• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A Conversation with Ruby

Christian said:
wollery wrote:
Whos authority? (or what authority?)

That depends on each atheist, I guess. We have to know the personal story to answer that question.

The common theme is that now they are free, they have been liberated, etc.

They seem to speak about a journey from slavery to freedom.
I didn't ever believe in any form of God, so I haven't been on any journey. I'm not rebelling against anything. I've never been in a prison, mental, physical or otherwise. So how do I fit into your little world view?

Furthermore, what's wrong with rebellion? What if the Founding Fathers hadn't decided to escape the religious oppression of England? What if the colonists hadn't decide to throw crates of tea into Boston harbour? What if King John hadn't been forced to sign the Magna Carta? What if the Paris mob hadn't stormed the Bastille? What if Martin Luther King had thought, "You know what, we haven't really got it too bad."? What if Nelson Mandela had just decided it wasn't worth the effort?

Okay, so the analogies aren't too good, but I hope that you get my point. Sometimes people rebel for very good reasons.
 
wollery wrote:
I didn't ever believe in any form of God, so I haven't been on any journey. I'm not rebelling against anything. I've never been in a prison, mental, physical or otherwise. So how do I fit into your little world view?

This isn't a physics axiom. Sure, there are always exceptions to the general rule. Ok, you are an exception, fine.

Furthermore, what's wrong with rebellion? What if the Founding Fathers hadn't decided to escape the religious oppression of England? What if the colonists hadn't decide to throw crates of tea into Boston harbour? What if King John hadn't been forced to sign the Magna Carta? What if the Paris mob hadn't stormed the Bastille? What if Martin Luther King had thought, "You know what, we haven't really got it too bad."? What if Nelson Mandela had just decided it wasn't worth the effort?

Okay, so the analogies aren't too good, but I hope that you get my point. Sometimes people rebel for very good reasons.


I never characterized it as good or bad. I agree, rebellion can be good.

My point was that this sentiment is a common characteristic I have seen among atheists.
 
Christian said:
Ruby wrote:
For instance, the Unitarian Universalists are not likely to make it easy for someone who is legalistic to flourish in any of their churches. While they might not censor what that person has to say, they would surely counter their remarks..open things up for debate......and re-emphasize the UU beliefs. Why would someone legalistic want to be in a UU church anyway? It would be way too liberal for them. They'd leave in disgust after only one visit.

But, isn't this the other side of the coin? Aren't UU's being legalistic about legalistic people. And how do you define legalism? Maybe we are not talking about the same thing. Could you be saying what I understand to be dogmatic?


It does seem I am talking about a different "legalism" from you. I have always heard legalism being used in terms of a church that sets up strict rules for it's members. I had also seen it described in the dictionary a similar way.

The UU org. does not have strict rules. If it did, it would not allow legalistic Christians in it's churches. You can be of any belief and attend a UU church. When I say they would re-emphasize their beliefs if someone legalitic came in and spoke up during a service, I mean that they would say how as UU's they don't hold to any creeds or religions, and yet embrace all, and how they believe in the dignity and worth and every human being, and that how they believe that religious authority is not found in a book, or a person, or an institution, but in ourselves. They would not want a newcomer thinking we agree with the legalistic ideas of the Christian. The legalistic Christian would not be banned or made to conform to the UU's belief sytem, but I don't see that they'd want to stay. Legalistic Christians want legalistic churches.

It is when the leaders and/or originators of a group/church/religion are legalistic or abusive that you have trouble. The UPCI originators and leaders were/are very legalistic. This makes the entire org. legalistic. Most of the nondenominational Charismatic churches are legalistic, and that is why most Charismatic churches are legalistic.

Maybe that is what you mean. Because I find Mr. Randi to be very legalistic and intolerant....

Wow, do you really?

Yes, I do feel that now I am truly seeing the "truth" and that I have been freed from a prison.

This is where I object. I do have trouble with that metaphore. You were not in a prison, you were free to choose. You were there voluntarily. You chose to be there those years. You were responsible, not the church leaders or members, right?

Well, naturally, I did not expect you to agree with me. For a long time, I was sort of brainwashed, too controlled to ever feel like I could choose. When you have the threat of hell hanging over your head if you do one little thing wrong, you dare not make any choices for yourself. You seek the leaders because they hear from God much better than you do. That is one thing I was taught as a Charismatic Christian. I could not even get engaged to be married without the permission of the leaders of the singles ministry. I did not think I had a choice. I was taught it was God's way. I was afraid not to do it any other way.

When I heard of others who had rejected the advice/ruling of a leader, and had left the church to do their own thing, even if they went to another church, I looked upon them as being "rebellious" and "rejecting" "authority" because that is what I had drummed into me to believe. They rejected so easily because most of them had not been in the Charismatic org. very long. I did not even realize this until later on.

You don't seem know a thing about cults or how they trap people, but forgive me if I am wrong. It just seems you would blame the people in them for being there. They are innocent pawns. I was an innocent pawn when I was sucked into the UPC. Some call it a cult, some don't. I don't think it's a cult in the exact definition of one. But it is definitely very legalisitc and abusive.

My husband and his entire family were innocent pawns of a real cult that snatched them up when my husband was just five years old. What a mess it made of his life and one of his brothers.....and his mother too. All cults come off as being something new, exciting, and more biblically accurate with a charismatic leader who exudes warmth and power and appeal.

My husband's parents were highly intelligent bible school graduates who longed for the mission field....felt a "calling" to go. They came across a Christian community that trained people to go into the mission field. They were very impressed with it. There was nothng suspicious about it. They started going to the training. They did make the choice to go there, but it was based on what seemed like a true Christian community. They were drawn into this community. There were a lot of incredible things about it. It had it's own farm and slaugther house and it's own schools. It made and sold all sorts of products that went by the name of Jollyfarmer. You can still find these products today in Canada. That is where the cult moved.

Anyhow, my husband's parents stayed at Highview (the cult) and were totally taken in by it all. My husband was raised there along with his five younger brothers. They grew up apart from each other......separated into different rooms. They weren't even allowed to stay with their parents, let alone play with each other.

I won't go into everything about it. I'd be here all day. The thing is, you can make a choice, but not be in your right mind when you make it, or be in your right mind, but get sucked into something evil.....slowly being brainwashed over time without ven realizing it, you can be under heavy influence or pressure, and I don't think that makes a person culpable for that choice.

But guess what? I came to this truth all by myself. It was not a church or church dogma that crammed this down my throat. It was my own pursuit. It was my own questioning and searching. No one preached to me. When I asked questions on here, they were answered. I was free to make up my own mind...to look into things myself.....which I did. I was not told that a whole lot of people...billions upon billions ..were going to hell...if they did not convert to Atheism or Humanism etc.

