A Conversation with Ruby
- Thread starter Christian
- Start date
-
- Tags
- conversation
espritch said:
I agree!
Looking at the big picture, we continually progress. Of course there are incidents that can be identified to the contrary.
You have a standard, which is great. I also have a standard. Thankfully are standards are basically the same, believe it or not. I think my point here is that you take individual events (terroritistic religion) as signs of regression, and I agree, but the big picture doesn't change. We are progressing, in spite of the action of a few millions.
I think you imply that the rejection of the institution of religion would be progress. If so (and I may be wrong in that implication) you ignore that it was religion that was the foundation of the abolition movements.
I don't know if you are confusing your ideal goal (what you wish) for what you see. Religion is detached from governments, at least relatively speaking, compared to hundreds of years ago. Yet religion continues to minister to spiritual needs, as well as physical needs. I had lunch a few days ago with a dentist who ministers, pro bono, to AIDS patients who can not get dental treatment from the private sector. I'm not going to let some actions paint all of religion in a negative light.
OK, at first you admit that religion played a role in enabling the rise of civilizations, and now you are saying that that rocket needs to be shed or else it will be destroyed. But your analogy is inherently ironic and flawed. Your rocket is leaving earth for somewhere else, never to return, while civilization is inherently about earth and staying on earth!
Excellent, I never really doubted that.
I don't have a problem with your arguments, but your prejudices and stereotypes. Religion isn't perfect, and neither is secular humanism. God knows secular humanists have as much difficulty in holding their behavioral standards as the religious.
What about the people blacklisted for speaking against evolutionary theory?
-Elliot
Dymanic said:
I guess I disagree with most Bible-based Christians. I think Catholicism is distinct from these branches of Christianity. Even the most evil person who has rejected Christ all of his life is redeemable if he desires it (but the reconciliation process may be indistinguishible from Hell, except for the eternity part).
I'm in the uncomfortable position here of being a Christian who does not subscribe to all of the beliefs of the people on this Rapture list I keep hearing about! It's tough to stereotype all Christians.
I'd guess that somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of Christians would agree with my belief that a person who rejects Christ on earth can be redeemed. I base this on years of discussions with Christians.
Unprovable theories are constructed to give intellectual satisfaction, science knows all about that.
Post-death, the most evil bastard can decide to believe in Christ. I wouldn't make it that simple, because that evil bastard will have to experience/understand the pain he caused others, and he may not want to go through that process.
I believe in the words actually, you just want to see it in a very narrow way (kind of like the fundies you bash).
Fair enough, and that could apply here as well.
Fair enough! That is the foundation of Christianity! We are driven by the need to subjugate our own sinful tendencies.
So people on this skeptic list, are they driven by a need to subjugate their own religious tendencies? If so, I don't think there is anything essentially wrong with that.
OK, and I don't think your opinion is inherently invalid or outrageous, in fact, I'm sure it is very often true.
How about people who speak out against drug addiction? Do they have doubts that maybe drug use is A-OK?
I take you completely at your word.
I say the exact same thing, except I believe I have to answer to God. I suspect you would say that this belief in God means that I do not, in fact, steer my beliefs.
Is it possible to not steer one's beliefs? Is it possible to be an unbaised reporter? Maybe some people are better at it than others.
I don't spend a lot of effort confirming my beliefs, but obviously I do spend effort in advocating them, or simply supplying them, on this forum. It is good exercise I think.
-Elliot
Yahweh said:
Excellent post Yahweh, and I'll get back to it later (gotta split), but briefly...
The concept of God can exist independent of the Bible. That is undeniable. Therefore, how can a faulty Bible mean God does not exist?
-Elliot
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
elliotfc said:
It would mean, that if the God of the Bible exists, then that God is faulty...
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
elliotfc said:
OK, tell us about this alternate version of god...
I have a hard time believing in something when I don't even know what it is. The bible gives a description of some supposed god. However, that description has problems, so we conclude it is not a real description of any supposed god. So you say, "well, the bible isn't really an accurate description of the 'real god.'" So what is?
Unless this god has some actual properties, it makes about as much sense to believe in it as it would to believe in a hufnagwample.
Ruby wrote:
For the record, I don't think Christians, on the whole, are crazy. I also don't think, on the whole, that they are immoral. Speaking in general terms, I think that at least 1/3 of Christians are legalistic. Some are abusive. I think that some Christians are trapped by fear. I think some Christians are harsh and condemning. I think some are backstabbers and gossips.
It is evident that you don't see the problem. Let me illustrate:
For the record, I don't think Atheists, on the whole, are crazy. I also don't think, on the whole, that they are immoral. Speaking in general terms, I think that at least 1/3 of Atheists are legalistic. Some are abusive. I think that some Atheists are trapped by fear. I think some Atheists are harsh and condemning. I think some are backstabbers and gossips.
Do you have a problem with the above statement. Even of you backtrack from your original statement, you are still not fixing the labeling thing.
Now, in my 13 years as a Christian, most of the Christians I was around, happened to be legalistic, abusive, condemning and so on. Only a few were exceptional. This was my experience. It was Hell. Not everyone shares my type of experience.
Now, this is completely different. The main reason this statement is different is because you can possible name everyone in this group. You can say Tom, Jack, Peter, Anna.... happened to be legalistic, abusive, condemning and so on. These are the people you were around.
My opinion is that they were not legalistic, abusive, condemning and so on because they were Christians. If they were it was because they as persons were.
LOL!! I never called you a bad person. What is your point in "paraphrasing" like this?
You never called me a bad person, no. You have done worse.
Every chance you get you have reminded me of you mental challenging condition, you told me to pick on someone my own size, and you make comments like these:
You are characterizing me as someone who is attacking an innocent person who, besides being physically challenged, has done nothing to provoke the attack.
