Christianity Is Perverted

[bornagainathiest]

BAA, "please provide evidence"

 

You know that is a dead end question. I don't claim to be able to prove there is a God to you. I have said that many times here.

It would not even matter if I tried to explain my reasoning. You have your reasons for not believing. That's your choice. Fine, can we get beyond requiring concrete proof?

 

Remember, we could not even agree on the definition of "epicurean".

 

 

 

TheRedneckProfessor: You very close to correct. I assure you Mrs. Ironhorse would not be happy with me if I added anymore to my initial comment.

 

Now that sdelsolray has uncovered your low and underhanded ploy Ironhorse...

 

...care to actually do what I actually asked?

 

That is, to provide evidence (not proof) from outside of the Bible and your personal beliefs, that God created sex?

 

Anytime you're ready!

[bornagainathiest]

I'm sticking with sex since that topic was in the first post....

 

and a favorite subject of mine.

 

I like sex! I love having sex with my wife. I'm a happy husband

 

God created sex. I'm not complaining.

 

Sure, the Bible contains dozens of accounts of sexual misconduct and perversions. What do you expect?

The stories are about real people.

 

Well I hope you're more honest with Mrs. Ironhorse than you are with us, Ironhorse!

.

.

.

It'd be a real shame if you operate a double standard, like the televangelist's you're so critical of.

.

.

.

Honest, direct and genuine, when your wife asks you questions.

.

.

.

Dishonest, evasive and insincere with us, when we ask you questions.

[FarflungWanderer]

Remember, we could not even agree on the definition of "epicurean".

 

We couldn't agree on that because you were wrong and refused to admit it.

 

Just to restate that in case this sparks a brush fire: Epicureans believe that one should attain "pleasure", which is accrued by living as simply as possible. And that's just my layman's attempt to explain a philosophical belief.

 

It's not hedonism, I can tell you that much.

[sdelsolray]

 

Remember, we could not even agree on the definition of "epicurean".

 

We couldn't agree on that because you were wrong and refused to admit it.

 

Just to restate that in case this sparks a brush fire: Epicureans believe that one should attain "pleasure", which is accrued by living as simply as possible. And that's just my layman's attempt to explain a philosophical belief.

 

It's not hedonism, I can tell you that much.

 

Didn't Ironhorse just run away from that thread once his bare assertions were challenged?

[duderonomy]

 

 

Remember, we could not even agree on the definition of "epicurean".

 

We couldn't agree on that because you were wrong and refused to admit it.

 

Just to restate that in case this sparks a brush fire: Epicureans believe that one should attain "pleasure", which is accrued by living as simply as possible. And that's just my layman's attempt to explain a philosophical belief.

 

It's not hedonism, I can tell you that much.

 

Didn't Ironhorse just run away from that thread once his bare assertions were challenged?

 

 

Did Ironhorse ever not run away from a thread when to stay would mean discussing anything with more than a hit and run or two bumper sticker theology answer? 

 

BAA calls him out on this all the time, and it makes no difference. I don't think Ironhorse can handle real communication here. I don't know enough to say if it's his brand of Christianity or just him.

[mymistake]

 

Didn't Ironhorse just run away from that thread once his bare assertions were challenged?

 

 

 

 

Did Ironhorse ever not run away from a thread when to stay would mean discussing anything with more than a hit and run or two bumper sticker theology answer? 

 

BAA calls him out on this all the time, and it makes no difference. I don't think Ironhorse can handle real communication here. I don't know enough to say if it's his brand of Christianity or just him.

 

 

 

Yes, that is why we call him "Tin Pony".  He always runs away.  But in his mind he is a winner as long as

 

he refuses to see the truth when he is wrong. 

[duderonomy]

 

 

Didn't Ironhorse just run away from that thread once his bare assertions were challenged?

 

 

 

 

Did Ironhorse ever not run away from a thread when to stay would mean discussing anything with more than a hit and run or two bumper sticker theology answer? 

 

BAA calls him out on this all the time, and it makes no difference. I don't think Ironhorse can handle real communication here. I don't know enough to say if it's his brand of Christianity or just him.

 

 

 

Yes, that is why we call him "Tin Pony".  He always runs away.  But in his mind he is a winner as long as

 

he refuses to see the truth when he is wrong. 

 

 

Maybe he is throwing these little pieces of bread out on the water here, just so he can see how they come back to him multiplied?

 

IH has been here a while. There must be something going through his head by now that looks like thought, wouldn't you think?

[bornagainathiest]

I wonder if Mrs. Ironhorse knows what her hubby gets up to here?