Exactly. If you are responsible for you freedom you are also responsible for your prison, not the people at the church, right?

No, very wrong. The prison was what I lived in because of years of conditioning of the mind by church dogma and church leaders. I was held there for fear if I stopped believing, I would go to hell. I didn't sit back and say, oh this sounds good, I think I'll choose to beleive it. No, it was forced upon me, because I became a Christian out of desperation, as I did not think there was any other way to escape the torment I was going through at the time. I had not been looking for a church or anything. It was sheer terror that caused me to call the UPC. I did not know they were steeped in legalism. I was too desperate to care for awhile.

It was a long process to get away from the hold of legalism. Did the church leaders support me in my quest to get away from legalism? No, they did not. Not one Christian helped me. I was preached at through the years....... and last year especially, even recently by an old friend, but the hold of that mindset had left me. Being on JREF, getting some questions answered......finally seeing the light away from the influence and preaching of Christians, I found freedom. I had help, but I made it happen. I was finally able to stand on my own feet with my own thoughts and feelings, and not worry that hell was waiting for me or billions of others, or worry that God was not pleased if I did not do things just so....as the church preached.

Oh, and now you have a new idea that replaces the old. Now, all humans, from all of history, from all time. Have and will disappear, cease to exist. This is more than billions and billions. All of us are destroyed forever. No one escapes this destruction.

Ceasing to exist and burning in a pit of fire for eternity are two different things. One is merciful and painless. One is cruel and painful. I don't know if I believe we cease exist after death anyway. How can one know unless you have died and come back to tell..........and that has never happened.

I consider myself blessed to be set free from Christian dogma. It has changed my life so much for the better. Christianity never did half of what has occured in my life since de-converting.

For sure, your attitude has changed. That makes a big difference. Someone can be in a real prison and feel the greatest joy and someone can have all the luxuries of the world and feel miserable.

Yes, I have seen both these type of cases many times. When I talk about change, I am talking about how as a Christian, I was bound in so much fear that I could not drive a lot of places. I could not go a lot of places by myself. My husband had to take me to every Doctor visit, and go with me...in the examing room that is. I could not answer the phone or make phone calls. I would not fly on airplanes. Now, I can drive all over the place. I drive and go in to all my Doc appt's by myself. I can answer the phone and make phone calls. I have even been able to fly!! To me, that is miracle!! I had not flown in years, and had sworn I would never fly again, but I flew this past November and December on a trip to New England.


Yes, life....society...comes with rules. Many of those rules I am thankful for...like speed limits....no drinking and driving........rules against crime. There are also rules to protect against discrimination. These, and many others, are good rules. Many people have fought for these rules to be out into effect.

What I am talking about is a church org that has strict rules set up dictating to it's members on how they should dress or wear their hair. This church org. does not just look down on women who have short hair, but it looks down on a woman for just trimming her hair. It is considered sin to cut your hair, period. They claim that the bible teaches this.


Have you ever worked in corporate America? Lot's of orgs. have strict dress code rules. And they consider a "sin" many of comporable things you speak about. Conduct rules are everywhere, that's not the problem.

I've never heard of any company that says women can't wear make-up, cut their hair, or wear wedding bands. I can understand some companies having a dress code such as suits and dresses only. As a manager of an Engineering department, my husband rarely needs to wear a suit, but he certainly can't go into work dressed slouchy or in jeans. I don't know anything about corporate america....but I can imagine it's suits and ties and dresses. I don't have a problem with that at all. It's a job, not a religion. It's not condemning you to hell for how you dress. You might get fired, but you won't get condemned to hell and counted lost. Besides, most people would dress like a monkey if the pay is good!!

Well, of course, I do. Why do you think I left the org? Why do you think I studied the bible after that for myself and saw right through their doctrine. I found out that the "Holy spirit baptism" was not ever referred to as salvation in the bible. All the bible referrs to it as being is "empowerment".

Then there was Matthew 3:16-17 "After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased."

I read that passage and realized that the UPC doctrine "Oneness"...which claims that Jesus was literally the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, could not be true due to the above passage. How could Jesus be in the water, and the holy spirit above, with a voice coming out of the heavens, with the claim that Jesus was the holy spirit and the Father. Could Jesus project his own voice to tell himself "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased". There were other passages too that led me away from the oneness doctrine, but the Matthew one was the clincher. No one taught these passages to me. I studied and found them myself.

It confounded me that I had never seen or realized them while I was UPC.


If you have read NT from with the eyes of a Chrisitian, I'm curious to know. Why is it that you don't find many of the NT passages excellent for life, as a philosophy of life?

Perhaps some of them are.......some UU's use the bible in this manner. My husband sees some bible passages holding good moral messages. However, I have only been beaten with the bible. Not willing, might not ever be willing, to use it for a guide. But I don't mind debating from it, or using it as a source for something in a discussion. The only book in the bible I give some merit to is the Song of solomon. Perhaps that is due to the UPC being so upset about it being included in the bible. My Pastor said he never understood why it had been included. For many years, I never dared read it. I think it's quite lovely!:D
 
Christian said:
From my relations to atheists, I have found that many like cursing a lot. (maybe is this false sense of freedom). Yet, morality was imposed on them right here on this website. I agree with this imposition. See, you are not free to curse in here. You have to follow others morality.

Forgive me, I have to comment. Although the UPC taught very much against using curse words, and so no one I ever met in the UPC used it, my close friends did incessantly call black people the "N" word, which to me, was a curse word. This upset me so much, but I was too afraid to say anything. :(

I did meet many Charismatics, and regular fundamentalist Christians who cursed......some pretty bad. It shocked me. They showed me the curse words in the old king James bible, and said it was not bad language, just a figure of speech. However, I did not entirely buy this. Although, I did think that some "curse" words were not as bad as others. I did not curse as a Christian, but yes, when I pulled away, I did curse, a sudden rush of emotion and feeling, and years of legalism, and in anger the words would come.

Yes, I've said a few "colorful metaphors" on here. But mostly, I have censored myself when it came to any really big time curse words. I have worked real hard not to come out with anything off color these days, but not because I thought a censor was in place........I have missed some goings on around here.......and I am now working in my own life to say an alternative word than a curse word when I get angry. This is easy really, I did it for a long time, so it's easy to fall back on.

I am doing this because I have a four year old and one year old and I don't want them copying me. Plus, I don't feel right cursing anyway. It's just my own inner conviction.

I also agree with the rule on here of no cursing. It would be awful and tacky if we were all cursing all over the place. It would bring the respectful level of this board down to a murky place.

I know some Athiests and agnostics in real life, and they have never cursed..............at least, not yet!
 
Christian said:
I see my prayers being answered. I am witness to this.