When I said you were demonstrated intellectual laziness, I referred specifically to that topic. That comment has spawned this whole thing.
As I said before, I respect you, but that does not mean I will back down from a position a feel is correct.
I don't think you are a bad person. However, I am upset at your approach with me, and frustrated at your tactics to continue to make me look like I am some awful person. I can't even seem to get to get to the topic at hand...whatever that was.
I'm not using any tactics to make you look like an awful person. On the contrary, if anything, you are looking like the hero, you are getting congratulations left and right. People are giving you unconditional support and I see only cheers for you.
You are still wrong.
Yes, if I have called someone illogical, they have the right to question me, but I have not called anyone, personally, illogical. I have only talked about Christians in my past....from my life, in my experience. I have not called you illogical or any other Christian on here.
I wont be reposting but illogicall is what you definitely meant. I did not say you called me illogical.
Because you have.
am very tired now. I must rest......but i will be back, and try to respond to what I can. I was agreeable to this thread being started....but only for the purpose of being confronted about my supposed talking down of Christians.
Go back and read The Blinding Power of Fear here http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/sho...20&pagenumber=5 where I said "If you find that I "talk down about Christians constantly" and you want to question me on it, why not start a whole new topic on it?" and your reply was "ok".
That's all I agreed to concerning this thread. I was bit surprised when I came on this thread the first time and discovered you had said in your opening post "Ruby has agreed to join in and talk about her path to atheism. Ruby, what was the main reason of your "Conversion"?"
We are not communicating here. Why would I want to discuss you negative comments of Christians just for the sake of it. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. You are entitled to your opinion and your comments.
This stuff did not come in a vacuum. All along, I have said you have not shown your intellectual work. And I said you need to show it BECAUSE OF THE NEGATIVE comments about Christians.
If you had not had negative comments (regarding intellectual work of Christians) then I would not have asked you to present your work. I would not have stated that I saw very little of it.
So, the negative comments is only my evidence that my comments did not come in a vacuum and that I had the right to say you need to show your intellectual work.
It is that simple. There is nothing else.
I have no negative feelings towards you, the only thing that keeps me going in this thread is pure conviction. That is all.
I felt you had lied or tricked me......or just grossly misunderstood our discussion in the other thread. Anyhow, I have decided I'll go ahead and post my conversion story.............but that will take awhile to put together. In the meantime, I am working my way through all the stuff you have dragged up to accuse me with. I am not avoiding questions.
Listen, it took me about 15-20 minutes to pull those quotes out. It is very easy, all I had to do was use the search function (Ruby and Christians as key words). The quotes came from the first two pages. I didn't bother to look further.
I'm not accusing you, you instructed me to show you how you bashed Christians, remember?
Yah wrote:
Christian,
I cant tell you how many times I've heard the "humans are so limited in their knowledge" argument. Do you know what kind of argument this is? Its a cop-out, its a vacuous statement absent of actual reasoning.
Let's get things straight here. My comments in no way are an argument for a belief in God. You are constructing a strawman.
Have you taken the time to think through the logic?
Yes, I have.
Well, if we leave it at that, what we dont know gets smaller and smaller everyday.
You are right, but you are wrong.
You have not thought about this carefully. Let me illustrate this mathematically.
x= all the knowledge available to humans
y=knowledge=close to infinity
Let's say "x" 200 years ago= 100
So a person knowing 30 of x could know 30% of all knowledge. This is why there use to be erudites in ancient times.
Now, x=1,000,000 (social sciences, aeronatics, computer science, anthropology, physics, etc.) This is why a person specializes on a sub-set of a sub-set of a subject. e.g. Medicine-Dentist-Orthodontist.
So, a person knowing 200 of x knows much more than a person 200 years ago. That is true. But in terms of all the knowledge available, he know (percentages wise) much, much less.
Make the division 200/1,000,000.
The numbers of course are just illustrations but the idea is correct.
The implications of this, is that we have to rely heavely on others to survive. It would not be possible to check and study for ourselves everything there is to be successful.
So here my comment again.
And remember, knowledge has always been infinite. Now, if you are willing to argue that atheist are more successful than other groups. You would have to tell in what areas and show this evidence.
You would have to argue that the quality of your life is better than the quality of other groups (holding all other variables similar) based on your atheism.
For the record, I don't think Christians, on the whole, are crazy. I also don't think, on the whole, that they are immoral. Speaking in general terms, I think that at least 1/3 of Christians are legalistic. Some are abusive. I think that some Christians are trapped by fear. I think some Christians are harsh and condemning. I think some are backstabbers and gossips.
It is evident that you don't see the problem. Let me illustrate:
For the record, I don't think Atheists, on the whole, are crazy. I also don't think, on the whole, that they are immoral. Speaking in general terms, I think that at least 1/3 of Atheists are legalistic. Some are abusive. I think that some Atheists are trapped by fear. I think some Atheists are harsh and condemning. I think some are backstabbers and gossips.
Do you have a problem with the above statement. Even of you backtrack from your original statement, you are still not fixing the labeling thing.
Now, in my 13 years as a Christian, most of the Christians I was around, happened to be legalistic, abusive, condemning and so on. Only a few were exceptional. This was my experience. It was Hell. Not everyone shares my type of experience.
Now, this is completely different. The main reason this statement is different is because you can possible name everyone in this group. You can say Tom, Jack, Peter, Anna.... happened to be legalistic, abusive, condemning and so on. These are the people you were around.
My opinion is that they were not legalistic, abusive, condemning and so on because they were Christians. If they were it was because they as persons were.
LOL!! I never called you a bad person. What is your point in "paraphrasing" like this?
You never called me a bad person, no. You have done worse.
