

 

Right after Jesus' baptism Andrew said we have found the Messiah. Hebrew Messiah is Greek Christ so both words mean anointed."

 

Jesus was never anointed with special oil as king by a high priest or a prophet.

Baptism does nothing to confirm the title of king.

The apologetic attempts to use the New Testament as validation for a doctrine that violates the tenets of the Old Testament.

If you want to jam Jesus in Dan 9 and make him the anointed one (who is not designated a prince), then you have to ignore the text that speaks of a prince coming after only 7 weeks.

Jesus can't be both.

Furthermore, Jerusalem was destroyed about 40 years after Jesus died.

The date Jesus died can't even be established with concise accuracy.

Christian dates of Jesus dying range from 28 CE to around 36 CE.

The prophecy calls for Jerusalem being destroyed within a 7 year timeframe, not 40 years.

Dan 9 does not say anything about a Jewish king ending the law and such a claim contradicts Ezek 37:24 , along with other scripture.

Since Jesus was never anointed king and never sat on the throne, the very premise of the apologetic is flawed. It simply assumes things and uses circular logic (using the New Testament to prove the claims of the New Testament) to force a fullfilment.

 

The Ten Commandments don't give a license to use a human as a sin sacrifice, it's illegal according to God's law on proper sacrifices.

 

Thumbelina:

God forbade the people from sacrificing humans but Jesus laid down His life for us. The nuances are unseen to unbelievers.

The "nuances" are unseen because it contradicts God's freaking Word.

There is nothing legal about a human being used as a sin sacrifice.

If you think otherwise, then cite the section of the Law that approves of it.

Christians use special pleading to do an end run around the Law claiming that God ignored his own edicts, rules and regulations.

 

Why do you think the manna stank and bred worms? What bread do you have in your cupboard that breeds worms and stink, Centauri? Bread gets moldy! Flesh gets the worms and the stench! Jesus is the living bread, the manna represented Him. Oooooh I wish you get that spittle and clay for your eyes.

It always amazes me how quickly Christians will toss aside the Bible when it fails to feed their fantasies.

So far, the only answer you've given to the problem of Jesus violating the law and being an invalid sin sacrifice is that it doesn't matter.

Basically, Christians thumb their nose at God, and claim his rules don't matter unless Christians approve of them.

The tail wags the dog.

Christians overrule God, take him out of the drivers seat, throw him in the trunk, and get behind the wheel themselves.

[centauri]

 

Amos 3:6-8 <---Jesus reveals His secrets to His servants

The scripture says nothing about Jesus, that's a wonderfully deceptive twist on your part.

 

Amos 3:7 (YLT)

For the Lord Jehovah doth nothing, Except He hath revealed His counsel unto His servants the prophets.

 

Amos 3:7 (KJV)

Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

 

You've equated Jesus to Jehovah, which contradicts God's proclamation that he was not a man, nor a son of man.

 

Belief, that measure of faith we ALL have is the prerequesite to understanding the gospel.

Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, produce the scriptures that say people who flip the bird at God and blaspheme Him are given spernatural insight to rightly interpret scripture, to give a gospel. All you guys come up with is God of the bible is malevolent, therefore he does not exist.

 

Christians flip the bird at God.

They wickedly toss aside his instructions and chase after a pagan human sacrifice called Jesus.

 

They turn this:

 

Psa 119:155

Salvation is far from the wicked: for they seek not thy statutes.

 

Into this:

 

Psa 119:155

Salvation is far from the wicked: for they seek not thy statutes Jesus.

 

Take the beam out of your eye before accusing others of blasphemy.

You're guilty of that which you accuse others.

[Astreja]

it's oratory that helps one be wise unto salvation.

I assert that there is no salvation, Thumbelina. I think that it's all a myth. I believe that you will never see 'heaven,' and that the alleged words of Jesus never actually saved anyone... Including Jesus himself, assuming he ever existed in the first place.

What people need to do is to be respectful of others choices but at the same time leaving room for polite disagreement. Both parties need to not call regular disagreement hate speech when it is just disagreement.

Thumbelina, it is not "just disagreement." The very instant you or anyone else stands between someone and their happiness, by labelling their love 'sinful' or preventing them from marrying the love of their life, it is indeed hateful.

You don't even know what sin is.