Ah, anecdotal evidence! Sorry, I could not resist!! :)

I am curious. When you say "Prayers answered" do you mean getting a "yes' "no" or "wait" answer? Or do you mean an actual positive event happening?

What percentage of your prayers are answered with a positive event happening, ones that you have not initiated yourself, or had a hand in?

When I was a Christian, I had about 10% of my prayers answers with an event to prove it...............and something that I did not have a hand in at all. 20% of my answered prayers were questionable due to having a hand in it. 70% of my prayers were never answered.

Now, as a non-believer, I have done a lot of "wishful thinking" or "wishful hoping".....just the sort of thing a lot of us do like "Gee, I wish I had that" or "I sure wish (fill in the blank) would happen".

About 40% of this wishing and hoping has come to pass....to actually happen, already, in the past seven months since I de-converted. 40% has come to pass by me doing something to iniate. 20% has not happened.

Things might slow down...even out, but so far, I'm getting better results than I did as a Christian. Even in the early days and weeks of being a Christian, I did not have these type of results.

Anyhow, these good results are not why I de-converted. I had no idea this would happen. It's a nice little bonus.

I had many Christian friends who wrestled over unanswered prayer. One friend I had was very dedicated to the church. She was very moral and upright. She served like crazy. She gave above the tithe. She did so much. Still, her prayers were never answered. She suffered in her life in many ways. I prayed and prayed for her...longing and hoping to see God bless her. She worked a very very hard job. She was single raising two teenage daughters. She had other troubles too. If anyone deserved help and relief, she did. I could only do so much to help.

After all these years, my friend still suffers, but she is sort of coping with it. She buries a lot of it inside. She pretends it's ok. She pretends that God has blessed her. I recently told her how my husband got a big promotion at work a couple of months ago. I know this upset her. I should be more careful what I say.

Anyhow, I know that many of my friends felt convinced that God had answered prayers, and were very comforted and excited about it. Sometimes, it is the comfort side of prayer that makes me think that it's ok. But the promise of God answering is not good, in my opinion. I have seen too many hurt, confused and beaten up people because of unanswered prayer.

It always seemed that if one prayer suddenly got answered, no matter how small, it made all the other unanswered prayers go dim for awhile. God was suddenly exclaimed to be a "prayer answering God".

I watched Christians get sick and die.....while prayer went on and on for them. I saw Christians remain in Chronic illnesses despite praying for healing over and over. I saw new strip joints being opened and heard of heavy prostition in town, as well as drug problems, despite all the heavy praying done for this city.

The biggest and most prevalent testimonies of supposed answers to prayer that I heard was when people got up in church and said that because they paid tithes faithfully, God had blessed them back, and they had been given a bonus or raise at work.

I had a problem with those testimonies, even as a Charismatic Christian. For one thing, my friend, who I mentioned above, worked very hard, paid above the tithe, and never got a bonus or benefits or insurance or anything. Her job paid well, but it was grueling work. She would be crushed when she heard these testimones. For another, I felt that those who got bonuses had to have done something good on the job to get them. I am assuming that a boss just does not hand out a bonus without a reason. A bonus or a raise is a reward for hard work.

I can't imagine how many people felt God did not love them or felt that maybe they were doing something wrong since they were not getting a bonus or raise, even though they tithed faithfully too.

Anyhow, I have rambled a bit too much. I need to go. I was really wanting to know how many of your prayers are being answered and in what way.
 
Ruby wrote:
It does seem I am talking about a different "legalism" from you. I have always heard legalism being used in terms of a church that sets up strict rules for it's members. I had also seen it described in the dictionary a similar way.

It is my understanding that legalism has nothing to how strict the rules are. There are many strict rules in different organizations and that does not make them legalist.

Legalism is the term used (and particularly in jurisprudence) in the strict INTEPRETATION of the text. It is synonymous with literalist. So someone might be called a legalist if he/she invokes the rule in it’s strictest definition. A legalist could say, that “thou shall not kill” means one can’t kill anything, including a cockroach.

from dictionary.com

strict conformity to the letter of the law rather than its spirit

The UU org. does not have strict rules.

I’m sure they do have strict rules. If they don’t, they wouldn’t function as an organization very well.

If it did, it would not allow legalistic Christians in it's churches.

Maybe, that’s not one of the rules.

You can be of any belief and attend a UU church. When I say they would re-emphasize their beliefs if someone legalitic came in and spoke up during a service, I mean that they would say how as UU's they don't hold to any creeds or religions, and yet embrace all, and how they believe in the dignity and worth and every human being, and that how they believe that religious authority is not found in a book, or a person, or an institution, but in ourselves.

Do you see how strict that sounds?

They would not want a newcomer thinking we agree with the legalistic ideas of the Christian. The legalistic Christian would not be banned or made to conform to the UU's belief sytem, but I don't see that they'd want to stay. Legalistic Christians want legalistic churches.

Your use of the word throws me off.

Maybe that is what you mean. Because I find Mr. Randi to be very legalistic and intolerant....

Wow, do you really?

Oh, yes, I had several exchanges with him. He is very much intolerant of Christians. And have you read the protocols to his million dollar challenge, they have to conform to the strictest of literary interpretation. In no way am I implying that they are not fair.

Well, naturally, I did not expect you to agree with me. For a long time, I was sort of brainwashed, too controlled to ever feel like I could choose. When you have the threat of hell hanging over your head if you do one little thing wrong, you dare not make any choices for yourself. You seek the leaders because they hear from God much better than you do. That is one thing I was taught as a Charismatic Christian. I could not even get engaged to be married without the permission of the leaders of the singles ministry. I did not think I had a choice. I was taught it was God's way. I was afraid not to do it any other way.

When I heard of others who had rejected the advice/ruling of a leader, and had left the church to do their own thing, even if they went to another church, I looked upon them as being "rebellious" and "rejecting" "authority" because that is what I had drummed into me to believe. They rejected so easily because most of them had not been in the Charismatic org. very long. I did not even realize this until later on.

You don't seem know a thing about cults or how they trap people, but forgive me if I am wrong. It just seems you would blame the people in them for being there. They are innocent pawns. I was an innocent pawn when I was sucked into the UPC. Some call it a cult, some don't. I don't think it's a cult in the exact definition of one. But it is definitely very legalisitc and abusive.

My husband and his entire family were innocent pawns of a real cult that snatched them up when my husband was just five years old. What a mess it made of his life and one of his brothers.....and his mother too. All cults come off as being something new, exciting, and more biblically accurate with a charismatic leader who exudes warmth and power and appeal.

My husband's parents were highly intelligent bible school graduates who longed for the mission field....felt a "calling" to go. They came across a Christian community that trained people to go into the mission field. They were very impressed with it. There was nothng suspicious about it. They started going to the training. They did make the choice to go there, but it was based on what seemed like a true Christian community. They were drawn into this community. There were a lot of incredible things about it. It had it's own farm and slaugther house and it's own schools. It made and sold all sorts of products that went by the name of Jollyfarmer. You can still find these products today in Canada. That is where the cult moved.