Every chance you get you have reminded me of you mental challenging condition, you told me to pick on someone my own size, and you make comments like these:
You are characterizing me as someone who is attacking an innocent person who, besides being physically challenged, has done nothing to provoke the attack.
When I said you were demonstrated intellectual laziness, I referred specifically to that topic. That comment has spawned this whole thing.
As I said before, I respect you, but that does not mean I will back down from a position a feel is correct.
I don't think you are a bad person. However, I am upset at your approach with me, and frustrated at your tactics to continue to make me look like I am some awful person. I can't even seem to get to get to the topic at hand...whatever that was.
I'm not using any tactics to make you look like an awful person. On the contrary, if anything, you are looking like the hero, you are getting congratulations left and right. People are giving you unconditional support and I see only cheers for you.
You are still wrong.
Yes, if I have called someone illogical, they have the right to question me, but I have not called anyone, personally, illogical. I have only talked about Christians in my past....from my life, in my experience. I have not called you illogical or any other Christian on here.
I wont be reposting but illogicall is what you definitely meant. I did not say you called me illogical.
I can't understand why you think this.
Because you have.
am very tired now. I must rest......but i will be back, and try to respond to what I can. I was agreeable to this thread being started....but only for the purpose of being confronted about my supposed talking down of Christians.
Go back and read The Blinding Power of Fear here http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/sho...20&pagenumber=5 where I said "If you find that I "talk down about Christians constantly" and you want to question me on it, why not start a whole new topic on it?" and your reply was "ok".
That's all I agreed to concerning this thread. I was bit surprised when I came on this thread the first time and discovered you had said in your opening post "Ruby has agreed to join in and talk about her path to atheism. Ruby, what was the main reason of your "Conversion"?"
We are not communicating here. Why would I want to discuss you negative comments of Christians just for the sake of it. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. You are entitled to your opinion and your comments.
This stuff did not come in a vacuum. All along, I have said you have not shown your intellectual work. And I said you need to show it BECAUSE OF THE NEGATIVE comments about Christians.
If you had not had negative comments (regarding intellectual work of Christians) then I would not have asked you to present your work. I would not have stated that I saw very little of it.
So, the negative comments is only my evidence that my comments did not come in a vacuum and that I had the right to say you need to show your intellectual work.
It is that simple. There is nothing else.
I have no negative feelings towards you, the only thing that keeps me going in this thread is pure conviction. That is all.
I felt you had lied or tricked me......or just grossly misunderstood our discussion in the other thread. Anyhow, I have decided I'll go ahead and post my conversion story.............but that will take awhile to put together. In the meantime, I am working my way through all the stuff you have dragged up to accuse me with. I am not avoiding questions.
Listen, it took me about 15-20 minutes to pull those quotes out. It is very easy, all I had to do was use the search function (Ruby and Christians as key words). The quotes came from the first two pages. I didn't bother to look further.
I'm not accusing you, you instructed me to show you how you bashed Christians, remember?
Yah wrote:
Christian,
I cant tell you how many times I've heard the "humans are so limited in their knowledge" argument. Do you know what kind of argument this is? Its a cop-out, its a vacuous statement absent of actual reasoning.
Let's get things straight here. My comments in no way are an argument for a belief in God. You are constructing a strawman.
Have you taken the time to think through the logic?
Yes, I have.
Well, if we leave it at that, what we dont know gets smaller and smaller everyday.
You are right, but you are wrong.
You have not thought about this carefully. Let me illustrate this mathematically.
x= all the knowledge available to humans
y=knowledge=close to infinity
Let's say "x" 200 years ago= 100
So a person knowing 30 of x could know 30% of all knowledge. This is why there use to be erudites in ancient times.
Now, x=1,000,000 (social sciences, aeronatics, computer science, anthropology, physics, etc.) This is why a person specializes on a sub-set of a sub-set of a subject. e.g. Medicine-Dentist-Orthodontist.
So, a person knowing 200 of x knows much more than a person 200 years ago. That is true. But in terms of all the knowledge available, he know (percentages wise) much, much less.
Make the division 200/1,000,000.
The numbers of course are just illustrations but the idea is correct.
The implications of this, is that we have to rely heavely on others to survive. It would not be possible to check and study for ourselves everything there is to be successful.
So here my comment again.
And remember, knowledge has always been infinite. Now, if you are willing to argue that atheist are more successful than other groups. You would have to tell in what areas and show this evidence.
You would have to argue that the quality of your life is better than the quality of other groups (holding all other variables similar) based on your atheism.
Geez Christian! Never go to a Swedenborgian church!
Thank Ed the Christian church I go to won't allow me to make the comment I'd like to make about Christian being very un-Christian and perhaps as a professed Christian acting in a intimidating and agressive manner that would be considered unproductive and hurting of others. When asked to stop picking on someone, I imagine most Christians that aren't fundie would back off. I find most Christians I like find a great deal of peace and comfort in their religion, and hope others find peace and comfort also. Also, the one thing that I enjoy about my Christian friends )non fundie) is that they hold themselves to a higher standard of behavior than they feel the rest of the world has adopted. they don't prove they are "better" by their words, they do so by their actions.
OOpppssssyyy, geez, now I wish I was a Catholic so I could go to confession....rats!
Thank Ed the Christian church I go to won't allow me to make the comment I'd like to make about Christian being very un-Christian and perhaps as a professed Christian acting in a intimidating and agressive manner that would be considered unproductive and hurting of others. When asked to stop picking on someone, I imagine most Christians that aren't fundie would back off. I find most Christians I like find a great deal of peace and comfort in their religion, and hope others find peace and comfort also. Also, the one thing that I enjoy about my Christian friends )non fundie) is that they hold themselves to a higher standard of behavior than they feel the rest of the world has adopted. they don't prove they are "better" by their words, they do so by their actions.
