Preach the Gospel always...

[Oolon Colluphid]

It makes me want to burrow into a hole in the ground with a sign that says "Let me know when its all over and which side won."

The tricky bit I'm afraid, Lisa, is that no matter which side were to win, there'd still be no way to know if they were the right side. Christian history is littered with defeated and (near-)extinct 'heresies', such as the Cathars and Arianism. Never has the phrase 'history is written by the victors' ever been so appropriate.

But maybe one of other of these defeated lots were actually correct? (Hell, perhaps the followers of Yahweh's old enemy Ba'al -- or Zeus, or Quetzalcoatl come to that -- were really the ones who'd got it right.) Who knows? Who can possibly know?

With no objective standard to judge these ideas by, it is all just so much big-endianism vs little-endianism, all just counting angels on pinheads.

That, Lisa, is why there is so much disagreement, and why 'Christian' is so difficult to pin down. There's no objective standard to compare it to.

Compare:
I have previously told the story of a respected elder statesman of the Zoology Department at Oxford when I was an undergraduate. For years he had passionately believed, and taught, that the Golgi Apparatus (a microscopic feature of the interior of cells) was not real: an artefact, an illusion. Every Monday afternoon it was the custom for the whole department to listen to a research talk by a visiting lecturer. One Monday, the visitor was an American cell biologist who presented completely convincing evidence that the Golgi Apparatus was real. At the end of the lecture, the old man strode to the front of the hall, shook the American by the hand and said - with passion - 'My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years.' We clapped our hands red. No fundamentalist would ever say that.
But my point is a bit different from the one Dawkins was making. Science can confirm, once and for all, whether for instance the Golgi Apparatus is real or not; effecively, which of two competing articles of doctrine are right, are true. It has a standard to judge its ideas by: external reality.

But the religious cannot put God under a microscope -- indeed they make a virtue of not being able to, hence the need for faith. But faith in what? By what standard can anyone decide, once and for all?

Lisa, precisely why is it wrong to put homosexuals to death? Who's to decide whether one should "honour your father and mother" (Exodus 20, God's own words), or be a disciple of Jesus and hate your father and mother (and wife, children, brothers and sisters) (Luke 14:26)? The Bible cannot help us.

[Ray Moscow]

Another example is the apparently radical shift that Christianity took about war and warmongering with its ascension as the official Roman religion. Within a generation or so it went from being a mostly pacifistic religion that forbade violence (or even being a soldier) to embracing solidering and warmongering in all its glory.

Pacificism survived in the monasteries but has been pretty "fringe" every since Constantine.

It is pretty hard to read the gospels and see how Christians justify and support the use of violence as they typically do. But there's nothing peaceful about most forms of Christianity, despite all the rhetoric about "following Jesus".

[Oolon Colluphid]

I do love Lisa. But Lisa has a grievance with Christians in general and hasn't forgiven many of the Christians who she percieves have wronged her. She feels justified to be unforgiving of them and to accuse other Christians of being "poe" and "troll" because they don't hold to her intolerant liberal notions of Christianity.

My bold.

Are you familiar with the word 'oxymoron'?

If not, check it out, and see how well it fits the bolded bit.

David

I think you misread it, David. It's "intolerable liberal".

Oh, wait...

[Norrin Radd]

I say what I really think and if you want me to be a phony and pretend that I like it when someone attacks my friend in a vicious nasty way by calling him ignorant, and accusing him of fooling people for years and just be happy about that, then you'll have to find someone else.

Ah, I see. All that stuff about forgiving your enemies, and doing good to those who persecute you, and turning the other cheek, and loving one another, and forgiving those who trespass against you- those aren't the parts you believe. Gotcha.

Oh, dang, ya got us there! What a clever shot! We're clearly WAY out of line, because Paul never said to CONTEND for the faith, never pronounced anathema on any, never castigated any. John said only that "God is love," and never said anything about a "sin that leads to death," one that is so severe we are not even to pray for those who commit it. Jesus never said He did NOT come to bring peace, but division and a "sword." He never called anyone a sneaky fox or a dog or a family of snakes or a painted tomb full of rot and bones.

[Mung Dynasty]

Go for it, Torquemada. Show them the light. :p

[Oolon Colluphid]

Could you please point out your reasons for why you accuse Norrin of being a false teacher? Because he's not a poe.

He's been accused of being a Poe because he's making Christians look bad.

Sounds fair. The alternative -- one so obvious it ought not need mentioning -- is that Christianity is bad.

[DMB]

It's OK Norrin. Those of us who are atheists don't necessarily expect a consistent message from any religion.

[Ray Moscow]

I say what I really think and if you want me to be a phony and pretend that I like it when someone attacks my friend in a vicious nasty way by calling him ignorant, and accusing him of fooling people for years and just be happy about that, then you'll have to find someone else.