Anyhow, my husband's parents stayed at Highview (the cult) and were totally taken in by it all. My husband was raised there along with his five younger brothers. They grew up apart from each other......separated into different rooms. They weren't even allowed to stay with their parents, let alone play with each other.

I won't go into everything about it. I'd be here all day. The thing is, you can make a choice, but not be in your right mind when you make it, or be in your right mind, but get sucked into something evil.....slowly being brainwashed over time without ven realizing it, you can be under heavy influence or pressure, and I don't think that makes a person culpable for that choice.


Ok, we don’t agree. But let’s introduce some outside reference to our views. I say you are 100%, responsible, you say not.

Suppose they had asked you to commit a crime. Since you are not responsible for your actions, I would have to assume, that you would commit crimes, right?

Two possible ways you can go with that.

1. You say you would never commit crimes by the inducement of others.

If you go this way, you are accepting that you are responsible, you can make distinctions of what you will do and what you wont. The matter is settled.

2. You say you would commit crimes by the inducement of others.

If you go this route, most of the modern legal systems (if not all ) would not accept this. They would say, No, no, you are responsible for your crimes, you must pay. (remember the Charles Manson accomplices)

So, either way you go. You are responsible for your actions. This is a very important distinction to make. As a matter of fact, in the country you live in, personal responsibility is one of most important principles that guide your society. All of the rules set up in your country regarding rights and obligations have this principle as a given.

No, very wrong. The prison was what I lived in because of years of conditioning of the mind by church dogma and church leaders. I was held there for fear if I stopped believing, I would go to hell. I didn't sit back and say, oh this sounds good, I think I'll choose to beleive it. No, it was forced upon me, because I became a Christian out of desperation, as I did not think there was any other way to escape the torment I was going through at the time. I had not been looking for a church or anything. It was sheer terror that caused me to call the UPC. I did not know they were steeped in legalism. I was too desperate to care for awhile.

This argument seldom flies. (even the battered woman syndrome defense is very hard to prove, that being one of the few exceptions where personal responsibility is lifted. Another is insanity.)


It was a long process to get away from the hold of legalism. Did the church leaders support me in my quest to get away from legalism? No, they did not. Not one Christian helped me. I was preached at through the years....... and last year especially, even recently by an old friend, but the hold of that mindset had left me. Being on JREF, getting some questions answered......finally seeing the light away from the influence and preaching of Christians, I found freedom. I had help, but I made it happen. I was finally able to stand on my own feet with my own thoughts and feelings, and not worry that hell was waiting for me or billions of others, or worry that God was not pleased if I did not do things just so....as the church preached.

You admit that FINALLY your were able (by your own effort) to find freedom. (in my opinion, the freedom you always had.). You had the choice all the time, right?

Ceasing to exist and burning in a pit of fire for eternity are two different things. One is merciful and painless. One is cruel and painful. I don't know if I believe we cease exist after death anyway. How can one know unless you have died and come back to tell..........and that has never happened.

Atheists contend that after death, there is nothing. I’ve heard many people here say that if this God exists and if this is the punishment, then they wont worship such a God and prefer Hell. If this God is real and this is the punishment, you are entitled to have whatever opinion of Him you want. He gives you this right.

My opinion is that He is a loving, merciful God.

Yes, I have seen both these type of cases many times. When I talk about change, I am talking about how as a Christian, I was bound in so much fear that I could not drive a lot of places. I could not go a lot of places by myself. My husband had to take me to every Doctor visit, and go with me...in the examing room that is. I could not answer the phone or make phone calls. I would not fly on airplanes. Now, I can drive all over the place. I drive and go in to all my Doc appt's by myself. I can answer the phone and make phone calls. I have even been able to fly!! To me, that is miracle!! I had not flown in years, and had sworn I would never fly again, but I flew this past November and December on a trip to New England.

I’m confused. I don’t see a connection between the fears you describe and being a Christian. Why did Christianity cause you to fear flying of answer the phone?


I've never heard of any company that says women can't wear make-up, cut their hair, or wear wedding bands. I can understand some companies having a dress code such as suits and dresses only. As a manager of an Engineering department, my husband rarely needs to wear a suit, but he certainly can't go into work dressed slouchy or in jeans. I don't know anything about corporate america....but I can imagine it's suits and ties and dresses. I don't have a problem with that at all. It's a job, not a religion. It's not condemning you to hell for how you dress. You might get fired, but you won't get condemned to hell and counted lost. Besides, most people would dress like a monkey if the pay is good!!

My point is that every organization has rules, and many have very strict rules. The rules is not the problem.

Forgive me, I have to comment. Although the UPC taught very much against using curse words, and so no one I ever met in the UPC used it, my close friends did incessantly call black people the "N" word, which to me, was a curse word. This upset me so much, but I was too afraid to say anything.

The following of rules must come from a place of conviction, not legalism right? Not cursing but calling black people the N word, is hypocrisy. I know you agree with me on this.

I did meet many Charismatics, and regular fundamentalist Christians who cursed......some pretty bad. It shocked me. They showed me the curse words in the old king James bible, and said it was not bad language, just a figure of speech. However, I did not entirely buy this. Although, I did think that some "curse" words were not as bad as others. I did not curse as a Christian, but yes, when I pulled away, I did curse, a sudden rush of emotion and feeling, and years of legalism, and in anger the words would come.

What is right is right. Cursing is wrong, Christian or not. Why would you want to change something that is right?

Yes, I've said a few "colorful metaphors" on here. But mostly, I have censored myself when it came to any really big time curse words. I have worked real hard not to come out with anything off color these days, but not because I thought a censor was in place........I have missed some goings on around here.......and I am now working in my own life to say an alternative word than a curse word when I get angry. This is easy really, I did it for a long time, so it's easy to fall back on.

In here, you don’t have a choice, but it is good that you are censoring yourself. It amazes me that many people don’t understand why cursing is wrong.

I am doing this because I have a four year old and one year old and I don't want them copying me. Plus, I don't feel right cursing anyway. It's just my own inner conviction.

Good.

Ah, anecdotal evidence! Sorry, I could not resist!!

Ah, you are paying attention. LOL

Seriously, there are some things that happen for which there is no other kind of evidence. Testimonial evidence is suspect at best, but it is the only one I have to give in this area. And I would not ask anyone to accept it as evidence for them. I can only say it is evidence for me and for me, in this area, is sufficient.

I am curious. When you say "Prayers answered" do you mean getting a "yes' "no" or "wait" answer? Or do you mean an actual positive event happening?

I mean a positive event.