OOpppssssyyy, geez, now I wish I was a Catholic so I could go to confession....rats!
kittynh wrote:
Thank Ed the Christian church I go to won't allow me to make the comment I'd like to make about Christian being very un-Christian and perhaps as a professed Christian acting in a intimidating and agressive manner that would be considered unproductive and hurting of others.
You are entitled to your opinion. I don't see how I'm intimidating anyone here. If taking a stand on what I believe to be correct is agressive, I accept that. I'm not going to roll over on this one.
I have made one direct negative comment to Ruby, I believe the comment is factual.
When asked to stop picking on someone, I imagine most Christians that aren't fundie would back off.
She has not asked to stop engaging her. And when she did ask (even with a very long post, I did not respond) Later, she again engaged and suggested I begin this thread.
And as you can see, we keep having exchanges and she has even said she will put her conversion story forth.
Ah, forget it. What is the use.
Thank Ed the Christian church I go to won't allow me to make the comment I'd like to make about Christian being very un-Christian and perhaps as a professed Christian acting in a intimidating and agressive manner that would be considered unproductive and hurting of others.
You are entitled to your opinion. I don't see how I'm intimidating anyone here. If taking a stand on what I believe to be correct is agressive, I accept that. I'm not going to roll over on this one.
I have made one direct negative comment to Ruby, I believe the comment is factual.
When asked to stop picking on someone, I imagine most Christians that aren't fundie would back off.
She has not asked to stop engaging her. And when she did ask (even with a very long post, I did not respond) Later, she again engaged and suggested I begin this thread.
And as you can see, we keep having exchanges and she has even said she will put her conversion story forth.
Ah, forget it. What is the use.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
You are just all over the place Christian , and i am interested in what it is that you are trying to say, you might want to try one thought per post, that way less confusion will be present.
If Ruby says that here life is better for being an atheist, which i don't think is what she said, then she only needs to demonstrate that her life is better. She does not need to demonstrate that all atheists have better lives.
Secondly:
Ruby has made statements that in her personal experience, she has found the Xian faith to be abusive.
You are a real wonk for saying this makes her intellectualy lazy.
The burden of proof cuts BOTH WAYS , why aren't you presenting your proof that Xians are not abusive. Oh , I see, it is because you are lazy?
Don't take her comments so personaly about Xians, I am an atheist and I have morals, but every month someone comes to this VB to demonstrate that I don't have morals because I am an atheist.
Dymanic wrote:
What were you hoping to accomplish here?
Oh, that comment was directed toward the poster not my resolve in the thread.
But, that is a good question. I don't know anymore.
It started out as a defense of my factual statements, then the correctness of making those kind of statements; then, the proof that those statements were legitimate and not unwarranted attacks; then an exposition on bigotry; then I can't even remember anymore.
Dancing David wrote:
You are just all over the place Christian , and i am interested in what it is that you are trying to say, you might want to try one thought per post, that way less confusion will be present.
Man, are you right or what.
The thing is that I can't even decide what to answer.
Now, pleas pay attention to my answers, please, please.
If Ruby says that here life is better for being an atheist, which i don't think is what she said, then she only needs to demonstrate that her life is better. She does not need to demonstrate that all atheists have better lives.
I agree 100% with this statement and have from the beginning.
Secondly:
Ruby has made statements that in her personal experience, she has found the Xian faith to be abusive.
I have no problem with this either. That is 100% fair.
You are a real wonk for saying this makes her intellectualy lazy.
Here is where the miscommunication/misunderstanding or whatever is keeps popping out.
I didn't not say she deconverted because she was intellectually lazy.
She said made a specific comment and I said that THAT specific answered showed she was being intellectually lazy about that specific answer (or that the answer was a cop-out)
There is a huge difference.
The burden of proof cuts BOTH WAYS , why aren't you presenting your proof that Xians are not abusive. Oh , I see, it is because you are lazy?
I don't have to present evidence about blanket statements. Christians (or any other group or class) are not abusive, individuals regarless of group are abusive. And you see, I have to defend a point that is totally apart from my comments.
Don't take her comments so personaly about Xians, I am an atheist and I have morals, but every month someone comes to this VB to demonstrate that I don't have morals because I am an atheist.
I didn't take her comments personaly. She has the right to make all the comments she wants. I don't feel offended by them at all.
That's not my argumentation.
What were you hoping to accomplish here?
Oh, that comment was directed toward the poster not my resolve in the thread.
But, that is a good question. I don't know anymore.
It started out as a defense of my factual statements, then the correctness of making those kind of statements; then, the proof that those statements were legitimate and not unwarranted attacks; then an exposition on bigotry; then I can't even remember anymore.
Dancing David wrote:
You are just all over the place Christian , and i am interested in what it is that you are trying to say, you might want to try one thought per post, that way less confusion will be present.
Man, are you right or what.
The thing is that I can't even decide what to answer.
Now, pleas pay attention to my answers, please, please.
If Ruby says that here life is better for being an atheist, which i don't think is what she said, then she only needs to demonstrate that her life is better. She does not need to demonstrate that all atheists have better lives.
I agree 100% with this statement and have from the beginning.
Secondly:
Ruby has made statements that in her personal experience, she has found the Xian faith to be abusive.
I have no problem with this either. That is 100% fair.
You are a real wonk for saying this makes her intellectualy lazy.
Here is where the miscommunication/misunderstanding or whatever is keeps popping out.
I didn't not say she deconverted because she was intellectually lazy.
She said made a specific comment and I said that THAT specific answered showed she was being intellectually lazy about that specific answer (or that the answer was a cop-out)
There is a huge difference.
The burden of proof cuts BOTH WAYS , why aren't you presenting your proof that Xians are not abusive. Oh , I see, it is because you are lazy?