Ah, I see. All that stuff about forgiving your enemies, and doing good to those who persecute you, and turning the other cheek, and loving one another, and forgiving those who trespass against you- those aren't the parts you believe. Gotcha.

Oh, dang, ya got us there! What a clever shot! We're clearly WAY out of line, because Paul never said to CONTEND for the faith, never pronounced anathema on any, never castigated any. John said only that "God is love," and never said anything about a "sin that leads to death," one that is so severe we are not even to pray for those who commit it. Jesus never said He did NOT come to bring peace, but division and a "sword." He never called anyone a sneaky fox or a dog or a family of snakes or a painted tomb full of rot and bones.

^^Actually, Jesus probably didn't say anything of those things, because he probably never existed.

However, assuming the gospels are even halfway accurate, he very clearly taught not to do violence against others. He did (reportedly) tell his disciples to arm themselves, once, but rebuked Peter for actually using a sword to hurt someone. But generally speaking, he taught a strict nonviolence.

Don't pretend to be a Christian while pissing on Jesus' teachings, dude. It's an insult, and everybody but you sees it. Just admit that you don't believe Jesus' teachings if indeed you don't.

[Norrin Radd]

Just a point, SallyAnne: I agree with you that Norrin Radd is genuine and definitely not a Poe. But when you call him your friend, I would like you to contemplate the fact that his moral sense appears to feature a main switch installed and operated by his religion, and therefore it is entirely imaginable that e.g. he'd slit your throat ear-to-ear if the voices commanded him to do so, friend or no friend. But, at least, he probably would not enjoy it.

She knows me well enough to know that I'm a Biblicist, as is she. As such, we'd be constrained by the principles of the New Testament. Killing is appropriate in self-defense, or to protect the life of an innocent party in imminent peril, or as capital punishment imposed *after* due process of law.

[Norrin Radd]

...Are you familiar with the word 'oxymoron'?...

Late-night pitchman Billy Mays.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Killing is appropriate in self-defense, or to protect the life of an innocent party in imminent peril, or as capital punishment imposed *after* due process of law.
Joshua failed to get that memo.

[Norrin Radd]

...
I thought Lisa mistaken in seeing Norrin as a poe.

But Norrin seems to be a Catholic, or at least to have very strong Catholic sympathies

No, in fact I have strong issues with *some* Catholic doctrine and practice. But I do respect many of the moral stances they take, and I do recognize more kinship with them than with unbelievers or with "liberal Christians" of the sort that deny things like the Virgin Birth and Deity and Resurrection of Christ -- in other words, liberal pseudo-Christians.

[Norrin Radd]

...
I even quoted where the Bible explicitly commanded and celebrated genocide, but Norrin Radd did not bother to try to explain them away; he also did not try to explain away Biblical baby killing. ...

Would it matter if I did?


Are you familiar with the word 'oxymoron'?
Yeah I am, and Liberal Christian is exactly that. Liberal Christians are amongst the most intolerant people I've ever come across, but they kid themselves into believing that they are tolerant and accepting.
SallyAnne, do you have any evidence of that?

I'm not SA, but that won't stop me from answering: My evidence is the proactively unpleasant "welcome" I got at "WWMC" over at CF.

[Norrin Radd]

Sally Anne,


I still am unclear about your opinion regarding what Norrin Radd was saying....do you think that if Norrin Radd said god commands him to personally slit the throat of babies born to atheist parents, or to slaughter a community of Jews (as examples) would you be ok with that? Would you want a second opinion, or would you accept Norrin's word for it?
If you believed god did tell him to do these things, would you then feel that they were right and proper behavior? Would it be christian behavior, in your view?

She knows better. See my comments elsewhere about the fact that we are both Biblicists, not random "God told me-ists."

[Norrin Radd]

Could you please point out your reasons for why you accuse Norrin of being a false teacher? Because he's not a poe.

He's been accused of being a Poe because he's making Christians look bad.

People here can't believe a civilized human would have views like his, let alone, a professing Christian.

Perhaps you should wonder why a bunch of godless heathens would think Norrin was trying to make Christians look bad....

My main "crime" here is that of speaking plainly. I'm quite sure most of my views are not THAT far beyond those of most of my Xian friends, both IRL and online. But most of them would be "nicer" and more discreet. I've done the polite route at times -- and then been scorched by atheists for being "passive-aggressive."

Since she's an Anglo-Kiwi, SA has a more socially liberal mindset than mine, and probably would not as readily endorse capital punishment no matter WHAT crime was involved. But I'm certain she is no more "embarrassed" than I about Mean Nasty Old Testament God. (BTW, FTR, FWIW, and all that, after a brief reconsideration, I would definitely not punish fornication as severely as adultery, since the betrayal of trust involved in the latter offense makes it qualitatively different.)