What percentage of your prayers are answered with a positive event happening, ones that you have not initiated yourself, or had a hand in?

When I was a Christian, I had about 10% of my prayers answers with an event to prove it...............and something that I did not have a hand in at all. 20% of my answered prayers were questionable due to having a hand in it. 70% of my prayers were never answered.


I see where you are coming from. The paradigm you are working with is very common. I’m surprised that you even 10% of your prayers answered.

I could think of a scenario where I would get 0% of my prayers answered. If I prayed for things that were clearly not God’s will, I would get nothing. I could ask that I return to the age of 15. I could ask for levitation powers or seeing through walls. I have none of these ability, and the world God has set up for me, clearly shows He did not intend for me to have this wishes granted.

There must be congruence between what I pray for and what God wants. Don’t judge my answer just yet. Hold on for the rest of the explanation.

Now, as a non-believer, I have done a lot of "wishful thinking" or "wishful hoping".....just the sort of thing a lot of us do like "Gee, I wish I had that" or "I sure wish (fill in the blank) would happen".

About 40% of this wishing and hoping has come to pass....to actually happen, already, in the past seven months since I de-converted. 40% has come to pass by me doing something to iniate. 20% has not happened.


This sound logical. The things you used to pray for was stuff you wanted in your life to happen, right? Now that you are doing something about the things that you want (which you should have been doing all along), you are getting results.

We don’t need to pray to God for things we can get on our own, and we can’t expect God to bend the rules He has placed on us to get those things we can get on our own.

Things might slow down...even out, but so far, I'm getting better results than I did as a Christian. Even in the early days and weeks of being a Christian, I did not have these type of results.

Anyhow, these good results are not why I de-converted. I had no idea this would happen. It's a nice little bonus.


If you are taking responsibility for your results this is a good thing.

I had many Christian friends who wrestled over unanswered prayer. One friend I had was very dedicated to the church. She was very moral and upright. She served like crazy. She gave above the tithe. She did so much. Still, her prayers were never answered. She suffered in her life in many ways. I prayed and prayed for her...longing and hoping to see God bless her. She worked a very very hard job. She was single raising two teenage daughters. She had other troubles too. If anyone deserved help and relief, she did. I could only do so much to help.

After all these years, my friend still suffers, but she is sort of coping with it. She buries a lot of it inside. She pretends it's ok. She pretends that God has blessed her. I recently told her how my husband got a big promotion at work a couple of months ago. I know this upset her. I should be more careful what I say.


This paradigm is very different from what I have learned as a Christian. Praying for material things or for a better life has absolutely no effect to an individual.

Your friend does need to pray to get a better life. She can do that on her own. If she struggling financially, that can easily be fixed in time. God has set up specific rules for the accumulation of wealth. She just need to learn and apply these rules.

Anyhow, I know that many of my friends felt convinced that God had answered prayers, and were very comforted and excited about it. Sometimes, it is the comfort side of prayer that makes me think that it's ok. But the promise of God answering is not good, in my opinion. I have seen too many hurt, confused and beaten up people because of unanswered prayer.

They should be confused and hurt. That is the consequence of ineffective prayer.

It always seemed that if one prayer suddenly got answered, no matter how small, it made all the other unanswered prayers go dim for awhile. God was suddenly exclaimed to be a "prayer answering God".

Picking and choosing the hits only proves that the laws of probability are in place.

I watched Christians get sick and die.....while prayer went on and on for them. I saw Christians remain in Chronic illnesses despite praying for healing over and over. I saw new strip joints being opened and heard of heavy prostition in town, as well as drug problems, despite all the heavy praying done for this city.

God’s will and final decisions can’t be overturned.

The biggest and most prevalent testimonies of supposed answers to prayer that I heard was when people got up in church and said that because they paid tithes faithfully, God had blessed them back, and they had been given a bonus or raise at work.

This is as swallow as can be. The problem is that there isn’t an understanding of how God has set up the system. They don’t understand how the system works. And you are a testament that the way they do it does not work.

I had a problem with those testimonies, even as a Charismatic Christian. For one thing, my friend, who I mentioned above, worked very hard, paid above the tithe, and never got a bonus or benefits or insurance or anything.

Of course, because working hard has nothing to do with the accumulation of wealth. If they were interested in making money, they didn’t need to pray, they needed to study the principles of wealth building.

Her job paid well, but it was grueling work. She would be crushed when she heard these testimones. For another, I felt that those who got bonuses had to have done something good on the job to get them. I am assuming that a boss just does not hand out a bonus without a reason. A bonus or a raise is a reward for hard work.

The type of bonus a person gets for “hard work” are miniscule. If this is her preoccupation, she could work less hard and make much more money.

I can't imagine how many people felt God did not love them or felt that maybe they were doing something wrong since they were not getting a bonus or raise, even though they tithed faithfully too.

Anyhow, I have rambled a bit too much. I need to go. I was really wanting to know how many of your prayers are being answered and in what way.


Ok. I have to first show where I’m coming from.

(you probably know all this but I will explain it anyway)

The Bible teaches that God showed his love for us in that we did not choose Him but he chose us.

Now, this choosing business means something. What did he chooses for? And this were the whole Christian life makes sense. As I said before, the central part of Christian life is service, so God has chosen us for service.

So, I believe we were put here on earth for a purpose, a mission. Each one of us has a mission. Of course, this mission will have many visions, many specifics goals and projects to accomplish, and maybe the mission will change according to time and place.

God gave us specific talents and skills. These give as evidence of our mission.

Ok. So God shows us our purpose in life, we then pursue goals or vision God puts before us. The prayers that God answers are in relation to these goals. The miracles and extraordinary feats we see come from watching how His will comes to pass. (none of the I want I corvette kind of prayers)

Let me show you where I see God. I heard and saw one of Mel Gibson’s interview. He claimed he was compelled by God to make the movie.

Everyone around told him not to do the movie. No studio would carry (distribute) his film. No one would give him financing. He has to put all the money himself.

I’m sure now that the movie is grossing more the $200 million in weeks, most everyone finds it logical that it would.

I don’t. I see the hand of God in it. I see Gibson’s prayers answered.

In my life, I see this all the time. Ministry after ministry defy the odds and spectacular things occur. People go into projects the calling of God and see the power of God in such projects.

If you were every with Christians that had visions (I don’t mean mirages or apparitions) of God for work in service, you could see prayers answered.

I’m sad that the church and congregation you speak of, you mention nothing of this. You mention a lot of behavioral codes and proselytizing, but you don’t mention service work. And I don’t mean church activities like the choir or ministries of social building amongst church members. I mean groups of people organizing projects of service.
 

Sorry to keep you waiting for a reply. I am SO busy right now...sometimes, being a homemaker can get like that. Anyhow, I am working on a response in my spare moments and hope to post it soon.