I don't have to present evidence about blanket statements. Christians (or any other group or class) are not abusive, individuals regarless of group are abusive. And you see, I have to defend a point that is totally apart from my comments.
Don't take her comments so personaly about Xians, I am an atheist and I have morals, but every month someone comes to this VB to demonstrate that I don't have morals because I am an atheist.
I didn't take her comments personaly. She has the right to make all the comments she wants. I don't feel offended by them at all.
That's not my argumentation.
Johnny Pneumatic
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 2,088
A powerful god would not deserve worship if he were not good.-Xev
And a good and powerful god would not care if its worshipped
or not.
And a good and powerful god would not care if its worshipped
or not.
bewareofdogmas said:
If worship is a form of allegiance (as I think it is), it is better to give your allegiance to God than to anyone else.
We are at war with God, so it is good to train ourselves to be on his side.
I'll see all of you people in March, I have to stay focused on other things for the next couple of weeks. You are all in my prayers.
Yours in Christ,
Elliot
Christian said:
No, I don't. Coming from a Christian, it might sound like they are trying to be careful not to say all Atheists act in negative ways. Personally, even though I am not Atheist, I would appreciate the way the Christian had stated that............especially if they said that on the whole that Atheists are not immoral.
You do not know any of these people. You did not live my life!! I've had many friends who I have seen totally changed by legalistic churches. I had a best friend, some years ago. She was a Christian.....she loved God.........she joined a legalistic charismatic church....the same one I had joined. She was a lot of fun....very relaxed, friendly and kind.
The church changed her into a harsh, condemning, narrowminded, gossiping, judgmental person. Although the church had an effect on me, I was not quite as drawn in as others. At least, I kept feeling terrible guilt and nagging doubt about certain things.
Anyhow, I had another kind, funny friend too who I have seen legalistic Charismania almost totally destroy.
I had a compassionate, down to earth, approachable Pastor who had successfully kept away from "religious thinking" and legalism for years and years despite being a Charismatic Pastor. He even preached against legalism and manipulation. He was a shock to most Pastors in this area and got many letters from upset people.....since he was on local TV (My hubby produced our services for TV). Then when certain circumstances happened, he got caught up in "signs and wonders" and suddenly took a legalistic route with his church and congregants. He wanted everyone to sign a contract-like certificate to agree to pay tithes, participate in church....going to all services, attending all functions, and being involved in ministries. Anyone who was home sick was to be scorned. In fact, he did some scorning himself.....much to my shock.
It was as if our Pastor had changed overnight...as if he was possessed...except, I did not believe in possession. He had given in to the Charismatic legalism.....and as a result, about a third of the congregation left.
The sad thing is, legalism had also done a number on me. Before I became a Christian, I was quiet, shy, gentle natured, very kind, and compassionate........and I am NOT exaggerating or bragging. That was just my personality. Then I got involved in the 1st United Pentecostal church. That was the first church that I joined. I was in my 20's. I was in a desperate state. I needed help, and they were the only ones close to me that I felt I could contact.
Anyhow, this church org. turned little me into a harsh, condemning, legalistic person who thought everyone, except truly dedicated 1st United Pentecostals, were going to Hell. I felt little to no compassion over the idea of Trinitarian Christians going to Hell......and Catholics were "Anathema" and "The whore of Babylon". (It blows my mind that they got me to think like this.......not to say how angry I have been through the years...although some of that is fading. )
I was taught that wearing make-up, jewelry, pants, shorts were worldly and a sin...so I gave it all up and went around looking down my nose at all women who wore make-up or jewery. I feel ashamed to think of it now. They basically brainwashed me.
One I got out of the UPC, I was freed from that thinking. I was no longer harsh, condemning etc.
There are cults...real cults full of basically good, kind people who have been changed by the cult to think and act differently. My husband and his family grew up in a cult. This is a tough situtation.....since the cult with it's legalistic mindset raised my husband and a couple of his younger brother's, they carry a lot with them to this day. It's harder to escape from those things that you were raised in. My husband was easily sucked in at Church on the Rock.....where we met...and where my friend went through drastic changes. But that's another story.
It does not make any sense, christian, to say that I have done worse to you than call you a bad person. I'm sorry, but I don't understand your reasoning at all. Why is it so cruel for me to tell you I have Firbromyalgia that causes some cognitive problems? I did this because you kept blasting me concerning my lack of intellectual reasoning. I felt overwhelmed and vulnerable. It takes longer for me to grasp things at times....or put my thoughts together. I was defending myself.....and being a bit too open and honest with you...apparently.
The quote, where I said "I am not your enemy" was said in kindness and with true concern. It was not meant to wound you. You seemed angry................you still do.....but I'll take your word that you are not.
I have not set out to purposely characterize you in any certain way...it's just the way things have evolved. I am not innocent. I don't think of myself as either physically or mentally challenged. At least, I don't use such terms. Besides, physically, so long as I'm not having a fibro flare-up, I am very strong and busy and work out etc. Goodness knows, I have a four year old and one year old to chase around all day!
Well, here goes more copying and pasting.
The first post I made on the thread The blinding power of fear was in reply to Pahansiri
I posted with----------------> "...What you described above was one of the very type of things that caused me to rethink my belief system. I knew, that as a parent, if I had foreknowledge of my little girl being molested, raped, or killed, I would prevent it from happening.
"God" is supposed to have this foreknowledge....omiscience, but he lets tons of little girls and boys get raped and murdered every day all over the world. How could I believe such a god as this existed? "A loving parent" is how the christian church presents god...his love is supposed to be perfect!!! "He loves us more than we love our own children"....I heard that so many times. I bought it for awhile...but then it just did not add up..it did not play out at all."
