Backsliding

[wndwalkr99]

Every person on this board has faith in someone or something with no evidence or proof.

 

Okay, what is it that I believe in for no reason, with no evidence (proof is applicable to mathematics and the term is incorrect for the context so I am ignoring it)? If you can come up with something I believe in with no evidence, I'll stop believing in it. That's how a rational mind works.

[new2me]

Ok, I'll play. But I'm not interested in parsing up words or quoting the dictionary.

 

When I was a Christian, I believed that you needed as much faith to be an atheist as you did to be a Christian. Why? Because when you dial the clock back to the moments before the Big Bang, you either believe that the stuff that caused the Big Bang was just there, or you believe that God was just there. Now I understand that you need much more faith to be a Christian than to be an atheist.

 

I will probably never be able to explain how everything that exists now came from nothing. Or that it just was. However, the history of the universe since the Big Bang is quite well researched and the science behind it makes sense.

 

On the other hand, I will never be able to explain how God came from nothing, or just was. But to be a Christian, I would have to believe a lot of other things:

 

1. That God cursed all of humanity, for eternity, because one person ate a piece of fruit from a tree that he put there, knowing that the person would eat it. Even our "earthly" law system recognizes that entrapment is wrong.

2. That a male and female member of each species of animal would spontaneously arrive to march themselves onto a huge boat to live for 40 days, without attacking or even accidentally killing each other, while enough water flowed from the sky to flood the entire earth and not sink that boat. And that two of each animal species would provide sufficient biodiversity to explain the animals we see on the Earth today.

3. That Job would live a happy life with his God after God cruelly tested his faith but restored his wealth and provided him with a new family. Anyone in their right mind who lost a beloved spouse or even one child would never recover from the hole left in their life even if they were to remarry or have more children.

4. That God, as the smartest being ever imaginable, thought that the best way to reach out to all of humanity for all time would be to impregnate a human woman (so that her child could easily be mistaken for a regular human), have that guy grow up and teach for 3 years during a time that neither information nor people could flow freely throughout the world, not write anything down himself, die, bring himself back to life, show himself to only a few people on the earth, and figure that was enough information to provide to everyone whose eternal salvation depended on it.

5. That God, as the most powerful being ever imaginable, thought that the only way to reconcile his flawed creation to himself was to brutally murder a human who was his beloved son. No really, God couldn't have figured out another way? I thought he was all-powerful?

 

Seriously, I could go on and on with examples, but how many do you need?

 

OC,

 

If you haven't had to wrap your head into a pretzel to try to make sense of the contradictions and nonsense of the Bible, or to reconcile it with the pain and suffering that exists in the world now, then you just haven't thought about it enough. You have not researched your foundations adequately. There is not sufficient evidence to prove that the Bible is true or that a person fitting the description of Jesus ever existed. If your research has not shown you this, then try studying sources that actually challenge your world view.

 

I do not claim to have all of the answers. I just have faith - using definition #1 from a previous entry - that the Christian Bible God does not exist.

[midniterider]

Dear OC,

 

Aliens from the Andromeda galaxy sent a space probe to earth that landed on my back yard.

 

While I was asleep, a tiny flying monkey from the space probe entered my body through my nose and started producing tiny nanobots, which are now circulating through my blood. Every night, he clones himself into more tiny flying monkeys which fly out my butt while I am asleep and enter into more and more people's bodies to release nanobots into them. At the right moment, the Andromedans will activate the nanobots and make us their zombie slaves to facilitate their invasion of earth.

 

I do not have any evidence for this, I know it by faith, so you know that it is not an irrational belief.

 

I am glad you understand and do not think that my complete trust and confidence in our soon to be overlords' plot is irrational, because I can't understand why, but everyone else here thinks I am an idiot.

 

Your subjective analysis is a prime example of OC's understanding of faith and rationality..

[BrotherJosh]

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2012/09/dissecting-and-dismantling-rausers.html

[merck]

Did God ever repeal any of his out of date laws? Humans manage to repeal bad laws for reasons of clarity and morality - why can't God?