Thanks!!

Ruby:)
 
An Answer to Christian

Hello Christian. I am a good friend of Ruby and so have been kept abreast of this discussion since its beginning. Ruby has finally prevailed upon me to post to you myself.

In the combined interests of clarity and brevity, I will try to quote only enough of your post to identify the particular section(s) to which I respond and spare you the need to wade through that post all over again. I hope this will work acceptably.

Christian
Legalism is the term used (and particularly in jurisprudence) in the strict INTEPRETATION of the text. It is synonymous with literalist. So someone might be called a legalist if he/she invokes the rule in it’s strictest definition. A legalist could say, that “thou shall not kill” means one can’t kill anything, including a cockroach.

Then you provided the dictionary.com definition of legalism, viz., "strict conformity to the letter of the law rather than its spirit".

You, of course, have precisely made Ruby's point for her. Many churches set up rules to which they strictly adhere, many times even in contradiction of clear scriptural content to the contrary. Though it has become almost cliche in my experience, I cite as an example the strict official stance against the drinking of alcohol of any kind or quantity by many church denominations, local assemblies, and affiliated educational institutions. This position is held in spite of 1) Psalm 104 which attributes to the Christian God the provision of "wine which makes man's heart glad." (v 15); or 2) Jesus's making wine from water at the wedding in Cana (John 2); or 3) the apostle Paul exhorting Timothy (a pastor) to use a little wine for his health (advice remarkably consistent with today's medical research). Sure the Bible warns against the dangers of too much wine, and the NT flatly prohibits drunkeness, but to turn the prohibition against drunkeness into a prohibition against drinking at all is legalism exactly as defined by dictionary.com. And so on it goes to varying degrees with all sorts of issues.

Christian
quoting Ruby: The UU org. does not have strict rules.

I’m sure they do have strict rules. If they don’t, they wouldn’t function as an organization very well.

How can you say that? How do you know? Are you a Unitarian Universalist? Have you studied that organization or participated in their activities? You flatly contradict, without substantiation, a statement Ruby has made by first hand knowledge. Shame on you. How can you possibly expect to win her or anyone else to your side of the argument when all you say is "you're wrong"? You haven't proven a thing!



Christian
quoting Ruby: You can be of any belief and attend a UU church. ...[T]hey believe that religious authority is not found in a book, or a person, or an institution, but in ourselves.

Do you see how strict that sounds?

No, I don't. But you are clearly twisting the clear meaning and intent of Ruby's statements so as to effectively redefine legalism with connotations it simply does not have in this context. That is dishonest debate. And that in spite of her further clarification, which you kindly included in your reply. Read on.

Christian
quoting Ruby: They would not want a newcomer thinking we agree with the legalistic ideas of the Christian. The legalistic Christian would not be banned or made to conform to the UU's belief sytem, but I don't see that they'd want to stay. Legalistic Christians want legalistic churches.

Your use of the word throws me off.

Come on, Christian! You are smarter than that! Are you trying merely to silence Ruby, or do you wish to really convince her of the righteousness of your view and the error of hers? (In the evangelical spirit of NT Christianity, I assume you would believe God would have none perish in error, but all come to eternal life through knowledge of the true truth. Perhaps my assumption is wrong.) Playing the dumb/confused card is one of your frequently used tactics, evidently intended to confuse your opponent in the debate.


Christian
Oh, yes, I had several exchanges with him [James Randi]. He is very much intolerant of Christians.

I would not be surprised if this claim were true as you interpret intolerance of Christians. In my experience there are few Christians who know how, and perhaps fewer who are willing, to honestly, rigorously, and thoughtfully present an argument for anything. James Randi has spent years exposing weak, sloppy thinking, religious charletans, frauds, and other such ilk. He can hardly be expected to look favorably on the feeble, emotional, and frequently fear-mongering presentations of so-called Christians.

Christian
Suppose they had asked you to commit a crime. Since you are not responsible for your actions, I would have to assume, that you would commit crimes, right?

Two possible ways you can go with that.

This examply is a case of the common either-or fallicy, and makes no allowance for the shades in between. Besides, the example of crime is far from the only example one could use. Among the many other possibilities are the choices of where to work, where to live, where to send one's children to school, or where to go on vacation. There are few, if any, laws against the greater part of the spectrum of options these choices present. Yet many of these very decisions slowly, by degrees, come under first the influence and then the control of both unscrupulous and well-meaning leaders. True enough, at first at least, control is ceded and authority given and/or accepted by exercise of personal responsibility. But in the end, the person becomes controlled and truly loses the ability to make their own choices. I know this; I've lived it. I am glad to be able to say I was taken out of that environment.

Christian
[You admit that FINALLY your were able (by your own effort) to find freedom. (in my opinion, the freedom you always had.). You had the choice all the time, right?

Technically, yes, you might say that. But I ask you, what good or use is having a choice if you a) don't know you have it, or b) don't have any idea how to exercise that choice? Between these two conditions and really not having a choice there is no functional difference, unless (and this is key) some outside agent acts to reveal that a choice does exist and further, how to exercise that choice.

So the mindset fostered and promoted, explicitly or implicitly, by the Christian church in Ruby's experience nurtured the "no choice" option for all practical purposes. It may have been a misrepresentation based on misunderstanding of Christian truth, but it a) required leaving the church in order to perceive the deception or misunderstanding, and b) leaves another vacancy of understanding as to how to reintegrate the newly found (if long existing) freedom(s) with a "correct" view of Christianity.

It was Christianity which seemed heretofore to have been responsible for denying or preventing the discovering of that freedom. My opinion is that if this clarity of reintegration does exist, you have yet to effectively demonstrate that it does. If you believe that it does, I challenge you to get on and show it.

Christian
My opinion is that He is a loving, merciful God.

So now we know your opinion. So what?! What evidence, what proof, what reason can you proffer to convince Ruby, or anyone else, that your opinion is better or more valid that anyone else's?

Christian
I’m confused. I don’t see a connection between the fears you describe and being a Christian. Why did Christianity cause you to fear flying of answer the phone?

Of course Christianity didn't cause the fears, but it didn't resolve them either. Neither its proclaimed means of dealing with them (prayer and confession, to name two) nor its proscriptions against the fear ("...but the fearful and unbelieving...shall have their part in the lake of fire..." Rev 21:8) did anything to ameliorate the fear. However, by getting away from all the "shoulds", it became possible to face the fears head on and begin to overcome them.

It's useless to argue that this is a case where God's answer was that the suffering was for some higher purpose or other nonsense like that. Every time that someone came to Jesus for healing during his human incarnation, He healed that person. And the Bible is simply bursting with references to God being our healer for physical as well as spiritual ills. And since the medical knowledge now exists to effectively deal with many if not all of my wife's afflictions, how could it possibly make sense for God to prevent us from exposure to that knowledge. That's not Jehovah's Witnesses denying blood transfusions to save a life (which human courts have condemned), that's Jehovah Himself preventing healing.

