Not just wrong, but bad

[Hannah]

I know why Christian believes what they do. I used to be one.


Their arguments all ultimately rest on their personal opinions. In the final analysis, we're supposed to believe what they say just because they say it. I am attempting to demonstrate that, for the lurkers' benefit if no one else's.

People who want proof and hard core evidence before they can believe, have a problem when it comes to G_d.

Those who reject G_d because of lack of proof, do, in reality, not reject G_d but reject themselves as believers. (a type of person who is too stupid to know and therefore believes)

When they start to read the Bible, they literally stop at the first word because that word, Bereesjiet (in the beginning), provokes all the questions they could possibly have.

The non-believers I know are very intelligent and extremely well schooled. Their cognitive mindset is excellently honed. However, conversations about G_d with them turn into battles as they want to be right (in not believing) or proven wrong.

As I see it, non-believers have the same headache questions as believers about the great issues of life (love, honour, guilt, redemption etc) only the answers believers have, or come up with, non-believers fully reject. Why? Because the answers of believers reflect exactly the word belief.

The author of this thread is Budhist. Is he wrong? Only to those who believe differently!

Maybe his journey in life has provoked questions that he found answered in the religion of Budhism. Why should he be cursed and mocked for that? Does not G_d rule this universe and is not all creature precious to Him? When Jesus says He is the only way, then that is that. I have come to recognize Him. So will others. People whose eyes are not opened, cannot believe different from what they (non)believe.

Sha`ul a man of knowledge.....he fervently believed in what he believed. Hannah (me) a jew ... fervently believed what she believed. The author of this thread.... is just believing what he believes.

We know what happened to Sha´ul. And I have seen the same happening to full convinced atheists. And you know what..... it can even happen to jews (of all people). They can come to see Jesus as their longwaited Messiah (and they are even being hated more for it)

But christians are not perfect.

They should understand that it is not they who hold the monopoly of salvation....

Jesus Christ being the only way, does not mean that christians are the only way. From what I have seen on this forum, christians have a strong tendancy to confuse these two - unfortuantely - entire different things.

To the author of this thread I would like to say.... you have not seen anything yet (as to not being wrong but bad) but to G_d you are precious. As much as you feel stoned by christians, you are cherished by Him. Your path is not that of a christian but you will end up finding Christ (again). Christians do not always want to accept that G_d loves all people but you should try to look through their handicaps and harshness. They too are only human. Believe me when I say to you that christians are the hardest people to believe with. They have a hard time in doing to others what they expect G_d to do to them all the time: love and forgive.

I do not mind telling you that I do not know how I will survive among them. They are too hard to be true. The love among them (different denominations) is a rarity and the love for those who do not believe or have other religions is fully gone!

But..... I am not a christian because christians are such nice people! I am a christian because I believe Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. And my turning point came when I realized how much a sinner I am. How much I depend on a Healer and Redeemer here and now in my life.

It took me a real long time to accept that I am a sinner. Because ..... well because a smart person like myself is not really a sinner. A smart person like me only makes mistakes and by the way, nobody is perfect....

oh well, the bottom line is, I thought I pretty much knew it, until I met someone who knew more. No it was not a christian..... it was Christ actually.

So if you know of someone who knows more than Christ.... you can private message me.

[yo lunch]

As to credentials....
Sha´ul was a Jewish Rabbi and as such he had full and extensive knowledge of the Jewish Holy Books, for instance Torah, Yehosuha, Shoftim, Sh´mu´el, M´lakhim, Divrei-Hayamim, Rut, Ester, ´Ezra, Nechemyah, Tehillim, Nevi´im.... just to mention a few.

In all these books The Holy One spoke to his people, his own flesh and blood! As he had studied these books and had excellent knowledge of its meaning, he was certainly able to distinguish voices from the Voice.


As to instrument of G_d
It did not take Sha´ul to be thrown down to earth on his way to Damascus (Acts 9:4).... nor being struck with blindness.... (Acts 9:8)

Sha´ul was blessed by disciple Ananias of Damascas and the Holy Ghost dwelled in Sha´ ul.
See Acts 9:10-19. This is the ONLY way people come to see.

Who wrotes Acts? I suspect a person who wanted to confirm Paul's vision.. So, we have a person who (Ananias) had a vision that confirmed the vision of Paul's . Please! These visions are supposed to convince the thinking mind that they are from God? Do you also think that David Copperfield's flying act and walking through walls are real too? !

Listen! Today, we would provide such persons with padded cells and medication! Delusions of visions are not proof of divine revelation!

[mostlyharmless]

The quote also references beliefs, '. . . to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth. . .'

The dice are equally loaded as the previous quote concerning nonbelievers.

I think just from the quote, the bolded parts appear to be about morality not beliefs. It's a bit hard to pretend they are about beliefs when the bit you cut off was "He will render to each one according to his works:" which sets the context for the rest of the statement.

So I can't really see it as you do.

[Hannah]

Who wrotes Acts? I suspect a person who wanted to confirm Paul's vision.. So, we have a person who (Ananias) had a vision that confirmed the vision of Paul's . Please! These visions are supposed to convince the thinking mind that they are from God? Do you also think that David Copperfield's flying act and walking through walls are real too? !

Listen! Today, we would provide such persons with padded cells and medication! Delusions of visions are not proof of divine revelation!

You are deliberately mocking and as such you have no value in any conversation.