 

Good question. Even more telling is "Why did God make those bad laws in the first place?". After all in the OT God supposedly enforces His decrees on pain of death. The Christians cannot use "Ancient Israelites wouldn't accept it" as an excuse because God threw all kinds of death at those who rebelled. If God could have advanced their culture, given them respect for women, understanding of disease, understanding of how the world actually works then these things would have been legitimate cause to worship God. Instead the OT just put people in bondage to the Temple of Jerusalem, which was Ezra's goal when he created the OT.

 

 

Edit:

Oh and religion is rational! See?

http://www.dwasifar.com/?p=498

 

One would think that an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent, timeless being would be capable of creating a perfect and timeless law.

OrdinaryClay, last time I saw you on here, I asked you a few questions and you never answered them.

 

1. Do you believe God is moral?

2. Do you believe the law in the Bible accurately represents God's morality?

3. Do you believe that the Gospels are an accurate representation of what Jesus' did, said, and represented?

 

Yes, don't put words in my mouth. 1) Yes, 2) Yes and 3) Yes

 

 

Yes, I believe all the Old Testament laws were moral, and God's laws are just. I also believe the New Testament is a new covenant and our behavior is to change based on the New Covenant. The laws have not changed. Our behavior has. I find it hard to believe you have not heard this before so by all means just cut to the chase.

So, do you believe that the Law is still moral today? Would a slave owner in the American South in the 1800's be morally accountable if he killed on of his slaves? Is it morally permissible for me to kill my child today? Recall that the Psalmist wrote that "The Law of the Lord is perfect"(ps 19:7)

 

Further, you say that these laws are moral. A moral action is something that ought to be done. If A, B ought to be performed. If the Law is still moral, you are morally required to carry it out. If the New Covenant changes what actions are to be performed, then it changes the morality. You cannot have it both ways. Either the Law is moral or the New Covenant is moral.

 

You've fabricated a contradiction between the Old and New Testament by equivocating on a single word.. The actions one takes given a moral ought is separate from the morality else it would be called a moral "do". The context of the time period while not changing the laws does change our actions. Clearly what we are taught to do is different, but the law remains.

 

(Mat 5:17) "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

(Mat 5:18) "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

 

Jesus addressed this issue squarely. We told us how to behave but that the law was still valid.

 

"What we are taught to do is different, but the law remains" - I beg to differ!

 

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." Luke 16:17

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness" 1 Tim 3:16

"Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law." John 7:19

 

It is obvious from these 3 verses that we should keep the law. But should we, as you say, do something different? Absolutely not! Jesus commands that the law is followed, even the murdering you children part!

 

"For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death." Matthew 15:4

 

Though perhaps Jesus was more the "Do as do, not as I say" persuasion. The Perfect Law of the Lord^TM , makes it abundantly clear what actions should be performed when a couple is caught in adultery.

 

"If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death." Lev 20:10

"The hands of the witnesses must be the first in putting that person to death, and then the hands of all the people." Deut 17:7

 

So when we see Jesus in John 8, rather than carrying out what The Perfect Law of the Lord^TM explicitly says to do, he lets the woman go. If the law is perfect, why would Jesus need to deviate from it? There is no reason for a truly perfect law to be changed.

 

And, while we're on the topic of the perfect law, what is one to make of Leviticus 17:11?

"For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life."

It is the blood that makes atonement? Wait! What did the author of Hebrews say?

"It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." Hebrews 10:4

 

Impossible? Did God lie in Leviticus? Why would he say it is what makes atonement if it doesn't really cause atonement? If it really is about a contrite and repentant heart, why not say so? Why the deception?

[Astreja]

Then you have faith God did not create the earth?

 

I vastly prefer the word "confidence" to "faith"; but yes, I am quite convinced in a subjective sense that the god that you worship is fictional and that science explains planetary formation far better than any religious book in existence.

 

Religion, including the Bible, does not accurately reflect the physical world in any reliable way. It makes no testable predictions, and considerable swaths of scripture are so ludicrous (Talking Snakes™? People coming back from the dead? Já, right...) that it really doesn't take a lot of analysis to see that they belong on the "Fiction" shelf.

 

In contrast, at this very moment astronomers are watching the process of star formation. Your god is apparently superfluous to this process. And if stars can aggregate in such a manner I'm fairly certain that planets can do so, too.

atheists inevitably equivocate on what evidence is.