Then you responded to my above statement with "You are entitled to your opinion, of course. But, in this specific instance, you are showing a poor understanding of the Christian dogma"
And then Ruby wrote: "I lived with Christian dogma for about 13 years.......most of that was as a Charismatic Christian. I used to debate.....apologetics......on a Christian forum that I ran........so I know Christian dogma very well!!!"
Christian replied "Well, I think you don't. Furthermore, I don't think you stopped being a Christian for intellectual reasons.
From your posts, I see very little intellectual reasoning and a lot of emotional elements.
The refutation for the "the suffering in world" by non-believers is very basic and straight forward. That you come out and say this is one of the reasons you had to rethink your belief system is intellectual lazyness or a cop-out answer."
Then I said "When I left the church it was for a combination of emotional and intellectual reasons. I don't think I have ever denied that the church hurt me emotionally."
You said "Well, I'm flat out saying you haven't done it for intellectual reasons. If you are in this new path of rationality and truth. Then you should be objective and prove me wrong."
I said "My departure from church began a big search and study to grasp all the logic, reason, science, and other proof that exists to disprove Christianity.......most of this happened on here....actually, I came on here when I was still a Christian."
You said "I have read many of your posts and in them you show very little intellectual work regarding logic, reason, science and other. This is a fact that I'm pointing out to you."
All the above quotes by you seem to say that you were talking about my "intellectual laziness" in a much broader sense than just in relation to the thread we were on.
I wish I could say that I feel that respect, but I don't.
I am very thankful for the support. I love everyone here. They are like family. They have helped me so much. I've been through hell.
Saying I am wrong is just your opinion............and I know it makes you feel better. The funny thing is, I don't even know what it is I am "wrong" about anyway.
Now that sounds very much like what my four year old might say.
No, we are not communicating. I keep reminding you why this thread was started and you keep side stepping about it. Yes, I know I am entitled to my opinons and comments....so what?
Yes, I know you have said I have not shown my intellectual work.....heck, I just proved it to you myself above. I don't have the slightest clue what you are all about. I don't need to show you anything. I will show my testimony at my leisure.
Now, if you want to ask specific questions about my "supposed" talking down of christians, go ahead, since that is why this thread was created.
Schizobunny
Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2003
- Messages
- 126
elliotfc said:
Well the argument is valid becauseif god told these people what to write then it should be perfect seen as god is supposedly without fallicy or contradiction.
Ruby wrote:
No, I don't. Coming from a Christian, it might sound like they are trying to be careful not to say all Atheists act in negative ways. Personally, even though I am not Atheist, I would appreciate the way the Christian had stated that............especially if they said that on the whole that Atheists are not immoral.
Maybe I should have used a more evident example. I don't know if you are aware of the test to see if a statement shows prejudice (intolerance, bigotry). The test is very simple. If you stick any group in the statement made and the statement keeps its meaning in tact, then it is bigoted statement.
Let me show you.
For the record, I don't think Mexicans, on the whole, are crazy. I also don't think, on the whole, that they are immoral. Speaking in general terms, I think that at least 1/3 of Mexicans are legalistic. Some are abusive. I think that some Mexicans are trapped by fear. I think some Mexicans are harsh and condemning. I think some are backstabbers and gossips.
or
For the record, I don't think Jews, on the whole, are crazy. I also don't think, on the whole, that they are immoral. Speaking in general terms, I think that at least 1/3 of Jewish are legalistic. Some are abusive. I think that some Jews are trapped by fear. I think some Jews are harsh and condemning. I think some are backstabbers and gossips.
I promise you, I don't want to offend you. I'm not implying or suggesting you are a bigot or any similar. I don't think you are. But the statement is, that is a fact.
I will explain where I think the problem is Ruby. If you let me explain, I will come from rational place, free from negative emotions.
You do not know any of these people. You did not live my life!!
Good. This is exactly what this thread is about (should be about).
You are talking about causation. You are saying that Christianity causes people to be legalistic, abusive, condemning, etc. and you are offering anecdotal evidence to support your claim.
As you are well aware, anecdotal evidence is suspect at best. If I told you, you should believe in God because I have seen Him, (or if millions of people gave sworn testimony that they have seen Him) would you believe in God simply because of my or their testimony? Of course not.
I can think of lots of reasons why you have this perception. Maybe you hung out only with people engaging in this behavior. Maybe you focused a lot on this types of behavior. Maybe you attracted the type of people in situations that elicit this behavior. All of these are just possibilities, I have no idea.
What I do know is that there is no body of evidence that Christianity causes these behaviors. Surely, it is not the teachings in the Bible.
The sad thing is, legalism had also done a number on me. Before I became a Christian, I was quiet, shy, gentle natured, very kind, and compassionate........and I am NOT exaggerating or bragging. That was just my personality. Then I got involved in the 1st United Pentecostal church. That was the first church that I joined. I was in my 20's. I was in a desperate state. I needed help, and they were the only ones close to me that I felt I could contact.
Anyhow, this church org. turned little me into a harsh, condemning, legalistic person who thought everyone, except truly dedicated 1st United Pentecostals, were going to Hell. I felt little to no compassion over the idea of Trinitarian Christians going to Hell......and Catholics were "Anathema" and "The whore of Babylon". (It blows my mind that they got me to think like this.......not to say how angry I have been through the years...although some of that is fading. )
I was taught that wearing make-up, jewelry, pants, shorts were worldly and a sin...so I gave it all up and went around looking down my nose at all women who wore make-up or jewery. I feel ashamed to think of it now. They basically brainwashed me.
This is why I said you seemed not to know very much about Christian dogma. The source of your information was the church leaders and members (I suppose). I'm sure of this because the NT (Christian dogma) does not teach any of the things you speak about.
One I got out of the UPC, I was freed from that thinking. I was no longer harsh, condemning etc.