 

Would she be happy with his devious conduct towards us or ashamed of it and him?

.

.

.

Sincerely Ironhorse,

 

Though I doubt you will ever admit it, I hope that you are blushing with shame as you read this.

I hope my words are heaping burning coals on your head (Romans 12 : 20) and I hope that you are cut to the heart by them. (Acts 2 : 37) 

 

 

 

 

[Firebug32]

Not sure if this applies here, but having grown up in a fundamentalist home, anything concerning sex and sexuality was considered "bad" and it was a subject that was never really talked about. When I hit my teen years, and the hormones

started firing, any kind of sexual exploration that I did I would feel ashamed of. The first time I made out with a girl, my mom caught me and sent me to counseling. Thank goodness the counselor didn't think it was a big deal. I discovered I was bi during my teen years, and of course, thats a huge no-no in the church. I'm now 35, and have finally been able to embrace that part of myself, and slowly but surely I've been coming out to very close friends, but I won't ever be able to tell my mom. I think its very unhealthy and leaves a lot of scars the way that sexuality is repressed and looked at by fundamental christians. 

[ConscientiousObjector]

Mm, I cannot express how meaningful this thread was to me. Thank you! I was a victim of a sexual assault nearly 15 years ago. Although it happened in the military, I know the pain of victim-blaming as I experienced it first hand.

 

I had been afraid to report it at first, but after a week my friends persuaded me to. I still wish I hadn't, it destroyed my career. During the trial I was made to feel as if I was the one at fault. The focus shifted to me; what I was wearing that night, how much I beer I had consumed, that I had been dancing on a table with a female friend (which of course was painted as if we were all but giving a strip-tease, when in reality we were moshing to punk rock), if I was racist (the perp was hispanic), and they even brought up my past sexual encounters (I certainly was not a saint, but up to that point, my encounters had been consentual). The case was rigged against me from the start. My superiors urged me to drop it, even going so far as to imply that women were in the military to provide a diversion for the men. I can't tell you how many times I was told to "suck it up" (military-speak for "quit whining and grow a pair"). Even the Navy councillors and psychiatrists heaped blame on me.

 

I know it was all about power for him, I was an E-4 and he an E-2, and he hated taking orders from a woman. Just the day before the incident, I had caught him burning a live gecko with a lighter (I can't stand to see a living creature being tortured). I roughly shoved him aside, put the poor animal out of its misery with my hammer, and cursed him out for wasting time when he was supposed to be working. I could tell by the look in his eyes that he had full intentions to get back at me, but I never imagined it would be like that.

 

Even after 15 years, the wounds are still fresh. He occasionally pops up in the "people you may know" list on facebook. Luckily, it is always a pic of his back tattoo, but even seeing his name is enough to make the terrible memories come flooding back.

 

Forgive me for going on so long. I haven't talked about this (in detail) in years and I am crying as I type this. Thank you all, the responses here (especially on the first page) mean so much to me. I hope this thread can help others who lived through this to know that it is NOT their fault.

[EyesOpened]

Really sorry to hear about that CO. I hope someday you can fully get past this. Horrible, just horrible.

[mymistake]

CO, I am glad that you have healed enough so that you can talk about it again.  What you describe, the way

 

you were treated by the system, that sounds like rape culture.  Punishing the victim.  I see so many parallels 

 

how that stems directly from our Roman Catholic roots.  All the shame, guilt, "sin" - it is all Christianity.  

 

 

Consent is the end all, be all, of moral sex.  There can be no moral sex without consent.  Complete consent

 

from all parties affected solves a host of moral dilemmas.  And yet Christianity fails to teach or even

 

understand this simple concept.  And look at how many things rape culture tries to substitute for consent.

 

Dancing is not consent.  An outfit isn't consent.  Trying to discourage the victim from prosecuting later on

 

is not consent.  There is no substitute for consent.  When consent does not exist noting else will make up

 

for it.

 

 

 

I hope you continue to heal and grow in strength.

[ConscientiousObjector]

Thanks EO! It was very difficult for me to share this, and I am certainly not fishing for sympathy. It is my hope that in some small way it may help someone in a similar situation. It still galls me that he did this with impugnity, but I'm even more afraid that he may do it again to someone else. It's hard not to feel guilty that I couldn't do more to prevent that possibility!

[ConscientiousObjector]

Thanks, mm, I couldn't agree more! Forgive the thread-hijacking.

[mymistake]

 It's hard not to feel guilty that I couldn't do more to prevent that possibility!