 

Well, I'll give you My definition: Evidence is that which stays the same no matter who's looking at it. Two people from radically different backgrounds should be able to take some materials and/or some data, do the same procedures, and obtain roughly the same results (not conclusions -- Results in the form of a derivative data set). Water of similar purity should freeze at about the same temperature, objects should fall to the ground in similar ways, cake recipes prepared the same way should turn out the same.

 

Testimonies are not evidence. Tingly feelings down the spine are not evidence. Apparently miraculous events are not evidence, although a careful analysis of the variables may reveal evidence. And written works are only evidence for the existence of the works themselves, not for their actual contents. It all comes down to what actually works consistently in the physical world, and anything beyond that is hypothesis until supported with physical data.

[Vigile]

Throw out a few random logical words and phrases. Misapply them in horrendous fashion. Pretend no one notices you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Do a little victory dance for Jesus. Go tell your friends atheists are stupid.

Atheists are inconsistent. You falsely believe faith is irrational. Why, maybe it makes you feel better. I don't know.

 

You're making a positive claim but aren't supporting it with evidence. Moreover, this is a strawman, wrapped in a red herring doing the boogaloo with a Scotsman who isn't true as they ad hoc their way around the dance floor.

[Vigile]

You falsely believe faith is irrational.

 

Faith in this context is belief in something which has no evidence. Therefore, there is no reason to believe, therefore it isn't a rational thing to do since there is no reason to do it. Get it? If English isn't your first language, perhaps we can explain further.

I prefer the dictionary. Claiming Faith is irrational requires either faith to believe or evidence.

 

 

Wow, you've proved your point and put us all in our place.

 

Well, either that, or you don't know what the hell you are talking about and you have your head firmly planted in your ass. Can't decide.

[Vigile]

You falsely believe faith is irrational.

 

Faith in this context is belief in something which has no evidence. Therefore, there is no reason to believe, therefore it isn't a rational thing to do since there is no reason to do it. Get it? If English isn't your first language, perhaps we can explain further.

I prefer the dictionary. Claiming Faith is irrational requires either faith to believe or evidence.

 

Okay then, I guess English is not your primary language.

 

What we're addressing here is definition 2. which you provided. It is belief based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

 

What is "spiritual apprehension?" It is defined in your quote, for one thing, as being not proof. Therefore, "spiritual apprehension" is something other than proof. If there is proof, no faith is needed; it is then not a belief but the recognition of a demonstrable fact. "Spiritual apprehension" is an emotional embrace of an idea, and that method of justifying belief can lead to belief in the story and authority of Jesus, Krishna, Jove, Odin or L. Ron Hubbard. In other words, with proof everyone will believe the same fact. Without proof, blind faith can be devoted to many and various things, real and imaginary. Deciding what is true by what you may think or feel independent of objective evidence is not rational.

Why does Vigile claim faith is irrational?

 

Are you daft son? He just explained why.

[Vigile]

Have you accepted faith can be complete trust in something or someone? It is irrational to believe faith is irrational. Every person on this board has faith in someone or something with no evidence or proof. We all place our trust in someone or something.

 

 

When we started this whole thing a few pages back, do you recall I warned you against equivocating? Belief in god(s), et al is not the same as trusting your chair will support your weight or that the sun will rise in the a.m. What you are doing here is taking advantage of weaknesses in the English language in order to win a debate instead of get at the truth of the matter. This is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.

[bdp]

Hi folks, I was on this forum for a couple of months in summer when I had backsliden from the Christian faith. I have since gone back to Christianity again. Why the hell would I do such a silly thing you ask I have entered the Lion's Den. I know I am in big trouble now! Kinda missed this place, but going to be strange now I am on the other side.

 

I know I'm really late on this, but I seriously could not give less of a fuck.

[raoul]

 

I know I'm really late on this, but I seriously could not give less of a fuck.

If I were still in the cult I'd scream out 'amen brother!'. But I won't. I'll simply say 'DITTO!' The behavior of people still mired in the cult is almost identical. They come along, stir up the pot, and then run away without ever really making any strong points regarding anything they blindly believe in including, of course, faith.

 

When he justified the ot with all of its nauseating and quite barbaric laws, that's when I said I didn't give a shit either any longer.