I hope you are not offended by this next comment, but I feel you are harsh and condemning, the only difference is the group that harshness and comdemnation is directed at.
It does not make any sense, christian, to say that I have done worse to you than call you a bad person. I'm sorry, but I don't understand your reasoning at all. Why is it so cruel for me to tell you I have Firbromyalgia that causes some cognitive problems? I did this because you kept blasting me concerning my lack of intellectual reasoning. I felt overwhelmed and vulnerable. It takes longer for me to grasp things at times....or put my thoughts together. I was defending myself.....and being a bit too open and honest with you...apparently.
Maybe you are not used to people being blunt, confronting you. That people cheer you on and say they like you, does not mean they really care.
I show my respect for you by treating you as my equal, someone who will be able to accept rational thoughts and ideas. My definition of condescension is people who pat me on the back and say good boy.
I appreciate when people have the guts to come up to me and tell me I'm wrong for this and that reason. How else do we grow, if we are not open to critizism and open to confront our ideas?
The quote, where I said "I am not your enemy" was said in kindness and with true concern. It was not meant to wound you. You seemed angry................you still do.....but I'll take your word that you are not.
Ruby, I'm not your enemy. I thank you for your kindness and concern. I'm not angry. I'm just determined.
Things are not what they seem. Many times, one has to look deeper.
I have not set out to purposely characterize you in any certain way...it's just the way things have evolved.
Fair enough. I will accept this.
I am not innocent. I don't think of myself as either physically or mentally challenged. At least, I don't use such terms. Besides, physically, so long as I'm not having a fibro flare-up, I am very strong and busy and work out etc. Goodness knows, I have a four year old and one year old to chase around all day!
I used that term very carefully (I could not find any other, and that is the politically correct term to use when someone has a situation, a challenge). If the term is incorrect, I apologize for that.
All the above quotes by you seem to say that you were talking about my "intellectual laziness" in a much broader sense than just in relation to the thread we were on.
You know what? I think you are right. I was thinking that your intellectual laziness was regarding your conversion. But, still in no way am I saying that you are nothing but intelligent.
Anyway, I'm sorry, but I still think that is true. I think you didn't sit down and through the analysis of objective data, decided Christianity was false.
And I do get the point, so what if you didn't?
And that's just none of my business. I get it.
I am very thankful for the support. I love everyone here. They are like family. They have helped me so much. I've been through hell.
This is also none of my business, but I'm very troubled by this statement.
Saying I am wrong is just your opinion............and I know it makes you feel better. The funny thing is, I don't even know what it is I am "wrong" about anyway.
You are wrong about two things.
1. Your opinion of Christianity and Christians.
2. That your conversion has anything to do with intellectual reasons.
Now that sounds very much like what my four year old might say.
Ok, I can take that.
Yes, I know you have said I have not shown my intellectual work.....heck, I just proved it to you myself above. I don't have the slightest clue what you are all about. I don't need to show you anything. I will show my testimony at my leisure.
Now, if you want to ask specific questions about my "supposed" talking down of christians, go ahead, since that is why this thread was created.
Ruby, if you want to stop this conversation now, it is ok with me. I see no point in questioning you about that per se.
No, I don't. Coming from a Christian, it might sound like they are trying to be careful not to say all Atheists act in negative ways. Personally, even though I am not Atheist, I would appreciate the way the Christian had stated that............especially if they said that on the whole that Atheists are not immoral.
Maybe I should have used a more evident example. I don't know if you are aware of the test to see if a statement shows prejudice (intolerance, bigotry). The test is very simple. If you stick any group in the statement made and the statement keeps its meaning in tact, then it is bigoted statement.
Let me show you.
For the record, I don't think Mexicans, on the whole, are crazy. I also don't think, on the whole, that they are immoral. Speaking in general terms, I think that at least 1/3 of Mexicans are legalistic. Some are abusive. I think that some Mexicans are trapped by fear. I think some Mexicans are harsh and condemning. I think some are backstabbers and gossips.
or
For the record, I don't think Jews, on the whole, are crazy. I also don't think, on the whole, that they are immoral. Speaking in general terms, I think that at least 1/3 of Jewish are legalistic. Some are abusive. I think that some Jews are trapped by fear. I think some Jews are harsh and condemning. I think some are backstabbers and gossips.
I promise you, I don't want to offend you. I'm not implying or suggesting you are a bigot or any similar. I don't think you are. But the statement is, that is a fact.
I will explain where I think the problem is Ruby. If you let me explain, I will come from rational place, free from negative emotions.
You do not know any of these people. You did not live my life!!
Good. This is exactly what this thread is about (should be about).
You are talking about causation. You are saying that Christianity causes people to be legalistic, abusive, condemning, etc. and you are offering anecdotal evidence to support your claim.
As you are well aware, anecdotal evidence is suspect at best. If I told you, you should believe in God because I have seen Him, (or if millions of people gave sworn testimony that they have seen Him) would you believe in God simply because of my or their testimony? Of course not.
I can think of lots of reasons why you have this perception. Maybe you hung out only with people engaging in this behavior. Maybe you focused a lot on this types of behavior. Maybe you attracted the type of people in situations that elicit this behavior. All of these are just possibilities, I have no idea.
What I do know is that there is no body of evidence that Christianity causes these behaviors. Surely, it is not the teachings in the Bible.
The sad thing is, legalism had also done a number on me. Before I became a Christian, I was quiet, shy, gentle natured, very kind, and compassionate........and I am NOT exaggerating or bragging. That was just my personality. Then I got involved in the 1st United Pentecostal church. That was the first church that I joined. I was in my 20's. I was in a desperate state. I needed help, and they were the only ones close to me that I felt I could contact.
