A constructive discussion

[◊ Weezer ◊]

16 hours ago, RankStranger said:

 

It's been interesting to watch this play out.  I've yet to have a single Christian question my authenticity.  But you're not the first atheist/exchristian to do so.

 

Have you asked any fundamentlist if they think you are an authentic Christian?  That is the frame of mind I was trying to think in.  I guess everyone has their idea of authentic.  And I guess there is a big difference between authentic and typical. 

[RankStranger]

5 hours ago, Weezer said:

Have you asked any fundamentallist if they think you are an authentic Christian?  That is the frame of mind I was trying to think in.  I guess everyone has their idea of authentic.  And I guess there is a big difference between authentic and typical. 

 

No, I haven't asked any fundamentalists what they think about my authenticity.  I haven't asked you either.  

 

Why do you think the opinions of fundamentalists would matter to me?  Why do their opinions matter to you, in this case?

[RankStranger]

On 7/31/2023 at 8:55 AM, RankStranger said:

It's been interesting to watch this play out.  I've yet to have a single Christian question my authenticity.  But you're not the first atheist/exchristian to do so.

 

In general I'm not a fan of ideological rigidity (though I've often been guilty of it), nor people telling me what I should or shouldn't believe.  That's a big part of what drove me away from Christianity in the first place.  

 

These days though, I see no shortage of rigid thinking and belief demands in secular culture in general.  And even more so among (what remains of) the New Atheist movement.  This is a small part of what I mean when I say that ya'll are for the most part Good Christians.  In many cases better Christians than the ones in church.

 

 

Just to clarify, the point of my bolded observation isn't about my authenticity.  That's between me and God.  None of you have a say in that, nor do my favorite fundamentalists, nor any fundamentalists.  I haven't asked anybody whether they think I'm being authentic, and I don't plan to.  My actions speak for themselves, as do all of ours.

 

My point in this observation, that you've illustrated so clearly Weezer, is that Christians aren't the only pushy ideologues I deal with on a daily basis.  They're not the only busy-bodies among my friends and family.  If I was a Christian recently turned Atheist, nobody here would question me, though Christians definitely would.  And in my current Atheist-to-Christian situation, both 'sides' have behaved in much the same way... just with the roles reversed.

 

ExChristians are for the most part very good Christians, in my experience.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Dictionary.  "Authentic: of undisputed origin.  Genuine."  I rest my case.

[TABA]

1 hour ago, RankStranger said:

ExChristians are for the most part very good Christians, in my experience.

That’s not intended as a compliment, I understand.  When you were an ExChristian, not very long ago, were you a very good Christian?  Maybe you were never a real ExChristian…

[RankStranger]

9 minutes ago, TABA said:

That’s not intended as a compliment, I understand.  When you were an ExChristian, not very long ago, were you a very good Christian?  Maybe you were never a real ExChristian…

 

Yes, I was.  I have no idea what that means to God.

 

Quote

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

 

[RankStranger]

21 minutes ago, Weezer said:

Dictionary.  "Authentic: of undisputed origin.  Genuine."  I rest my case.

 

Does resting your alleged 'case' involve not answering questions?

 

Quote

Why do you think the opinions of fundamentalists would matter to me?  Why do their opinions matter to you, in this case?

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

9 hours ago, RankStranger said:

 

Does resting your alleged 'case' involve not answering questions?

 

Depends on the question.  I just don't see the point in arguing further.

[RankStranger]

I just find it weird that an exChristian wants to hold me to fundamentalist standards.  Do you reckon that's the only 'authentic' way to be a Christian?

[◊ Weezer ◊]

59 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

 

I just find it weird that an exChristian wants to hold me to fundamentalist standards. 

 

I am not trying to hold you to any standard.  i just see you calling yourself an "authentic" christian as being misleading. See the definition of authentic.  "Of undisputed origin"   It is no big deal.  It seems we simply have different opinions about what is authentic.  

[walterpthefirst]

Perhaps this kind of disagreement has cropped up before in this forum and maybe could be seeing a rerun of the same phenomenon, but with different players?

 

In the past I've taken issue with Edgarcito about certain things, pointing out that there are universal standards for the meaning of words or concepts, which we should all stick to for the sake of better communication.

 

But he reserves the right to define and understand words and concepts in his own individual way.  Which, of course, allows him to believe what he wants, regardless of any overarching standards that should apply equally to everyone.