[raoul]

When the thumper claims we all have faith in someone or something I can't really argue that one EXCEPT to say, and I'll speak ONLY for myself:

1. Yes, I have alot of faith in my wife never letting me down. I also have very strong faith in being able to count on her when I need her the most.

2. Conversely, my wife and by extension, our 2 sons also have faith that they can count on me and depend on me to try to make the right decisions about our family along with being able to help them whenever and wherever I can.

3. HOWEVER, this faith we have as humans towards each other is based on YEARS of empirical observation of behavior exhibited by ALL parties. My wife and I have often joked about 'answering each other's prayers (if they would have been made) much more quickly and efficiently than anything coming from the mythical xtian god.

4. Faith in the bible and/or a god, are COMPLETELY and TOTALLY different than what I've just described above. It is totally irrational because:

a. I have NEVER had a prayer answered in my 25 futile years in the cult

b. As all of you know, there are verses in the bible in both ot and nt which are outright false, misleading, and even confusing.

c. Attempting to say the 2 types of faith (in each other vs in the bible/god/et.al.) is what is known as a false equivalency.

 

Trying to argue or even debate, intellectually, with this cultist is the same as debating a gnat...............

[ShackledNoMore]

I vastly prefer the word "confidence" to "faith"; but yes, I am quite convinced in a subjective sense that the god that you worship is fictional and that science explains planetary formation far better than any religious book in existence.

 

That's because you don't equivocate like OC does. Let's take a look at the definition OC supplied to support his contention that Vigile relies on faith:

 

I prefer the dictionary. Claiming Faith is irrational requires either faith to believe or evidence.

 

 

It seems that OC is very selective about which dictionary he prefers. This particular definition comes from the "Oxford Dictionaries" website online here. It probably would have been more helpful if the usage example Oxford provided, at least for the first definition had not been removed, so I will add it here: this restores one’s faith in politicians.

 

Even a source that is not generally recognized as reputable is not perfect, and it looks like Oxford has some problems in this particular case, since the example they provided seems a bit off with their definition.

 

Definition 1 is also different from any generally accepted use of the word that I am aware of, and every online dictionary definition I could find in the past few minutes from any other source:

 

Merriam-Webster:

 

 

1

a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty

b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

 

2

a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion

b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

 

3

: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

— on faith

 

 

: without question <took everything he said on faith>

 

Dictionary.com:

 

 

faith

   [feyth] religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4.

belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

5.

a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

 

 

Yahoo:

 

faith (fth) KEY

 

NOUN:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
    
   
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
    
   
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
    
   
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
    
   
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
    
   
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
   

Collins:

 

faith (feɪθ )

 

 

Definitions

 

 

noun

1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence
    
   
2. a specific system of religious beliefs ⇒ the Jewish faith
    
   
3. (Christianity) trust in God and in his actions and promises
    
   
4. a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason
    
   
5. complete confidence or trust in a person, remedy, etc
    
   
6. any set of firmly held principles or beliefs
    
   
7. allegiance or loyalty, as to a person or cause (esp in the phrases keep faith, break faith)
    
   
8. 
   See bad faith
    
   
9. 
   See good faith
   

exclamation

1. (archaic) indeed; really (also in the phrases by my faith, in faith)
   

Macmillin:

1. 
    
    
   1 [uncountable] strong belief in or trust of someone or something
   have faith in:
   I'm delighted to know you have such faith in me.
   lose faith in:
   The public have lost faith in what the government is doing.
   put your faith in (=decide to trust someone or something):
   Maybe we put too much faith in doctors and medicine.
   restore/destroy your faith in:
   The attack has destroyed his faith in humankind.
   blind (=unreasonable) faith:
   They seemed to accept everything he said with blind faith.
   Thesaurus entry for this meaning of faith
    
   
2. 
    
    
   2 [uncountable] belief in a god or gods
    
   Religious faith expresses itself in a variety of forms.
   faith in:
   Faith in God helped him through his illness.
   Thesaurus entry for this meaning of faith
    
   
3. 
    