 

 

We can all learn from tragic events.  It is common sense to take measures to protect ourselves.  However

 

guilt shouldn't be part of the equation.  Guilt is something you should only feel if you did something wrong

 

and you didn't do anything wrong.  Perhaps this guilt you feel is coming from some Christian "blame the 

 

victim" game that somebody else has given you.  That is a gift you don't want.  Return to sender.

 

 

 

 

Thanks, mm, I couldn't agree more! Forgive the thread-hijacking.

 

 

Don't be ridiculous.  I consider your story to be on topic.  This happened in a setting that is saturated by

 

Christian culture and it's a perfect example of what I was talking about in the OP.

[ironhorse]

Now that sdelsolray has uncovered your low and underhanded ploy Ironhorse...

...care to actually do what I actually asked?

That is, to provide evidence (not proof) from outside of the Bible and your personal beliefs, that God created sex?

Anytime you're ready!

 

 

borngainathiest, why do you insist on using the word evidence and not proof? If you could clarify, it might help me to answer the question. Thanks.

[sdelsolray]

Now that sdelsolray has uncovered your low and underhanded ploy Ironhorse...

 

...care to actually do what I actually asked?

 

That is, to provide evidence (not proof) from outside of the Bible and your personal beliefs, that God created sex?

 

Anytime you're ready!

 

 

borngainathiest, why do you insist on using the word evidence and not proof? If you could clarify, it might help me to answer the question. Thanks.

Perhaps you should study the difference between evidence and proof.  Granted, the colloquial definitions of these words can overlap, but never completely.  However, the rigorous definitions of these words do not.  As you might expect, BAA expects a rigorous use of such words.

 

Regardless, your are still obligated (under standard rational discourse rules) to provide evidence (or "proof" if you insist that word means the same thing) that your chosen sky fairy created sex.

 

Your incessant attempts to shift the burden of conversation, the burden of proof and/or the burden of persuasion, and your typical "hey, look over there" or ignoring questions and requests (which are nothing more than two examples of your long list of passive aggressive tricks) are quite stale.

 

Do you have anything else?

[ironhorse]

sdelsoray: "Regardless, your are still obligated (under standard rational discourse rules) to provide evidence (or "proof" if you insist that word means the same thing) that your chosen sky fairy created sex."

 

 

My proof (or evidence) would be because I believe, by the complexity of this in all living things,  it strongly suggest a creator. Science cannot even answer the question. 

 

"Since hypotheses for the origins of sex are difficult to test experimentally (outside of Evolutionary computation), most current work has focused on the maintenance of sexual reproduction."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction

 

 

So, I will say this. I believe God created sex because of what I see in nature.

 

 

 

Burden Of Proof:

 

the claim that whatever has not yet been proved false must be true (or vice versa). Essentially the arguer claims that he should win by default if his opponent can't make a strong enough case.

There may be three problems here. First, the arguer claims priority, but can he back up that claim ? Second, he is impatient with ambiguity, and wants a final answer right away. And third, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

 

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#burden

[sdelsolray]

sdelsoray: "Regardless, your are still obligated (under standard rational discourse rules) to provide evidence (or "proof" if you insist that word means the same thing) that your chosen sky fairy created sex."

 

 

My proof (or evidence) would be because I believe, by the complexity of this in all living things,  it strongly suggest a creator. Science cannot even answer the question. 

 

"Since hypotheses for the origins of sex are difficult to test experimentally (outside of Evolutionary computation), most current work has focused on the maintenance of sexual reproduction."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction

 

 

So, I will say this. I believe God created sex because of what I see in nature.

 

...

 

Your personal belief based on an argument from incredulity fallacy is not evidence, or proof.  Accordingly, you have failed to back up your positive assertion, "God created sex" (your exact words).

 

Normal rational discourse rules now require you to affirmatively retract the claim, "God created sex".

 

Of course, you can do so by replacing the claim with the statement, "I believe the God I believe in created sex."  That would be an accurate statement because it is a statement of belief, not a truth claim.

 

...

Burden Of Proof:

 

the claim that whatever has not yet been proved false must be true (or vice versa). Essentially the arguer claims that he should win by default if his opponent can't make a strong enough case.

There may be three problems here. First, the arguer claims priority, but can he back up that claim ? Second, he is impatient with ambiguity, and wants a final answer right away. And third, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

 

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#burden

 

I strongly suspect you do not understand the concept of burden of proof in rational discourse.  The one who makes a positive assertion has the burden of evidence (proof) and the burden of persuasion concerning that assertion.