 

And because of these disagreements many threads have not been constructive discussions.  They have been destructive ones, where neither side will yield. 

 

Ed won't yield for his own personal reasons.  I won't yield because I believe that the facts and logic underlying the words and concepts we use in language shouldn't yield to personal whims.

 

So, is this kind of stand-off happening here?

 

I hope not.

 

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[RankStranger]

9 hours ago, Weezer said:

I am not trying to hold you to any standard.  i just see you calling yourself an "authentic" christian as being misleading. See the definition of authentic.  "Of undisputed origin"   It is no big deal.  It seems we simply have different opinions about what is authentic.  

 

Misleading eh?

 

What do you think is inauthentic about my beliefs?  By what standard?  And who the fuck are you to make that call anyway, as an alleged non-believer?

[RankStranger]

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Perhaps this kind of disagreement has cropped up before in this forum and maybe could be seeing a rerun of the same phenomenon, but with different players?

 

In the past I've taken issue with Edgarcito about certain things, pointing out that there are universal standards for the meaning of words or concepts, which we should all stick to for the sake of better communication.

 

But he reserves the right to define and understand words and concepts in his own individual way.  Which, of course, allows him to believe what he wants, regardless of any overarching standards that should apply equally to everyone.

 

And because of these disagreements many threads have not been constructive discussions.  They have been destructive ones, where neither side will yield. 

 

Ed won't yield for his own personal reasons.  I won't yield because I believe that the facts and logic underlying the words and concepts we use in language shouldn't yield to personal whims.

 

So, is this kind of stand-off happening here?

 

I hope not.

 

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

Take your patronizing bullshit somewhere else.  I'm not interested.

[walterpthefirst]

I'm sorry that you feel this way, RS.

 

 

With the help of others I'm gradually coming to terms with how destructive I can be in this forum.  I still haven't found a way to manage things better, but I am beginning to recognize certain patterns, not only in my behaviour but also in the behaviours of other members.

 

I thought (perhaps wrongly) that I recognized such a pattern in this thread.  The potential for the same kind of destructive stand off that I've been all too guilty of.  Hence my comments.

 

I apologize if they were unhelpful and/or unwelcome and I'll depart now.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Hierophant]

@RankStranger how would you define an "authentic" Christian? I am not antagonizing, generally curious. Back in my Christian days, I suppose I would have generally defined fundies as at least attempting to be "real" Christians. I have a cousin who is off the deep end with Messianic Christianity, basically it is a bunch of Torah observant stuff, but Jesus' sacrifice did away with the need for temple sacrifices. I suppose she would have found good company with Peter's church. I was definitely more of a Pauline kind of Christian. Reflecting on it, I am not really sure what version of Christianity is closer to the real McCoy. We don't really know what the first movement looked like..., what would you say?

 

On a side note, you mentioned a couple of times we are good Christians as ex-Christians. I am not following your meaning there.

[pantheory]

On 7/5/2023 at 11:36 AM, Edgarcito said:

Yes, and I've got a lot to say about politics as well...lol.  Submit my application if you would.  Thx.

 

 

yeah Edgarcito, preaching religion is great in the Colosseum or Lion's den. That's what they are here for, but discussing,  preaching, or promoting party politics in general is frowned upon in all of our forum categories. We like discussions much better than arguments. Those who do so are first warned not to continue.

[RankStranger]

16 minutes ago, Hierophant said:

@RankStranger how would you define an "authentic" Christian? I am not antagonizing, generally curious. Back in my Christian days, I suppose I would have generally defined fundies as at least attempting to be "real" Christians. I have a cousin who is off the deep end with Messianic Christianity, basically it is a bunch of Torah observant stuff, but Jesus' sacrifice did away with the need for temple sacrifices. I suppose she would have found good company with Peter's church. I was definitely more of a Pauline kind of Christian. Reflecting on it, I am not really sure what version of Christianity is closer to the real McCoy. We don't really know what the first movement looked like..., what would you say?

 

On a side note, you mentioned a couple of times we are good Christians as ex-Christians. I am not following your meaning there.

 

Personally I think an authentic Christian is one who is acting in good faith.  It's not my job to assess purity or to assign salvation or damnation.  I'll leave that to God, and to folks like Weezer who think they know the mind of God.