As for how we make Xians "look," I'd rather we look "bad" by being honest than look "good" by obfuscating.

[Oolon Colluphid]

She knows better. See my comments elsewhere about the fact that we are both Biblicists, not random "God told me-ists."
At risk of derailing (though we've got a forum for it), does this mean you're a creationist too?

[Norrin Radd]

what i got out of this thread is that the most bigoted, condescending,unhappy, and judgemental people are, generally, christians. particuarly the one's who insulate themselves in groups away from the 'world' and judge not only everyone on the outside, but those they deem to not be 'christian' enough. they use the word 'atheist' as if it were a curse word and leap at the chance to draw lines in the sand.

The first atheist I ever met, I met at college. He was a lapsed Jew, and aggressive about his atheism, going out of his way to mock and challenge Xians. The next was a nice guy, but often kind of smirked when we Xians talked about "spiritual" things.

A few years later, as we were leaving our church Sunday morning, some ne'er-do-well punks -- I will take the risk of assuming they were atheists -- drove by and yelled, "Jesus was a witch!"

The vast majority of atheists I have met online I have met solely because their goal is to confront and argue with Xians. With a few exceptions, they have been rude, arrogant, condescending, mocking. They claim to be the height of rationality, but are prone to bizarre emotional tirades. They claim to know Scripture better than Xians, but when rejoined with points of context or language, they bristle and essentially dismiss the reply.

In light of that, I'm sure you can understand why "atheist" can become something of an epithet for some of us.

[Ray Moscow]

Just a point, SallyAnne: I agree with you that Norrin Radd is genuine and definitely not a Poe. But when you call him your friend, I would like you to contemplate the fact that his moral sense appears to feature a main switch installed and operated by his religion, and therefore it is entirely imaginable that e.g. he'd slit your throat ear-to-ear if the voices commanded him to do so, friend or no friend. But, at least, he probably would not enjoy it.

She knows me well enough to know that I'm a Biblicist, as is she. As such, we'd be constrained by the principles of the New Testament. Killing is appropriate in self-defense, or to protect the life of an innocent party in imminent peril, or as capital punishment imposed *after* due process of law.

Not according to Jesus, it isn't.

Matthew 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

...
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Just how is "killing" in line with not resisting evil?

Now, you might think (as I do) that this is very bad advice, but don't pretend to "follow" Jesus if you think his ideas are crap.

[Norrin Radd]

But apparently not for atheists (or any other variety of religious believer or those who dare to question reformist teachings or those who have a more liberal attitude).

Love for atheists et al is defined primarily as getting them to convert to a particular belief set which in Sally Anne's case it looks so far to be a rather virulent form of Conservative Christianity.

When that fails, one is to shake their dust off one's feet and move on.

I predict that we'll be seeing something similar from Sally Anne very soon if she doesn't manage to sway Lisa to her way of thinking.

So you predict she'll follow Jesus's advice. Cool!

[Norrin Radd]

...
Would you like me to prove that? Would you like me to show you how it is impossible to preach a gospel of hate? Are you sure you want to go down this road with me?

Lisa

I'd like to ask Lisa what exactly she views as a "gospel of hate," but I'm invisible.

Oh well.

[Norrin Radd]

Just a point, SallyAnne: I agree with you that Norrin Radd is genuine and definitely not a Poe. But when you call him your friend, I would like you to contemplate the fact that his moral sense appears to feature a main switch installed and operated by his religion, and therefore it is entirely imaginable that e.g. he'd slit your throat ear-to-ear if the voices commanded him to do so, friend or no friend. But, at least, he probably would not enjoy it.

She knows me well enough to know that I'm a Biblicist, as is she. As such, we'd be constrained by the principles of the New Testament. Killing is appropriate in self-defense, or to protect the life of an innocent party in imminent peril, or as capital punishment imposed *after* due process of law.

Not according to Jesus, it isn't.

Matthew 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

...
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Just how is "killing" in line with not resisting evil?

Now, you might think (as I do) that this is very bad advice, but don't pretend to "follow" Jesus if you think his ideas are crap.

I don't believe the words of Jesus are the only divine words in the NT, and I don't confuse His remarks about an insulting face-slap with teaching about absorbing an injurious assault.

[Ray Moscow]

I don't believe the words of Jesus are the only divine words in the NT, and I
don't confuse His remarks about an insulting face-slap with teaching about absorbing an injurious assault.

Since you're being "literal" about the face slap, how about being literal about the "do not resist evil" bit?

So, you're saying that a some point between an "insult slap" and "assault" one should go from nonviolence to deadly force? Yep, that makes perfect sense.

What if the slap left a mark? Can you at least blow the guy's leg off or something?

How about a bruise? Do you get to gut stab him?