Yes, I do -- Sin is the crime of hurting the feelings of your imaginary friend, as opposed to bad behaviour (for which we have police departments, law courts and various other protections and remedies).

God is not a torturer, people will face the consequences of their choices and therefore actions

Thumbelina, if your god sees even one person suffering, and has the power to end that suffering but chooses not to, it is an evil being. If your god allows an eternal hell to exist, it is eternally responsible for 100% of the suffering that occurs there. The being with the power automatically holds the responsibility, and you cannot delegate responsibility unless you also delegate the power to act.

 

And no human being who has ever lived has performed an action that would merit eternal punishment.

Yeah, I know you're an inadvertent Crowleyan.

Not inadvertent at all. If I had to choose between Crowley and your god, I'd choose Crowley.

[Astreja]

I've half a mind to just cut her free. I've yet to see anything of value with her. Never does she listen or discuss. Just preaches and preaches. It's only about her.

Well, I wouldn't mind seeing her gone. She doesn't respect where we're coming from, talks down to us, and vomits out pages of Bible quotes that only she can interpret properly (Já, riiight...) We could replace her with a couple of lines of AI code linked up to an online Bible, and no one would be the wiser.

[Antlerman]

I've half a mind to just cut her free. I've yet to see anything of value with her. Never does she listen or discuss. Just preaches and preaches. It's only about her.

Well, I wouldn't mind seeing her gone. She doesn't respect where we're coming from, talks down to us, and vomits out pages of Bible quotes that only she can interpret properly (Já, riiight...) We could replace her with a couple of lines of AI code linked up to an online Bible, and no one would be the wiser.

There's this guy who stands on the corner up on a soapbox downtown on Friday afternoons, wearing this big piece of wood with scriptures quoted on it hanging around his neck. He stands there and shouts to all the people walking by ignoring him. A mind like his is a puzzle to me, since he is not speaking intelligently to any of the educated business people who walk by him ignoring his shouting judgment and damnation (never love and grace, mind you - though he does scream 'for God so loved the word...' which is followed up by threats of eternal fire, of course).

 

I ask myself what compels this person, who doesn't speak with any knowledge of love in his heart, to shout down others with threats of hell, as opposed to appealing to love? What compels him to threaten people, even though using words like love in some bastardized version of his hellfire condemnation of others? Is he angry at life? Does he genuninely believe this stuff? I don't believe so. It's about something else. I asked my partner why this person feels to do this where obviously none of the audience there would ever listen to him. Since she has knowledge of these kinds of people from working in the city with a lot of the people from the street before, she offered her insight to me. She said that for someone like this, it is not about the business people, but about finding some person from the street living on the edges of society to prey upon to follow him. She's seen it many times.

 

In short, they are preying upon the vulnerable to get followers of themselves. It's not about helping anyone. And so with Thumbnail, it is as you say robotic responses, because it is not about helping anyone. It is soapbox preaching, trying to appear to herself as powerful to stand in the middle of those of society she sees herself on the fringes of, to affirm herself to them, not with any hope of making converts of them, but to feel empowered to just stand there and shout - hoping that some poor vulnerable soul might thank her and affirm her worth as a person. "He who has ears to hear...", that she cries, is that screaming preacher who has no clue what love is, sadly, and uses it to mean, 'affirm me.'

 

Poor, sad, Thumbnail. Alone on her soapbox, trying to fill her life with meaning, never apprehending the meaning of love in herself.

[bornagainathiest]

Poor, sad, Thumbnail. Alone on her soapbox, trying to fill her life with meaning, never apprehending the meaning of love in herself.

 

Hi Antlerman.

 

Perhaps you'd like to consider this option?

 

Don't drop the banhammer on Thumbelina, but instead, put her on notice for a probationary period.

 

Inform her that we've seen no real evidence of love, grace, empathy, respect or even tolerance in her many posts. Ask her to come down off her soapbox and display these qualities towards us. Inform her that she is not the judge of what these things are and how they should manifest themselves. These things are not for her to decide, but are for others to see in what she writes and how she writes it. Ask her to demonstrate a genuine change towards us and if she she can't or won't do that... well, then that'll be a sad, but not entirely unexpected outcome.

 

Perhaps her first step towards meeting us on the same level would be to accept that she is not the sole arbiter and source of truth in this forum? Would that be a good starting point? If she can take that first step, then perhaps there's hope?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Realist]

Sorry if your popcorn got stale Mr ... . How come you did not write "..." in this post?