 

I don't know if there is a Real McCoy(TM) sort of Christianity.  I don't know if there ever was.  A lot of Christians claim that mantle, and most of them are demonstrably wrong about that IMO.  Early Christian practices were all over the map, enmeshed with all sorts of older cultural practices from at lease three different continents, and none of them used The Bible at that time... because The Bible didn't exist at that time.

 

I don't claim any sort of doctrinal purity, and I don't expect that of others.  If others demand that of me, I make sure that they're sorely disappointed.  I have faith and I act in good faith.  If that's not good enough for other Christians, then we need not associate.

 

 

I mean several things when I say that X-Christians are for the most part Good Christians.  I mean that ya'll for the most part share the same moral framework, and the same culture... just having distanced yourself from parts of it.  X-Christians even act very much like Christians when it comes to judging the authenticity of recent deconverts from their religious world view.  And guys like the Professor seem to believe that they're simply better Christians than the Christians- with their high and mighty morals attempting (but failing) to hold God Himself accountable for this flawed world and also for mean words in a book written by humans.

 

Moral judgment, hypocrisy, convenient lies, evangelism, politicized faith... we Christians just have so much in common with ya'll X-Christians 

 

 

 

 

 

[RankStranger]

25 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

yeah Edgarcito, preaching religion is great in the Colosseum or Lion's den. That's what they are here for, but discussing,  preaching, or promoting party politics in general is frowned upon in all of our forum categories. We like discussions much better than arguments. Those who do so are first warned not to continue.

 

My Brother in Christ was clearly referring to political discussions in the Opine Club.  He wasn't even hinting at anything that's against the rules.

 

Not that any of this matters to moral busy-bodies on a mission.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

[◊ Krowb ◊]

following on @Hierophant's train of thought, what is the reason to adopt and then defend the label "Christian"?  Christian is such a crazy loose term, it includes Mormons, JWs, CoC, Coptic, Eastern Orthodox, Pre-Vatican II Catholics, among thousands of others.

 

You indicate you feel some kind of connection . .  . with something and you call that thing God.  Why take the extra steps and overlay "Christian" on top of it?  Is there some kind of theological or liturgical reason we're missing?  I understand it feels comfortable because that is the religion of your youth, but other than familiarity, is there is anything in your belief that could only be grafted onto Christianity as opposed to another religion or belief system?

[Edgarcito]

4 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

yeah Edgarcito, preaching religion is great in the Colosseum or Lion's den. That's what they are here for, but discussing,  preaching, or promoting party politics in general is frowned upon in all of our forum categories. We like discussions much better than arguments. Those who do so are first warned not to continue.

Was just an attempt at humor F.  They allowed me in that subforum, just haven't participated.  Too old and set to change much.  I did watch Oppenheimer the other day.... thought about you and your pursuit.  Hope all is well sir.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

9 hours ago, RankStranger said:

 

Misleading eh?

 

What do you think is inauthentic about my beliefs?  By what standard?  And who the fuck are you to make that call anyway, as an alleged non-believer?

 

I believe we are on differnt wave lengths.

 

I am NOT saying your beliefs are inauthentic!!  I am saying that attaching the word to christian is misleading.  In my thinking, with the thousands of christian beliefs, there is no such thing as an "authentic" christian.  No one has definded what that is.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

Seems like internal turmoil would be the case if we are not authentic with ourselves.....whether it be belief or non-belief.  I have always thought it a good thing for me to have stumbled upon this site......to have explored my beliefs in my younger years.  I feel authentic in settings where I know others are feigning.  Could be right, could be wrong, but authenticity would not be the issue....

[Edgarcito]

Not sure that feeling authentic helps anything with regard to the source of authentic......so there's that.  Carry on...

[TABA]

On 8/1/2023 at 11:59 PM, Weezer said:

I am not trying to hold you to any standard.  i just see you calling yourself an "authentic" christian as being misleading. See the definition of authentic.  "Of undisputed origin"   It is no big deal.  It seems we simply have different opinions about what is authentic.  

 

23 hours ago, RankStranger said:

Misleading eh?

 

What do you think is inauthentic about my beliefs?  By what standard?  And who the fuck are you to make that call anyway, as an alleged non-believer?

Do you recall saying the following just a few months ago when you were still an ex-christian?

 

You know what they say about finger-pointing.  So maybe this would be a good time to de-escalate.  Thanks.