Christian
My point is that every organization has rules, and many have very strict rules. The rules is (sic) not the problem.

No, the rules are not the problem. The problem is the inaneness of the rules, the pettiness, the commitment to rules themselves without consideration for context or motivation. Ruby effectively made this point in the portion of her post for which the above quote from you is your reply. As smart as you seem to be, you must realize that, yet you seem unwilling to admit it.

Christian
The following of rules must come from a place of conviction, not legalism right? Not cursing but calling black people the N word, is hypocrisy. I know you agree with me on this.

Christian!! Don't do this! Now you want to adopt precisely the use of legalism that Ruby has been employing all along and which you have previously tried to deny her. Now that it is convenient for your purposes, you adopt a different shade of meaning. This is intellectual dishonesty.

Christian
What is right is right. Cursing is wrong, Christian or not. Why would you want to change something that is right?

Who says cursing is wrong? Why is it wrong? Assume for the sake of argument that I don't know. I bet you can't convincingly defend why it's wrong to curse. God, and many of His key people in the Bible, cursed things and people. Anyway, very often what Christian culture has identified as cursing is in reality merely vulgarity. And there is a real difference.

Christian
Let me show you where I see God. I heard and saw one of Mel Gibson’s interview. He claimed he was compelled by God to make the movie.

Everyone around told him not to do the movie. No studio would carry (distribute) his film. No one would give him financing. He has to put all the money himself.

I’m sure now that the movie is grossing more the $200 million in weeks, most everyone finds it logical that it would.

I don’t. I see the hand of God in it. I see Gibson’s prayers answered.

So what. The same kind of compelling results can be seen in almost every case where diligent, usually passionate, people dare to risk greatly. This way of action is the stuff from which legends grow. And it is found in people all over the world regardless of religion or creed. Examples are available from business, education, military endeavors, and even the relative anonymity of thousands of individual lives. The principles work. They are universally admired, at least in the long run, with or without specific reference to the Christian God. I did not watch any interview with Gibson, but I'm certain that he would not have experienced God compelling him to make the movie if he wasn't already convinced it was a good script. Perhaps that claim was just the cover he needed to handle what he knew would be the media storm once his project became public knowledge. That's fine with me; it's just not proof that prayer is effective.

Well, that's it for now. It's 2:20 am, and I have to be at work at 7:30 am. Good night.
 
Skytalker,

You have written a lot. I'm not going to address any of it here (one exception). If you care to join me in a moderated thread then we can have a conversation. Your ad homs make it impossible for me to engage you.

Exception: When your Spanish is better than my English I'll be impressed at your correction of grammar.
 
Christian said:
Skytalker,

You have written a lot. I'm not going to address any of it here
Why not? Everything he wrote is perfectly relevant to this thread.

If you care to join me in a moderated thread then we can have a conversation. Your ad homs make it impossible for me to engage you.
What ad homs? And why a moderated thread?
 
wollery wrote:
Why not? Everything he wrote is perfectly relevant to this thread.

I agree. There is a new kind of threads being started here. And I'm completely enamorated by it. I get real protection from a moderator. I would have never been able to start the gay marriage thread without moderation. It is perfect. I don't know if I will go back to posting to unmoderated threads in any hard debate.

What ad homs? And why a moderated thread?

The ones he posted. I have usually put up with all the ones that come up from posters, but now that I don't have to, why should I?

A moderated thread has a third party calling the shots, there is a third person who is an impartial judge.

Skytalker really thinks he has scored big point and believes he coming in like the heavy weight. He is coming to supposely protect the weak from the bully.

Well, a judge can determine that I'm not the bully and will keep check on the noise, on what is just noise.
 
Ad hominem? Please!

Christian said:
Skytalker,

You have written a lot. I'm not going to address any of it here (one exception). If you care to join me in a moderated thread then we can have a conversation. Your ad homs make it impossible for me to engage you.

from www.m-w.com (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

2 entries found for ad hominem.

Main Entry: 1ad ho·mi·nem
Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

Main Entry: 2ad hominem
Function: adverb
: in an ad hominem manner (was arguing ad hominem)

Christian,

Since you charge me with arguing ad hominem, please enlighten me with any two (2) examples from my post. My contention is that you will not find any real examples.

I accused you of dishonest debate. That is a statement about your debating, not an attack on you personally.

Your response is insubstantial and cowardly, in my opinion. Did I really so utterly destroy your arguments that the only way you will contenance making a meaningful reply is to retreat behind a moderator? I stayed on topic, I have not defamed your character, I have not called you names or any such thing. I don't think so much of my own skill in reasoning and debate as to assume you could be silenced by one post.

Come on, give me a real response.

Respectfully,
Skytalker
 
Come on, give me a real response.

Oh, I see. So, if I show you the ad homs, I suppose you are going to say: Oh, yes I see. I understand now.

Or are we going to argue wherther you did or you did not? I say you did, you say I didn't so, are we really going to get anywhere?

Why would you not accept a moderator anyway. If you are right and I'm wrong, that would be more power to you, right?


Is that are real response?

Oh look out, another ad hom coming.

Your response is insubstantial and cowardly, in my opinion.
 
What's up Christian?

Christian said:
Skytalker,
You have written a lot. I'm not going to address any of it here (one exception). If you care to join me in a moderated thread then we can have a conversation. Your ad homs make it impossible for me to engage you.
Exception: When your Spanish is better than my English I'll be impressed at your correction of grammar.

wollery wrote:
Why not? Everything he wrote is perfectly relevant to this thread.

I agree. There is a new kind of threads being started here. And I'm completely enamorated by it. I get real protection from a moderator. I would have never been able to start the gay marriage thread without moderation. It is perfect. I don't know if I will go back to posting to unmoderated threads in any hard debate.

What ad homs? And why a moderated thread?

The ones he posted. I have usually put up with all the ones that come up from posters, but now that I don't have to, why should I?
A moderated thread has a third party calling the shots, there is a third person who is an impartial judge.
Skytalker really thinks he has scored big point and believes he coming in like the heavy weight. He is coming to supposely protect the weak from the bully.
Well, a judge can determine that I'm not the bully and will keep check on the noise, on what is just noise.


Christian,

I don't think you are a bully....and I have not portrayed you to Skytalker as a bully. I say this despite past history where you criticized my posts as not having hardly any intellectual reasoning in them, and saying one of my responses to a post in particular was very basic and straight forward. Plus, you refused to believe that I left Christianity for intellectual reasons even though I stated otherwise....which is just as good as calling me a liar. You have accused me of intellectual laziness and using cop-out answers.............even when I cited Fibromyalgia as effecting me sometimes in a cognitive manner.