    
   3 [countable] a religion
    
   people of many different faiths
   the Christian/Jewish/Muslim etc. faith:
   a person of the Jewish faith
   Thesaurus entry for this meaning of faith
   

Wordnik:

 

Wordnik lists 32 different meanings of faith from five different sources (all different from the ones I have already listed) here. Not a single one of them suggest that faith is complete trust and confidence in something with no qualifications.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

But lets use a literal reading of sense number one from your source as the definition to justify that non-believers have "faith." Then I admit it: I know by faith that the chair I am sitting in will hold me up. I know by faith that at 20 degrees C and one atmosphere pressure that vinegar and baking soda will react and generate carbon dioxide gas. And I know by faith that your god does not actually exist.

 

Are you happy now? Woop-de-fuckin-doo. The trouble is now that we're using this definition, we need to add qualifications back in, in order to make our discussion meaningful again. Now we need to differentiate evidence based faith from blind faith. I have "faith" that vinegar will react with baking soda because the evidence supports it. There is no evidence for a god. Although I cannot prove a negative, I have a positive "faith" that your particular version of god does not exist because the evidence contradicts the claims you (xians) make to describe your god.

 

Of course, maybe I don't have faith at all, since we can't really have complete trust or confidence in anything. After all, it's not completely impossible that we are living in the Matrix.

[mymistake]

A person wants to sit down. They see a chair. They move the chair back from the table an in so doing they feel the chair with their hand and hear the chair legs move across the floor. It makes a sound. At this point they could turn the chair over and inspect it as much as they wish. They could tap or push on the chair in order to test it's ability to bear weight. They could visually and physically examine each leg to ensure it is soundly connected to the chair body. They can spend as much time on this as they wish before sitting down in the chair.

 

A Christian cannot see God. They cannot touch God. They cannot hear God with their ears. They call something "hearing God" but really it's subvocalization of the mind just like a jingle getting stuck in your head. There is no way to tell the difference between that subvocalization of "God's voice" and your own imagination. God's voice isn't a sound. Christians are told by their Bible and their leaders to "never test God". Christians say we can see the results of God moving but those results look exactly like random events. Christians believe that following God is just like sitting in a chair. You have to have great faith to do either.

[Ravenstar]

semantics and sophistry

 

IF the bible were the real 'word of god', who supposedly is perfect, omniscient, etc... any arguments about it's veracity would be moot, in any language, at any time, by anyone. It would be irrefutable...and timeless— just because 'god' is perfect and timeless. It could not be anything else, nor could it be anything else but absolutely perfect, absolutely moral, and absolutely consistent.

 

Anything else than this ^^^^^^^ is fucking ridiculous. A being who could create the entire universe could be and do nothing less. That's the very definition of perfect.

 

Any argument about, 'god is mysterious', 'we aren't capable of understanding', 'it's about the CULTURE of that time', 'the new covenant'.. blah, blah, blah... is bullshit. Either god is perfect.. which means everything he ever did is perfect, or he isn't (and thus is not god). The idea that this ultimate perfect being could do (or say) anything that we would even HAVE to question is the evidence against it.

 

If it isn't self-evident and consistent, it's WRONG.

[Thackerie]

semantics and sophistry

 

IF the bible were the real 'word of god', who supposedly is perfect, omniscient, etc... any arguments about it's veracity would be moot, in any language, at any time, by anyone. It would be irrefutable...and timeless— just because 'god' is perfect and timeless. It could not be anything else, nor could it be anything else but absolutely perfect, absolutely moral, and absolutely consistent.

 

Anything else than this ^^^^^^^ is fucking ridiculous. A being who could create the entire universe could be and do nothing less. That's the very definition of perfect.

 

Any argument about, 'god is mysterious', 'we aren't capable of understanding', 'it's about the CULTURE of that time', 'the new covenant'.. blah, blah, blah... is bullshit. Either god is perfect.. which means everything he ever did is perfect, or he isn't (and thus is not god). The idea that this ultimate perfect being could do (or say) anything that we would even HAVE to question is the evidence against it.

 

If it isn't self-evident and consistent, it's WRONG.

 

Bravo! (Wishing I could "like" this post several dozen times.)

[Ouroboros]

semantics and sophistry

...

You got it.