Anyhow, this church org. turned little me into a harsh, condemning, legalistic person who thought everyone, except truly dedicated 1st United Pentecostals, were going to Hell. I felt little to no compassion over the idea of Trinitarian Christians going to Hell......and Catholics were "Anathema" and "The whore of Babylon". (It blows my mind that they got me to think like this.......not to say how angry I have been through the years...although some of that is fading. )
I was taught that wearing make-up, jewelry, pants, shorts were worldly and a sin...so I gave it all up and went around looking down my nose at all women who wore make-up or jewery. I feel ashamed to think of it now. They basically brainwashed me.
This is why I said you seemed not to know very much about Christian dogma. The source of your information was the church leaders and members (I suppose). I'm sure of this because the NT (Christian dogma) does not teach any of the things you speak about.
One I got out of the UPC, I was freed from that thinking. I was no longer harsh, condemning etc.
I hope you are not offended by this next comment, but I feel you are harsh and condemning, the only difference is the group that harshness and comdemnation is directed at.
It does not make any sense, christian, to say that I have done worse to you than call you a bad person. I'm sorry, but I don't understand your reasoning at all. Why is it so cruel for me to tell you I have Firbromyalgia that causes some cognitive problems? I did this because you kept blasting me concerning my lack of intellectual reasoning. I felt overwhelmed and vulnerable. It takes longer for me to grasp things at times....or put my thoughts together. I was defending myself.....and being a bit too open and honest with you...apparently.
Maybe you are not used to people being blunt, confronting you. That people cheer you on and say they like you, does not mean they really care.
I show my respect for you by treating you as my equal, someone who will be able to accept rational thoughts and ideas. My definition of condescension is people who pat me on the back and say good boy.
I appreciate when people have the guts to come up to me and tell me I'm wrong for this and that reason. How else do we grow, if we are not open to critizism and open to confront our ideas?
The quote, where I said "I am not your enemy" was said in kindness and with true concern. It was not meant to wound you. You seemed angry................you still do.....but I'll take your word that you are not.
Ruby, I'm not your enemy. I thank you for your kindness and concern. I'm not angry. I'm just determined.
Things are not what they seem. Many times, one has to look deeper.
I have not set out to purposely characterize you in any certain way...it's just the way things have evolved.
Fair enough. I will accept this.
I am not innocent. I don't think of myself as either physically or mentally challenged. At least, I don't use such terms. Besides, physically, so long as I'm not having a fibro flare-up, I am very strong and busy and work out etc. Goodness knows, I have a four year old and one year old to chase around all day!
I used that term very carefully (I could not find any other, and that is the politically correct term to use when someone has a situation, a challenge). If the term is incorrect, I apologize for that.
All the above quotes by you seem to say that you were talking about my "intellectual laziness" in a much broader sense than just in relation to the thread we were on.
You know what? I think you are right. I was thinking that your intellectual laziness was regarding your conversion. But, still in no way am I saying that you are nothing but intelligent.
Anyway, I'm sorry, but I still think that is true. I think you didn't sit down and through the analysis of objective data, decided Christianity was false.
And I do get the point, so what if you didn't?
And that's just none of my business. I get it.
I am very thankful for the support. I love everyone here. They are like family. They have helped me so much. I've been through hell.
This is also none of my business, but I'm very troubled by this statement.
Saying I am wrong is just your opinion............and I know it makes you feel better. The funny thing is, I don't even know what it is I am "wrong" about anyway.
You are wrong about two things.
1. Your opinion of Christianity and Christians.
2. That your conversion has anything to do with intellectual reasons.
Now that sounds very much like what my four year old might say.
Ok, I can take that.
Yes, I know you have said I have not shown my intellectual work.....heck, I just proved it to you myself above. I don't have the slightest clue what you are all about. I don't need to show you anything. I will show my testimony at my leisure.
Now, if you want to ask specific questions about my "supposed" talking down of christians, go ahead, since that is why this thread was created.
Ruby, if you want to stop this conversation now, it is ok with me. I see no point in questioning you about that per se.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Some of us Christian do feel that it is in the nature of the modern Christian church to be bigoted and filled with hate. I observe the behavior mainly in .... well Christians.... I understand that you are talking about the causality of the things.
Why is my son being told that he will go to hell because he doen't go to church on a regular basis?
It would seem to me that the problem is in the churches, not nessecarily Christianity per se. But given the apparent authoritarian nature of Xian churches , why shouldn't others question the abuse of power.
Hey 70% of the pagans I know are out right loons, it doesn't mean that i am bigoted, it means that out of all the pagans I know, 70% are just plain nuts!
The questions is this:
Do I judge someone on the basis of thier stated religion?
No, I judge them by thier actions.
Why is my son being told that he will go to hell because he doen't go to church on a regular basis?
It would seem to me that the problem is in the churches, not nessecarily Christianity per se. But given the apparent authoritarian nature of Xian churches , why shouldn't others question the abuse of power.
Hey 70% of the pagans I know are out right loons, it doesn't mean that i am bigoted, it means that out of all the pagans I know, 70% are just plain nuts!
The questions is this:
Do I judge someone on the basis of thier stated religion?
No, I judge them by thier actions.
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,308
I would have no problem with that statement, provided it was being made by a Mexican, or someone who had lived for a reasonable length of time in Mexico. I don't personally know any Mexicans, so I'd have to say that my opinion would remain that I don't really have any feelings on the matter, whatever I was told.
Okay, as a Jew I'd have to say that, in my experience, that is not an accurate assessment of my people. But I could make statements that would seem equally condemning of the group as a whole.
My point is that someone who is, or was a member of a particular group of people, or who has had prolonged experience in dealing with those people has a good perspective on that group, and has a right to hold a strong opinion on them. Someone who holds a strong opinion on a group that they have little or no direct experience of is bigoted. That's the difference between bigotry and considered opinion based on experience.