Just admit that you don't believe or follow what Jesus supposedly taught. There's no need (outside church) to be a hypocrite about it.

[VoxRat]

...A few years later, as we were leaving our church Sunday morning, some ne'er-do-well punks -- I will take the risk of assuming they were atheists -- drove by and yelled, "Jesus was a witch!"
....
I've never known an atheist who believed in witches. I think you were mistaken.

But just for the record, you seem to be somewhat angry about "atheists" (and, of course, those "pseudo-Christians" who don't share your views). Which piss you off more: those who want to engage you in the subject, in fora like this, or those who think it's so batshit insane that there's no point in even trying?

[Oolon Colluphid]

She knows better. See my comments elsewhere about the fact that we are both Biblicists, not random "God told me-ists."
At risk of derailing (though we've got a forum for it), does this mean you're a creationist too?
Subsequent derail split to here (http://secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=1609).

[David B]

...
I thought Lisa mistaken in seeing Norrin as a poe.

But Norrin seems to be a Catholic, or at least to have very strong Catholic sympathies

No, in fact I have strong issues with *some* Catholic doctrine and practice. But I do respect many of the moral stances they take, and I do recognize more kinship with them than with unbelievers or with "liberal Christians" of the sort that deny things like the Virgin Birth and Deity and Resurrection of Christ -- in other words, liberal pseudo-Christians.


Sorry Norrin, for part of my post I seem to have had a bit of a brain glitch, and confused you with Hevvin.

I find it somewhat refreshing to come across a Christian who accepts that some things in the Bible are, at least from a secular POV, pretty obnoxious. Many Christians seem to cherry pick the nice bits, and you seem to be innocent of that.

David

[VoxRat]

The other question I have for those who label themselves "Biblicists" (but are generally seen as "right-wing fringies" by, I daresay, most outsiders):

Chronologically speaking, what came first: the religious part or the right-wing part?

[tjakey]

She knows better. See my comments elsewhere about the fact that we are both Biblicists, not random "God told me-ists."

I don't suppose it has ever occured to you that the bible is simply random "god told me-ists" from a long, long time ago; passed along as verbal stories for generations, eventually written down, (sometimes in languages long out of use) copied endlessly, translated, copied again, traslated some more, subject to vettings and editing by various political and religious powers over the centuries, where none of the origional documents survive and what does survive has been shown over and over again to be inaccurate in matters of science, history, cosmology, physics and geology?

As for atheists challenging religious people...um, this is a secular forum, just what did you expect to happen? And as far as attitude, I'll take that of nearly any atheist here over that of Sally Anne.

But we aren't quite there since no one has started thwoing the "hell threat" around yet.

[Anne]

Could you please point out your reasons for why you accuse Norrin of being a false teacher? Because he's not a poe.

He's been accused of being a Poe because he's making Christians look bad.

People here can't believe a civilized human would have views like his, let alone, a professing Christian.

Perhaps you should wonder why a bunch of godless heathens would think Norrin was trying to make Christians look bad....

My main "crime" here is that of speaking plainly. I'm quite sure most of my views are not THAT far beyond those of most of my Xian friends, both IRL and online. But most of them would be "nicer" and more discreet. I've done the polite route at times -- and then been scorched by atheists for being "passive-aggressive."

IMO, your main... not crime, but the thing that is boggling the minds of the godless faithless ones here is how any civilized human could believe and argue for what you are. These immoral, amoral atheists can not picture ever allowing the crimes that you accept just because your god did it.

I understand where you are coming from. I'm an agnostic polytheist. There are gods who eat babies, who kill their own children, who delight in bloodshed. I shrug, and accept it because they are gods, and as such, they are not subject to human rules.

I do not, however, choose to worship them. You on the other hand have chosen to worship a blood god, and people here would like to know why. You are evidently an educated, articulate person, with a passion about your religion that you are willing to share. Try to understand that these people do not have the basic building blocks that you have built your faith on, and are not capable of understanding you without more effort on your part. they are not being mean or obtuse--- they really are standing someplace different from where you are.


Since she's an Anglo-Kiwi, SA has a more socially liberal mindset than mine, and probably would not as readily endorse capital punishment no matter WHAT crime was involved. But I'm certain she is no more "embarrassed" than I about Mean Nasty Old Testament God. (BTW, FTR, FWIW, and all that, after a brief reconsideration, I would definitely not punish fornication as severely as adultery, since the betrayal of trust involved in the latter offense makes it qualitatively different.)


Strange--- that was a non answer. Would you still stone a fornicator?

How do you feel about the inhumane things your god has done, if not embarrased?

As for how we make Xians "look," I'd rather we look "bad" by being honest than look "good" by obfuscating.

no problem--- it's just, true Bible believers have a tendency to look... well, bad, by being honest. It's just the way it goes. However, a Poe is someone who pretends to be someone else in order to make that else look bad. If I came in here as a professing atheist and insulted you and mocked you, I'd be a Poe, regardless of if that's a realistic thing for some atheists to do.