 

Christianity is mainly a religion based on half-ass arguments containing millions of logical loop-holes. If their God really existed, we'd see the believers cleaning up the hospitals with miracle healings, fixing peoples financial problems all over America, being the light/salt/consciousness for the world without going to war and killing over oil, and we should all be able to see/feel/hear/experience God whenever we made some simple prayer request ourselves to God. Tried it hundred of times... just to check... still nothing. In a perfect universe, the Bible God is perfectly silent.

[par4dcourse]

Once again, Clay gets pages by arguing semantics.

We're well read in the dictionary now Clay, and still no one way saved. You're a lousy soldier for christ.

[Akheia]

This is a bit late, I'm sure, but why does Adam5 still have "skeptic" and the "ex-Christian" symbol on his profile? Shouldn't he need whatever tags we're using for "waffler with no clear understanding of what the fuck he's doing and even less of an idea of how to explain his actions to others"?

[blackpudd1n]

This is a bit late, I'm sure, but why does Adam5 still have "skeptic" and the "ex-Christian" symbol on his profile? Shouldn't he need whatever tags we're using for "waffler with no clear understanding of what the fuck he's doing and even less of an idea of how to explain his actions to others"?

 

Hey, A, leave him be. If you go back to page 5, you'll see something rare from a christian around here- he left to go and have a think about things. Sometimes I think we've got to get better at picking our battles around here. Some are worth a chance, and I reckon he's one of them

[Thackerie]

This is a bit late, I'm sure, but why does Adam5 still have "skeptic" and the "ex-Christian" symbol on his profile? Shouldn't he need whatever tags we're using for "waffler with no clear understanding of what the fuck he's doing and even less of an idea of how to explain his actions to others"?

 

Hey, A, leave him be. If you go back to page 5, you'll see something rare from a christian around here- he left to go and have a think about things. Sometimes I think we've got to get better at picking our battles around here. Some are worth a chance, and I reckon he's one of them

 

I'm hoping that when Adam comes back and reads all the posts since Ordinary Clay hijacked this thread he'll notice the stark contrast between the rational responses from ex-christians and the convoluted, self-serving, arrogant and nasty posts from a True Christian™ and then decide which side he wants to take accordingly.

[Akheia]

I hope you're right, BP. You're a lot nicer than I am in that respect. His OP and subsequent posts irritated the shit out of me.

 

I put OC in the same category as Jay. He's more earnest than Jay, who openly stated many times that he was in it for the lulz, but he's just as annoying and as completely lacking in reason and sense.

[centauri]

There is good evidence that God exists and Christ is who He says He is.

Well, the phrase "good evidence" is completely subjective.

If "Christ" was actually a king messiah as defined by the Hebrew scriptures, he would have sat on the throne and performed the job requirements.

Jesus didn't qualify for the throne and was never anointed king, which renders his claim rather hollow.

[blackpudd1n]

I hope you're right, BP. You're a lot nicer than I am in that respect. His OP and subsequent posts irritated the shit out of me.

 

I put OC in the same category as Jay. He's more earnest than Jay, who openly stated many times that he was in it for the lulz, but he's just as annoying and as completely lacking in reason and sense.

 

Yeah, but he earned a lot of respect from me for turning around and saying that he was going to go and have a think on what was said. That sort of honesty holds a lot of weight with me, and I applaud it.

 

It takes more courage to admit that you need to step back a bit and think. Unlike JayL, OC, and Thumby, he's actually said something worth respecting. Therefore, I think he deserves a chance. There'll always be arrogant fundies around to rip into. But I don't see any value in ripping into every christian who comes here indiscriminately. If I wanted to do that, I might as well go back to being a fundy hating on everyone who didn't ascribe to my own very narrow worldview.

 

To me, it says nothing good about us if we act in such an indiscriminate way. I'm done with the person I used to be. And if this forum becomes about attacking every christian who walks through the door regardless of where they're at, there will come a time where I just won't want to be associated with it anymore. I don't mean that to be taken as an ultimatum, either. It's just not the person I am, nor the person I want to be. I'm not convinced anymore that the indiscriminate approach I've seen over and over is even doing any of us any good. What purpose does it serve, except to keep us chained to the past?

 

All I'm saying is, have it out with the ones who just want to be jerks, and give those worth a chance a chance, and treat them with a bit of kindness until they prove otherwise.