 

... because it was in reference to my previous post immediately before it! Got it?? Nah ... no hope there!

[Realist]

I ask myself what compels this person, who doesn't speak with any knowledge of love in his heart, to shout down others with threats of hell, as opposed to appealing to love? What compels him to threaten people, even though using words like love in some bastardized version of his hellfire condemnation of others? Is he angry at life?

 

Ant ... the same thing that compels suicide bombers to fly planes into buildings ... or blow up innocent people ... blinded religious belief!

[Antlerman]

Poor, sad, Thumbnail. Alone on her soapbox, trying to fill her life with meaning, never apprehending the meaning of love in herself.

 

Hi Antlerman.

 

Perhaps you'd like to consider this option?

 

Don't drop the banhammer on Thumbelina, but instead, put her on notice for a probationary period.

 

Inform her that we've seen no real evidence of love, grace, empathy, respect or even tolerance in her many posts. Ask her to come down off her soapbox and display these qualities towards us. Inform her that she is not the judge of what these things are and how they should manifest themselves. These things are not for her to decide, but are for others to see in what she writes and how she writes it. Ask her to demonstrate a genuine change towards us and if she she can't or won't do that... well, then that'll be a sad, but not entirely unexpected outcome.

 

Perhaps her first step towards meeting us on the same level would be to accept that she is not the sole arbiter and source of truth in this forum? Would that be a good starting point? If she can take that first step, then perhaps there's hope?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Well, interesting thoughts. Not sure I can force her to be a loving human.

 

You've made me think of something though. Back to the soapbox preacher dude. Every now and then, some person on the street decides to "let him have it", and they start yelling back at him what a looser he is, and how dare he stand there condemning all these people. (It doesn't matter one tick that he says it's God who judges, it's not, it's him - and it's also Thumbnuts, not God). But I see it this way, those who respond to him, validate him. Thumbie is looking for our validation, just like soapbox man wants attention.

 

I say the best thing to do is either ignore her, or better still, show her what love really looks like. Show her how peaceful our lives are, how loved filled they are, and that what we have is freedom to love and freedom to live loving. That's not what she has. She just has a book of judgment she wields. Leaving the question for her, "What's wrong with me?"

 

I say let her preach and see, others are not lost. She is.

[Antlerman]

I ask myself what compels this person, who doesn't speak with any knowledge of love in his heart, to shout down others with threats of hell, as opposed to appealing to love? What compels him to threaten people, even though using words like love in some bastardized version of his hellfire condemnation of others? Is he angry at life?

 

Ant ... the same thing that compels suicide bombers to fly planes into buildings ... or blow up innocent people ... blinded religious belief!

But what motivates blind religious belief? Rather, what lack motivates this? Or, what illness? Blind belief is not the motive. Something far deeper is. Some pathology.

 

Say, didn't Jesus question religious dogma?

[centauri]

...Thumbie is looking for our validation, just like soapbox man wants attention.

I'm inclined to agree.

There's also the factor of satisfaction that comes from thinking you're going to get a great big reward for serving an all-powerful deity.

 

I say the best thing to do is either ignore her, or better still, show her what love really looks like. Show her how peaceful our lives are, how loved filled they are, and that what we have is freedom to love and freedom to live loving. That's not what she has. She just has a book of judgment she wields. Leaving the question for her, "What's wrong with me?"

 

I say let her preach and see, others are not lost. She is.

If the preaching becomes too annoying I would suggest giving her one dedicated thread in the Lion's Den where she can post sermons, teachings, etc.

That way, all the stuff stays in one concentrated spot.

If people want to ignore or reply they can do so.

Personally, I've seen this tactic used by other Christians in other forums.

The goal is to beat people into submission through repetition.

The "risk" to ignoring a sermonizer is that it can create the impression that unbelievers have no response to Christian claims.

Long time members know better but new people and lurkers don't.

I think these people are the target sermonizers shoot at, especially in an ex-Christian forum.

[Antlerman]

...Thumbie is looking for our validation, just like soapbox man wants attention.

I'm inclined to agree.

There's also the factor of satisfaction that comes from thinking you're going to get a great big reward for serving an all-powerful deity.