She knows better. See my comments elsewhere about the fact that we are both Biblicists, not random "God told me-ists."

In all honesty, I prefer your type of Christian. Bible believers and Messianics and Muslims and Mormons are all easier to pin down than the new agey feel good Christian.

I don't like your type, but I respect it.

Since the Devil took Jesus to a high mountain and showed him all of the corners of the earth from there, we also know that the earth is flat and square.

And since Joshua stopped the sun (giving him more time to slaughter his enemies) we know that the earth is the center of the universe and the sun goes over it. (Still working out the details of where the sun goes after it passes a flat earth...)

To the after hours party down under. Jeez. :evil:

[lpetrich]

But Norrin seems to be a Catholic, or at least to have very strong Catholic sympathies
No, in fact I have strong issues with *some* Catholic doctrine and practice. But I do respect many of the moral stances they take, and I do recognize more kinship with them than with unbelievers or with "liberal Christians" of the sort that deny things like the Virgin Birth and Deity and Resurrection of Christ -- in other words, liberal pseudo-Christians.
Norrin Radd, what gives you the idea that that's what "liberal Christians" believe?

And why do you insist on being literal-minded about Jesus Christ's alleged virgin birth and deity and resurrection? I thought that you guys were proud of what nonliteralists you are.

The first atheist I ever met, I met at college. He was a lapsed Jew, and aggressive about his atheism, going out of his way to mock and challenge Xians. The next was a nice guy, but often kind of smirked when we Xians talked about "spiritual" things.
It could be that "spiritual" things seemed silly to him. Norrin Radd, look at religions and belief systems other than yours -- don't they seem silly to you?
A few years later, as we were leaving our church Sunday morning, some ne'er-do-well punks -- I will take the risk of assuming they were atheists -- drove by and yelled, "Jesus was a witch!"
It's hard to imagine what that might be about -- that Jesus Christ had seemed like a sorcerer?
The vast majority of atheists I have met online I have met solely because their goal is to confront and argue with Xians.
Are you sure that that isn't because those are the ones who like to argue about religion?
With a few exceptions, they have been rude, arrogant, condescending, mocking.
Like how?
They claim to be the height of rationality, but are prone to bizarre emotional tirades.
Like...
They claim to know Scripture better than Xians, but when rejoined with points of context or language, they bristle and essentially dismiss the reply.
Specious pseudo-scholarship can be VERY annoying. Like making up very convenient "contexts" or redefining words so that they mean what are expedient for you.
In light of that, I'm sure you can understand why "atheist" can become something of an epithet for some of us.
Norrin Radd, you insist that Jesus Christ had been God in a literal sense. So what's your excuse for refusing to love your enemies and turn the other cheek?

And why this obsession with victimhood -- don't you people believe in personal responsibility?

[Anne]

The vast majority of atheists I have met online I have met solely because their goal is to confront and argue with Xians.

Just curious--- have you gone and played with them in the non religious threads, or is this a self selected sample?

[Matty]

They claim to know Scripture better than Xians, but when rejoined with points of context or language, they bristle and essentially dismiss the reply.That context being "only a christian could ever describe the dashing of infants onto rocks to die as being the order of an all loving god" right?

With a few exceptions, they have been rude, arrogant, condescending, mocking. sorry sonny, you thicko Xtians clearly have no clue. Dont you think, bucko? (joke)

[Lanakila]

Most rudeness I've seen expressed in this thread was between Christians. Just sayin. :p

[Matty]

Most rudeness i've seen in just about any thread is between Xtians and their brethren tbh.

That CF thread at TR is fucking hilarious. "Yo, what the fuck happened to all that love compassion and forgiveness stuff? "

[Garnet]

That's only for woosy-foosy unbiblical liberal Christians, silly. True Christians don't believe in that stuff.

[Lisa0315]

*sigh*

[Barbarian]

Just a point, SallyAnne: I agree with you that Norrin Radd is genuine and definitely not a Poe. But when you call him your friend, I would like you to contemplate the fact that his moral sense appears to feature a main switch installed and operated by his religion, and therefore it is entirely imaginable that e.g. he'd slit your throat ear-to-ear if the voices commanded him to do so, friend or no friend. But, at least, he probably would not enjoy it.