Anyhow, yes, I was upset about those things, and had a problem with them. I felt like they were ad hom attacks. It took awhile for me to understand your reasoning on some of those statements and how they were not attacking me personally. I finally did see what you were saying. That's one reason I found it easier to debate in this thread with you after it had already started. This is not to say I accepted all your statements as not being ad hom............but I've let the others go. It's not like me to hold a grudge.

I bring it up now in light of Skytalker's post and your accusation to him of using ad hom's. Just like you were not using Ad hom's with me, he is not using them with you.

Why are you afraid all of a sudden?

I don't want this thread moderated or a new topic started and moderated. The subject that started this thread has changed, but it changed before Skytalker came on. You and I sort of went with the flow of where it was taking us. I don't mind that it has happened like that.

This is not a "Hard debate".

I have a reply to your last post almost finished. I hope you will respond to Skytalker's post. He was a Christian all his life......grew up in a religious cult, but got out when he was about fifteen. He did not "choose" to go into that cult, he was only around five when his parents joined the cult not seeing it for waht it was. He also did not "choose" to leave when he was fifteen. He was kicked out for liking a girl in the cult.

He spent a lot of his adult life in regular fundamental churches, and then went into charismatic churches. Now like me, he has de-converted. He has been interested in this forum for a long time. Your posts have really interested him. That's one reason he jumped in here. He knows me better than anyone else does.

He is my husband!

:)
 
Christian said:
Come on, give me a real response.

Oh, I see. So, if I show you the ad homs, I suppose you are going to say: Oh, yes I see. I understand now.

Or are we going to argue wherther you did or you did not? I say you did, you say I didn't so, are we really going to get anywhere?


Well, you and I went though this same thing over the things you said to me that upset me, but we still ended up in a nice debate!

Oh look out, another ad hom coming.

"Your response is insubstantial and cowardly, in my opinion."

He did not say "YOU" were insubstantial and cowardly. He said "your RESPONSE" was!

Why was is ok for you to critisize my posts with their "lack of intellectual reasoning" and saying that my response to a post was "very basic and straightforward". Plus accusing me of "intellectual laziness" and "using cop-out answers"....but not ok for anyone else to make any similar comments back? Heck, he hasn't even called you intellectually lazy or such as that.

I'm sorry this sounds cruel, I don't mean it be, but wanting to suddenly hide behind a moderator when someone new comes on this thread who has it more together intellectually than I do, does seem like a cowardly response. I am sure you are not a coward.

My husband, Skytalker, just wants you to reply to his post. Forget the alleged ad hom's....please?
 
Ruby wrote:
He is my husband!

Listen, both.

This has gotten way out of hand.

I can see how this has affected you.

This situation seems completely unreal to me. Going at it with husband and wife in a public forum about the wife is something I would not want to get involved with.

I think it is nice that your husband cares enough to join you here about this.

My personal opinion on your situation does not allow me to continue.

I had a private conversation with Loki (expressing my opinion which I thought would be kept private). He admitted he PMed you about me. I'm not sure what he told you, but I suspect it was more than what he told me he told you.

I hope you are not dissapointed by my response.

To me, coming here, is mostly for entertainment value. I don't invest much emotionally. (I forget this is not the case for others)

I don't think it is fair that I'm making you invest more than I in this situation.

If I offended you, I'm sorry. Please accept my apologies, it will never happen again.
 
Christian,

I had a private conversation with Loki (expressing my opinion which I thought would be kept private).
Which it has been.

He admitted he PMed you about me.
As a matter of courtesy, so you wouldn't feel you were being discussed "behind your back".

I'm not sure what he told you, but I suspect it was more than what he told me he told you.
You suspect incorrectly ... but that doesn't surprise me. The whole evil world's out to get the poor righteous christians, isn't it? Of course you suspect I'd lie to you, and conspire with Ruby via PM's. Oh well, think what you will....
 
Christian said:
Ruby wrote:
He is my husband!

Listen, both.

This has gotten way out of hand.

I can see how this has affected you.

This situation seems completely unreal to me. Going at it with husband and wife in a public forum about the wife is something I would not want to get involved with.

I think it is nice that your husband cares enough to join you here about this.

My personal opinion on your situation does not allow me to continue.

I had a private conversation with Loki (expressing my opinion which I thought would be kept private). He admitted he PMed you about me. I'm not sure what he told you, but I suspect it was more than what he told me he told you.

I hope you are not dissapointed by my response.

To me, coming here, is mostly for entertainment value. I don't invest much emotionally. (I forget this is not the case for others)

I don't think it is fair that I'm making you invest more than I in this situation.

If I offended you, I'm sorry. Please accept my apologies, it will never happen again.

Huh? I am totally lost here! What happened?

Loki did send me a PM, but I don't recall him ever saying anything bad or secretive about you. He certainly NEVER shared any opinion that you had about me or anyone else. I kept his PM to myself...told no one....not even Skytalker...never would have ever said a word about it to anyone. I still won't. It was private.

I am bewildered that you would ditch this debate just because my husband joined in. We used to debate together in the past and never had anyone complain........but perhaps people on JREF will react differently to that. I shall have to find that out. I can't exactly go around pretending he's not my husband. He should be free to debate in the same thread that I do if he wants. I'm sorry this bothers you.
 
Loki wrote:
Which it has been.

If you say it has, then I accept this as true.

As a matter of courtesy, so you wouldn't feel you were being discussed "behind your back".

I was being discussed behind my back. That you told me I was, does not change that.

If you had posted about me on the open forum, then it wouldn't have been behind my back.

And I suppose there was a reason why you didn't post about me in the open forum.

You suspect incorrectly ... but that doesn't surprise me. The whole evil world's out to get the poor righteous christians, isn't it? Of course you suspect I'd lie to you, and conspire with Ruby via PM's. Oh well, think what you will....

Again those prejudices. If my suspicions are wrong, then it is just me being wrong, that all.

And, who said anything about conspiring?
 
Huh? I am totally lost here! What happened?

I wasn't expecting this response.


Loki did send me a PM, but I don't recall him ever saying anything bad or secretive about you.

He told me differently.


I am bewildered that you would ditch this debate just because my husband joined in.

Really?

We used to debate together in the past and never had anyone complain........but perhaps people on JREF will react differently to that.

You used to debate about your life with other posters (he defending you)? This didn't happen here on JFEF, right?

I can't exactly go around pretending he's not my husband.

Well, your husband did.

He should be free to debate in the same thread that I do if he wants.

This is a given.

I'm sorry this bothers you.

It is more than weird to me. I think it is inappropriate. I don't want to debate your husband over you.

And believe me when I say, man I feel tempted to just go at it, but no, sorry.
 

Back
Top Bottom