Well yes, that too. It's a type of trying to validate herself by imagining God is proud of her; putting another notch in her Bible belt. The problem of course with this is that God is silent to her about such ego-stroking measures, so it is just her own imagination that God 'must' be proud of her. And since its her own voice back at herself, and since she's doing it because her own voice is dissatisfied with herself, she's caught in a negative feedback loop. Ever grasping at air, which propels her to preach harder and with more determination, with no rest.

 

No release. No peace.

 

I say the best thing to do is either ignore her, or better still, show her what love really looks like. Show her how peaceful our lives are, how loved filled they are, and that what we have is freedom to love and freedom to live loving. That's not what she has. She just has a book of judgment she wields. Leaving the question for her, "What's wrong with me?"

 

I say let her preach and see, others are not lost. She is.

If the preaching becomes too annoying I would suggest giving her one dedicated thread in the Lion's Den where she can post sermons, teachings, etc.

That way, all the stuff stays in one concentrated spot.

If people want to ignore or reply they can do so.

Personally, I've seen this tactic used by other Christians in other forums.

The goal is to beat people into submission through repetition.

The "risk" to ignoring a sermonizer is that it can create the impression that unbelievers have no response to Christian claims.

Long time members know better but new people and lurkers don't.

I think these people are the target sermonizers shoot at, especially in an ex-Christian forum.

Yes, we agree she is targeting the vulnerable, just like soapbox man going after the weak and vulnerable (as opposed to the meek and humble) on the street corners. I think just banning these folks has a negative as well though, as Christians are all about controlling the message, which of course is a disservice to their members personal growth. In order to allow for that freedom, you sometimes have to put up with these sorts of predators.

 

But to mitigate that, we limit it to the Lion's Den. We don't let the street-corner preachers peddle their wares in a restaurant where people are dining. Or piss folks off trying to relax at a park, or at a discussion center, or a sports event. The confinement area is the Lion's Den. They can stand on their soapboxes along the street drains and tell the world about themselves. Which is all that is, BTW.

 

As for people thinking we might not have a response... well, I suppose the value of seeing people smash her 'logic' with facts and reason is that it allows others to see how shoddy her points are. So in this sense, she serves a purpose in helping others see why Christianity fails for them. Hence, let her carry on in the Thumbi-thumper show up on her soapbox of self-righteous judgment.

[centauri]

Yes, we agree she is targeting the vulnerable, just like soapbox man going after the weak and vulnerable (as opposed to the meek and humble) on the street corners. I think just banning these folks has a negative as well though, as Christians are all about controlling the message, which of course is a disservice to their members personal growth. In order to allow for that freedom, you sometimes have to put up with these sorts of predators.

 

But to mitigate that, we limit it to the Lion's Den. We don't let the street-corner preachers peddle their wares in a restaurant where people are dining. Or piss folks off trying to relax at a park, or at a discussion center, or a sports event. The confinement area is the Lion's Den. They can stand on their soapboxes along the street drains and tell the world about themselves. Which is all that is, BTW.

I agree, limiting repeated sermonizing to the Lion's Den is probably the best approach.

If it becomes repeated over and over by the same poster it belongs in the Den.

 

As for people thinking we might not have a response... well, I suppose the value of seeing people smash her 'logic' with facts and reason is that it allows others to see how shoddy her points are. So in this sense, she serves a purpose in helping others see why Christianity fails for them. Hence, let her carry on in the Thumbi-thumper show up on her soapbox of self-righteous judgment.

Years ago, I was a lurker on a forum and I was grateful to those that took the time to confront the never ending Christian sermons.

It was a real learning experience that caused me to question what I'd been taught since childhood.

[bornagainathiest]

...Thumbie is looking for our validation, just like soapbox man wants attention.

I'm inclined to agree.

There's also the factor of satisfaction that comes from thinking you're going to get a great big reward for serving an all-powerful deity.

Well yes, that too. It's a type of trying to validate herself by imagining God is proud of her; putting another notch in her Bible belt. The problem of course with this is that God is silent to her about such ego-stroking measures, so it is just her own imagination that God 'must' be proud of her. And since its her own voice back at herself, and since she's doing it because her own voice is dissatisfied with herself, she's caught in a negative feedback loop. Ever grasping at air, which propels her to preach harder and with more determination, with no rest.

 

No release. No peace.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

You reckon that Thumbelina is trying to validate herself A-Man?