She knows me well enough to know that I'm a Biblicist, as is she. As such, we'd be constrained by the principles of the New Testament. Killing is appropriate in self-defense, or to protect the life of an innocent party in imminent peril, or as capital punishment imposed *after* due process of law.Regular Christians (= the sort I am surrounded by) seem to have two mental barriers they would have to overcome first in order to go and kill anyone who e.g. works on a Saturday: one is that they hold killing to be bad and the other is that they don't interpret their Bibles as endorsing such actions. If they were to change their interpretations in favor of stoning those disobeying the commandments, they would still have to contend with the inhibition against killing integrated into their morality. You seem to have a huge hole in this inhibition, giving free pass to anything you think is your religious duty, and the way I interpret your posts, it would seem that the only thing holding you back from going all Christaleban on our asses is that you are outnumbered by the sane society and have to reckon with law enforcement agencies who would not just idly stand by and watch the stoning.

Satan, in His deviousness, made you arrogant in your belief that you, among multitudes, have the key to what the Bible really says. He tried to lead you astray and succeeded. Just think: what's the chance of you belonging to the select few who got it right? Who do you think you are that you don't even have to worry about the fact that you are outnumbered even among Christians? Who would choose you as the knower of truth? On the other hand, Who would choose you to be misled and damned?

It's your pride that blinds you to the sins you commit in your head, like approvingly thinking about enforcing barbaric law. Satan is happy with you and right now He makes you think that what I say can be dismissed without much care, since I'm only an atheist and post this for the effect only. Right?

[miss djax]

The vast majority of atheists I have met online I have met solely because their goal is to confront and argue with Xians. With a few exceptions, they have been rude, arrogant, condescending, mocking. They claim to be the height of rationality, but are prone to bizarre emotional tirades. They claim to know Scripture better than Xians, but when rejoined with points of context or language, they bristle and essentially dismiss the reply.

In light of that, I'm sure you can understand why "atheist" can become something of an epithet for some of us.

i haven't seen any of that here, and in fact i've seen the reverse. i've also seen some darn nice christians fully capable of having nice conversations about their beliefs, or about their favorite music, or the answer to the age old question 'brie or cheddar'.

secular forums don't have any sacred cows. all beliefs, whether its the validity of bach's flower remedy's as beneficial, who has a better formula one team, or the histriocity of jesus, are all up for discussion.

what i find is that some people are not willing to have their views discussed and dissected. the literalists seem to have the biggest time because to be honest, some things just don't stand the light of day.

it's perfectly ok to say 'i don't know'. or 'personal experience is where i draw from' because it's a whole lot more intellectually honest then trying to reconcile the 'rightness' of stoning as a death penalty for pre-marital sex between consenting adults.

'i don't know' is not a dirty word here. its an invitation to learn.

[tjakey]

i haven't seen any of that here,

I don't know about that djax; "fuck-nuts crazy," "immoral," "don't-let-them-near-a-gun kind," "twisted," "evil"... One could reasonably conclude that I have been thumping on Norrin and Sally Anne with a bit of enthusiasm. It has been a long time since I ran across anyone who actually tried to defend slavery, genocide, murder, brutality and the death penalty for things like sex, as somehow moral. Norrin, (and by defending him Sally Anne) really are people who, IMHO, should be under some kind of medical supervision if not outright restraint. If Norris actually, truly believes the things he claims to believe and if he actually truly ever acted on those beliefs, he would clearly be guilty of committing some kind of crime. If he did it in response to the voices in his head he would also be considered insane.

I mean, really. If I knew who this character was and saw him walking up to my front door with a bible in one hand and a gun in the other, I'd be tempted to shoot first THEN figure out what he was doing...except that I don't own a gun. I literally don't know what a civilized society should do with people as fuck-nuts crazy as Norrin appears to be.

[Matty]

i'm rude and mocking to Xtians on purpose. Fuck them and their retarded beliefs.
They pretty much always outdo me when talking to someone of the same religion but different sect though.

[miss djax]

dammit tjakey and matty, now i have to amend my thoughts :D

matty, even when you are being rude to me it still comes across as with a bit of jest. and i don't think you'd not reach out a hand if someone asked for support/help/hug/whatevs. i don't see that from some of the 'other team' here because the 'atheist' bit would rule it out. i hate using that phrase 'other team' :( but you are right - you won't hide/lie/sugar coat things

tjakey - touche. at least you'll engage folks tho. if someone in this thread said 'hi im new im an xian' i don't think you're first reply would be 'fuck you, douche'. there would at least be an attempt to engage.

so i'm amending my thoughts a bit :D

that's the nice part about not being a literalist - being able to adjust your opinion when presented with evidence. i don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater on my original point, but i can't hide from whats there in plain sight.

[Matty]

matty, even when you are being rude to me it still comes across as with a bit of jest.
that is kinda true, i'm usually just taking the piss. The fun really starts when someone bites :)

and i don't think you'd not reach out a hand if someone asked for support/help/hug/whatevs. I'd like to think not too. thanks.

i don't see that from some of the 'other team' here because the 'atheist' bit would rule it out. i hate using that phrase 'other team' but you are right - you won't hide/lie/sugar coat things
i do tend to tell it as i see it more than anything.

thank you though, you've kind summed me up like i would at least like to think of myself. I'm certainly irreverent when peoples beliefs are concerned and do have a "if they are actually offended its becasue they take that nonsense to seriously" attitude but i do try and save the worst of my assholishness for the really nasty spiteful Xtians like Norrin, the racist an homophobic hypocrites, like Norrin, and woo therapists most of all (what are your thoughts on chiropractic btw Norrin?).