 

You made the positive assertion, "God created sex" and have so far failed to rationally support that claim with evidence.  Again, your mere belief is not evidence.  Your argument from incredulity is not evidence.  Your claim that science does not know the answer (which is partially correct, and partially incorrect) is not evidence.

 

You have failed your burden of proof concerning your mere assertion.  What others say or think about it is not relevant to your responsibilities here.

 

I realize you have spent nearly all of your life exposed to mere assertions, apologetics and irrational thinking.  I seems quite apparent that you are not familiar with rational thinking or rational discourse.  It will take considerable effort on your part to learn and grow in this area.

 

Isn't it about time to come out of that cave?

[mymistake]

 

My proof (or evidence) would be because I believe . . . 

 

 

 

[mymistake]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/lyzlenz/how-evangelical-churches-protect-abusers-like-josh-duggar#.omR41rYPe

 

 

But the lessons taught by 19 and Counting about women, moral authority, and submission — lessons that directly contributed to the repeat abuse and attempted cover-up of what has been referred to as Duggar’s “mistakes” — are taught in mainstream Evangelical churches across the country. And these lessons are contributing to a wider problem of perpetuating sexual violence among America’s Christian communities.

 

The Evangelical church is a closed system that values its own governance over the American judicial system. In fact, the church, structured by the laws of God, often finds itself at odds with “the laws of man.” These conflicts are reconciled through a practice referred to as church governance, where many churches espouse a system found in the Bible in Matthew 18. The offended Christian is to first approach his “brother” with the fault in private. If there is no resolution, then the offended party should approach again with witnesses. Ultimately, he should tell the church. While instances of church governance are on the decline, many mainstream pastors defend the practice. In a 2014 article, John Ortberg, influential pastor of Menlo Park Presbyterian Church, noted that church discipline can be effective if practiced correctly. But all too often church governance puts itself in between abusers and the law.

 

-emphasis is original

 

 

That is how Christianity naturally covers up abuse even when there is no specific conspiracy.  Christians

 

see it as an internal matter.  It should be taken to an elder and then handled privately until the abuser prays

 

and promises to sin no more.  Christians have been conditioned to accept that as the ideal solution.  The

 

Great Imaginary Friend is going to handle this matter in the afterlife and since the Great Imaginary Friend

 

has already forgiven so much from all of us we should forgive each other of the little things.  So all the

 

sexual misconduct gets swept under the rug.

[bornagainathiest]

Now that sdelsolray has uncovered your low and underhanded ploy Ironhorse...

 

...care to actually do what I actually asked?

 

That is, to provide evidence (not proof) from outside of the Bible and your personal beliefs, that God created sex?

 

Anytime you're ready!

 

 

borngainathiest, why do you insist on using the word evidence and not proof? If you could clarify, it might help me to answer the question. Thanks.

 

Because if you could prove what you believe Ironhorse, then you'd already have done so.

 

Then Christianity wouldn't be a faith and a belief, but a provable certainty.

 

But we both know that it isn't provable.

 

Therefore, since you cannot provide proof, I must ask you for evidence.

 

Clear now?

[bornagainathiest]

Oh and btw, Ironhorse.

 

1 Peter 3 : 15 says that you're obliged to give that evidence when asked for it!

[ConscientiousObjector]

I read an article today that detailed a recent interview with the Duggar sisters. They were claiming that they weren't truly abused because they were sleeping while it happened. So sad that the culture they live in can convince them of this nonsense! By that logic, if a man has sex with a woman he has given date-rape drugs to, it can't be considered rape because she was unaware of it occurring. Bullshit!

[bornagainathiest]

Just so that you're clear on this Ironhorse, here's how the situation between us in this thread currently stands.

 

I've provided you the help you asked for regarding my insistence on evidence for your beliefs. (As per 1 Peter 3 : 15)

You qualified your request with the proviso that my help might help you understand why I insist on evidence and not proof from you.

Therefore, I now need to know from you if my help has helped you understand why I insist on evidence and not proof.

 

So please answer the following question.

 

Has my help been sufficient for you to now understand that you are obliged (by scripture) to provide me with evidence (not proof) for your beliefs?

 

If the answer is Yes, then you are obliged to provide me with that evidence.

 

If the answer is No, then please specify how I may help you further and I will do so.

.

.

.

Eventually, by hook or by crook and no matter how long it takes... you will provide me with that evidence.

 

Or, eventually, by hook or by crook and no matter how long it takes... you will reveal that you have no evidence.