 

If so, how about this as another reason why? That is, besides the one you've outlined.

 

Thumbelina, 03/23/2010.

"I started to respond to you the other day for I did start to get a little emotional cuz of what you wrote but I thought I was in trouble

already for writing too much and believe it or not, I am an incredibly shy person. As a matter a fact Shyone's name would have

been suited to my personality. Speaking of Shyone, I wanted to ask him if he's shy and my mischievous side wanted to tease him cuz of something he asked me in another thread but I didn't do it cuz I was too shy."

 

If she really is such an incredibly shy person, could the bold and mischievous internet persona we know as Thumbelina be some kind of mask or shield that she hides behind? Then all of her 'activity' in this forum would be nothing more than a safe substitute for real interaction in the real lives of real people - something that she's too scared to commit herself to?

 

BAA.

[Antlerman]

 

You reckon that Thumbelina is trying to validate herself A-Man?

 

If so, how about this as another reason why? That is, besides the one you've outlined.

 

Thumbelina, 03/23/2010.

"I started to respond to you the other day for I did start to get a little emotional cuz of what you wrote but I thought I was in trouble

already for writing too much and believe it or not, I am an incredibly shy person. As a matter a fact Shyone's name would have

been suited to my personality. Speaking of Shyone, I wanted to ask him if he's shy and my mischievous side wanted to tease him cuz of something he asked me in another thread but I didn't do it cuz I was too shy."

 

If she really is such an incredibly shy person, could the bold and mischievous internet persona we know as Thumbelina be some kind of mask or shield that she hides behind? Then all of her 'activity' in this forum would be nothing more than a safe substitute for real interaction in the real lives of real people - something that she's too scared to commit herself to?

 

BAA.

That is possible, but also falls into validation. She takes on some persona in order to confront feelings of deep insecurities. I have many, many times seen her as in the grips of FEAR. That is truthfully the bottom line motivation I see in all her preaching and taking on the persona of a 'saved' person, arming her self-defense with Bible verses. I've said many times her 'faith' is stretched so tight it could snap. So, her being shy, a deeply insecure person, could possibly be consistent with this.

 

I've tried many times to get her to just talk without the Bible shield, to see what is really in the heart. I don't care if she has faith in God, Jesus or whoever. If she does and it enhances her love, than power to her! I don't care. In fact I'd support her doing what makes her healthy and whole. But I simply do not hear that she is. What I do hear loud and clear is a wall of defense against the world that she feels threatened by. And all the Truth™!, the Bible says™, and all that jazz is just a wall constructed of bricks to protect her. That's truly sad to me. I would wish for everyone to know freedom, and it does not matter what her faith is.

[bornagainathiest]

Antlerman,

 

I happen to agree with Centauri on two points and I'd like to add one of my own.

 

First, Thumbelina's admitted that even if nobody responding to her posts agrees with anything she's written, she'll still stay in this forum, in the hope of influencing whoever may be lurking. So, Yes, she's definitely got one eye on the lurkers and as such she's a clear and present danger to them.

 

Second, like Centauri, I've done a fair deal of lurking on various forums and blogs. That was when I lacked the inner conviction to fully de-convert from Christianity. What I read then, as a lurker, did influence me. So, Yes again. Lurkers are vulnerable and limiting Thumbelina to just the Lion's Den seems like a prudent move to me. I concur.

 

Lastly, we seen how 'clever' Thumbelina can be and how relentless she is in her personal 'crusade'. Here I'm referring to the way she selected confidential information from the Extimony area and then used it elsewhere to further her own ends. If she's confined to the Den, what's to stop her doing something similar? She could claim that by copying something from another area and then pasting it into the Den, she hasn't written anything outside of the Den.

 

So, will her confinement also deny her access to anywhere else in this forum? For instance, I wouldn't put it past her to try and PM someone she thought was 'ripe' for the picking.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

(Yuk! Having to think like her, in order to second guess her makes me feel quite dirty! )

[bornagainathiest]

Just read your response, A-Man.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bdp]

and I can't believe you'd actually quote such a braindead asshole as 'rayskidude' as your sig.

 

Ray is a brother in Christ

 

'ray' is an asshole. quote it all you like it's still an asshole. it can be a brother and yet be an asshole, and you can recognize that and rebuke it.