Fuck all of those types with bells on they have it coming. . :)

that's the nice part about not being a literalist - being able to adjust your opinion when presented with evidence. i don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater on my original point, but i can't hide from whats there in plain sight.and with that statement alone you set yourself a light year apart from the likes of Norrin etc. :notworthy:

Thing is though, that isnt a Xtian trait, its a human one. ;)

[tjakey]

and with that statement alone you set yourself a light year apart from the likes of Norrin etc.

Amen to that!

[JamesBannon]

I would be tempted to say that Norrin & SallyAnne should practice Hara Kiri, but that would be unkind and cruel (not to mention sanctionable). After all, it's not their fault they're both batshit crazy! Of course, we have their types in Scotland, but, if they put their heads above the parapet, they're treated with utter disdain (either that or find themselves in a psychiatric institution). I know mad people, genuinely mad I mean, who are saner than both of them.

[Zebulon]

If anybody ever wants to discuss the Original Post of this thread feel free to start a new thread about it.
Hev

Wasn't it St. George of Patton who said, "Preach the gospel; if necessary, use heavy artillery"? :whistle:

[Matty]

do you still have ranting Calvinists up that way jim? I got banished to hell to BUUUURRRRNNNN by one of them in london once for laughing and doing the "and a friend shall find his friends hammer" LoB bit whilst he was off on one.

Apparently taking teh piss out of a religious nutter is a sin or summin. Guess i better stock up on sunscreen and choc ices. :)

[JamesBannon]

do you still have ranting Calvinists up that way jim? I got banished to hell to BUUUURRRRNNNN by one of them in london once for laughing and doing the "and a friend shall find his friends hammer" LoB bit whilst he was off on one.

Apparently taking teh piss out of a religious nutter is a sin or summin. Guess i better stock up on sunscreen and choc ices. :)

Oh yeah, we have them all right! Lately, however, we've been "invaded" by American evangelicals, though we've always had a stock of Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses. Last election there was even a "Christian Party" candidate! Didn't see him until polling day. He got told where he could stick it!

[miss djax]

and with that statement alone you set yourself a light year apart from the likes of Norrin etc.

Amen to that!

'cept i'm an ebil atheist too ;)

[miss djax]

thank you though, you've kind summed me up like i would at least like to think of myself. I'm certainly irreverent when peoples beliefs are concerned and do have a "if they are actually offended its becasue they take that nonsense to seriously" attitude

np matty, i just call 'em like i see 'em :D

[tjakey]

mmm...Hev? If you want to step back in and preach your particular version of the gospel (it looks like Norrin and Sally Anne have been carrying the water for you) you should do that. I suspect we can disassemble your god claims as easily as theirs.

Then again, if you don't go off on some have baked rant about the morality of god endorsed butchery, we all might have an entertaining little chat, share a beer or two, agree to disagree...you never know.

[Garnet]

Hev abandoned his own thread in digust. The belief sets displayed by Norrin Radd and Sally Anne are not his.

[miss djax]

he seems like a nice guy. say hi to him here, i made him an intro thread :

http://secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p=31853#post31853

[Matty]

Hev abandoned his own thread in digust. The belief sets displayed by Norrin Radd and Sally Anne are not his.

good for him. wonder if that means he "aint no true christian (tm)" ?

[Garnet]

No doubt according to those two. 'Twould seem he's one of those intolerant liberal Christians.

[reddhedd]

SallyAnne, why didn't you answer my questions? Would you please do so? I would really like to know where you stand.

[tjakey]

Hev abandoned his own thread in digust. The belief sets displayed by Norrin Radd and Sally Anne are not his.

good for him. wonder if that means he "aint no true christian (tm)" ?

Seems to me he should jump into the fray. After all, who better to decide between Christian claims than a bunch of impartial atheists?

[Matty]

yeah maybe, but if i were him i wouldnt want to get associatively tainted by their nasty bullshit either.

Not with assholes like me about :)

[Hevvin Machine]

Hev abandoned his own thread in digust. The belief sets displayed by Norrin Radd and Sally Anne are not his.

good for him. wonder if that means he "aint no true christian (tm)" ?

Seems to me he should jump into the fray. After all, who better to decide between Christian claims than a bunch of impartial atheists?
This thread has jumped the shark.

Maybe later I will start a thread here in the Religion shark tank called "The Gospel According to Hev". Maybe with you and SA and Matty"i'm rude and mocking to Xtians on purpose." and Norrin I won't.
Maybe Jesus will give me strength.
Maybe. Probably so.
Hev

[DMB]

It's a bit late in the day, because I've been offline for quite a while, but I must ask the atheists here to dial back on insults to Norrin Radd and SallyAnne. By all means argue about their views, but please don't make personal attacks on them.

[Matty]

sure. my bad

Hevvin, you'll find most of us pretty straight up as long as you arent telling us that god says to hate all gays, or beat your wife or carve up your concubine or similar. I have issues with THAT kind of Xtianity. The nicer stuff i find kinda misguided but stll noble in intent so if you would like to kick off another thread i promise to behave and discus properly.

Think of my piss taking as a kind of mirror. I tend to dial up in proportion to the hatred and/or hypocrisy dished out, i dont forsee that happening with you. That said if questioning beliefs is seen as "rude and mocking" in any case then maybe so.

I'm not a bad guy to talk with, ask about. Neither is tjakey. We are certainly able to distinguish between "kinds" (heh) of Xtian and respond in manner.

[tjakey]

Really Hev, I am well aware of the fact that, though there are a lot of fundies in the world, not all Christian are fundies. Nor will I paint you all with the same brush. Norrin and Sally Anne are a bit on the extreme side, (okay, more than a bit) but I know that they not really represent mainstream Christianity.

In fact, it seems to me, they are a bigger problem to you than they are to atheists, or at least to me. They may be nut cases, but they are religious people so (again to me) they are already nut cases, now we are just debating degrees.

I would actually like to hear a "gospel" that doesn't cross the line into "nut case." I'm not sure it can be done, but I would love to chat with someone who is trying.

[Hevvin Machine]

OK, since you are all being so nice.:)

There really is more to Christianity than bludgeoning people with theological claims and holier-than-thou nonsense. I am nothing like a scholar, so don't expect anything real edjumacated, but I'll try a new thread about my take on Christianity. I'm likely to catch as much flak from the Christianists as the atheists.
Hev

[Matty]

It's a bit late in the day, because I've been offline for quite a while, but I must ask the atheists here to dial back on insults to Norrin Radd and SallyAnne. By all means argue about their views, but please don't make personal attacks on them.

does this mean that the pantheists and agnostics are still free to giv'er?
:D

[tjakey]

Well shit, looks like I fucked something up, a religious person thinks I'm trying to be nice...

I guess that's what I get for being reasonable...

[Hevvin Machine]

Well, if it makes you feel any better the Christians are avoiding my little thread apparently.
Hev

[DMB]

It's a bit late in the day, because I've been offline for quite a while, but I must ask the atheists here to dial back on insults to Norrin Radd and SallyAnne. By all means argue about their views, but please don't make personal attacks on them.

does this mean that the pantheists and agnostics are still free to giv'er?
:D

Just let them try!:fishslap:

[Febble]

Yabbut, there is no single general Christian position. There are times that I feel lke I should produce a questionairre before I engage in any conversation about religion with a Christian.

^This:bang:
Indeed. I had read somewhere that the bottom line was affirming the Nicene Creed, but got taken to task by RexT and Febble for saying so, and iirc we ended up with a definition that was essentially "a Christian is someone who calls themselves a Christian". :bang:

Well, it depends what you want the definition for.

That's true of all definitions.

If you want to burn someone at the stake, you won't use the same definition as you would if you wanted to get everyone singing Kumbaya.

[lex]

I'd sooner burn at the stake than hear everyone sing kumbaya

[tjakey]

Well, if it makes you feel any better the Christians are avoiding my little thread apparently.
Hev

Though D might be a bit disappointed, maybe we chased the whack-jobs off? Maybe, just maybe, just one time in all of history, in this tiny little corner of the internet, some rational, caring (but admittedly aggressive) non-believers trashed the fundamentalists bad enough that they went off to hide under their rock somewhere and lick their hurt feelings and bruised ideology?

Naw...probably not. It would be nice though.

[Garnet]

^This:bang:
Indeed. I had read somewhere that the bottom line was affirming the Nicene Creed, but got taken to task by RexT and Febble for saying so, and iirc we ended up with a definition that was essentially "a Christian is someone who calls themselves a Christian". :bang:

Well, it depends what you want the definition for.

That's true of all definitions.

If you want to burn someone at the stake, you won't use the same definition as you would if you wanted to get everyone singing Kumbaya.


Huh? I'm reading your words but they are not sinking in. Are you saying that a definition of a word is fluid depending on the situation? While that's true to a certain point, it can't be completely true or we would be unable to communicate.

[Jobar]

I've split a number of posts on how to respond to fundies to a new thread, Dealing with fundamentalists in secular forums (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p=32523&#post32523).