[shunyadragon]

I think just from the quote, the bolded parts appear to be about morality not beliefs. It's a bit hard to pretend they are about beliefs when the bit you cut off was "He will render to each one according to his works:" which sets the context for the rest of the statement.

So I can't really see it as you do.

Well. I believe he is talking about believers, Jew and Gentile, and 'obey the truths' is in no way in reference about morality. You also have to harmonize it with the other quotes I mentioned, and no your interpretation does not do that.

Salvation by works??? Does not go with Paul well in other things he wrote.

[Teallaura]

There seems to be a particular psychological view that some Christians appear to have of those who are of different or no faith. To be fair, I have only seen it explicitly stated by a handful of posters, but I sense it is a foundational belief of more. I wonder if it makes apologetics or even dialogue problematic.

We may have different views on social policy or education but we can still dialogue with good grace. I may think your views are wrong but I can accept you hold them with integrity and in a complex issue reached a different conclusion to me with integrity.

I am an ex-Christian. From the age of 25 to 45 I was a devout, active and convinced Christian. Now I'm not. (For some Christians, this is immediately impossible and I could not have been a 'real' Christian to begin with. I'm hoping we can put aside that conversation for the time being.) For one reason and another, I now think my heartfelt conviction was mistaken.

The difficulty for me comes in discussions with some people. Unlike other issues where they might think I was simply wrong, now I am not ONLY wrong but morally suspect. I am told I 'rejected' God. I am told that their particular view of God is so obvious that I must be deliberately, consciously denying it. I am told that I have nefarious motives for no longer thinking Christianity gives an accurate view of reality. I examine myself as thoroughly as I can but I cannot find a trace of these motives that are often ascribed to me.

If this is the way I am regarded, it is hardly surprising that I find many attempts at apologetics or evangelism to be patronising or insulting. How can we enter into true dialogue without respect for the honesty and integrity with which people who disagree with us hold their views?

Why can't we believe that people are just wrong, rather than intentionally, and with malice, rejecting our views?

Um, you spent four paragraphs subtly and not so subtly insulting Christians - I dunno but maybe the attitude problem there has something to do with how well your arguments are received. In the interest of full disclosure, that kind of patronizing is one I find particularly annoying and I'm more than a little biased against buddhism. I really have issues with relativists that can't recognize relativism is itself a value and the hypocrisy of demanding others adopt that value. If you think it possible to discuss your OP with those biases but not intending malice, then by all means, examine my arguments and critique them. If not, you may want to skip this post as I don't debate in a Miss Goody Two Shoes style.

</end disclaimer>

The irrational 'I don't see it but I sense it's true' statement and 'bad Christians said something mean to me so you're all meanies' theme don't help your case either. You're now approaching an absolute truth based religion from a relative truth based religion - you may as well expect that truth claims are going to be much more critically scrutinized.

I'm gonna assume the 'we' application is a rhetorical device or habit and not intended to be patronizing. If the question is why can't some people distinguish between 'different' and 'bad' you have a point that can be valid - but isn't always. If 'different' will inevitably result in a bad outcome the distinction is questionable. Since from the Christian POV of sotiology this is going to be true in most doctrines (all orthodox) different is not neutral. If the point is merely that jumping down someone's throat - or a presumption of conscious motive out of likely outcome - is not generally warranted, I'd grant that.

As a former atheist, I'm well aware that some doctrines are particularly antithetical to rejection of the faith as a legitimate possibility. People from those doctrines aren't going to buy into the 'my new faith is just as legit as my old one and my old faith was really real' argument and it's foolishness to expect otherwise (also shows a lack of understanding of their POV). Logic problems aside, why are you debating against that POV in the first place? That's begging for the kind of conflict you spent an entire OP bewailing.

I never understood as an atheist the obsessive need some atheists felt to tear down Christianity. I don't understand the need in a former Christian to gain affirmation from their former faith - if you don't believe Christ is Lord then why do you need His followers to accept your new belief system as legitimate? If you don't need that affirmation then what's with the whiny OP?

And if you aren't willing to have your new beliefs challenged what the heck are you hanging around an apologetics debate forum for? If you are, then quit whining about the POV you know won't accept you and deal with the people that will grant you the courtesy you seem to want.

I could understand an appeal for civility but you are appealing for an acceptance of legitimacy that is irrational - that legitimacy is a valid point of debate. Why can't they assume your view of sin* is correct? Because it's at odds with their view of sin and you've given no reason why your view is more valid/correct than theirs.

So, in answer to your question, they assume malice/ill motive because their understanding of the rejection of the faith necessarily requires such negative motivation. Not all doctrinal views have that requirement - the argument can be validly made both ways (validity =/= correctness) - so you might be better served to find people from other doctrinal views that can engage you more in the manner you wish.




Hmm, I spent a lot more time on that than I intended... And people wonder why I quit debating so often...



*That's the issue of your OP - the nature of sin. Rejection of the faith slams straight into that wall - hence the flack you get and are bewailing.

[phaedrus]

Um, you spent four paragraphs subtly and not so subtly insulting Christians - I dunno but maybe the attitude problem there has something to do with how well your arguments are received. In the interest of full disclosure, that kind of patronizing is one I find particularly annoying and I'm more than a little biased against buddhism. I really have issues with relativists that can't recognize relativism is itself a value and the hypocrisy of demanding others adopt that value. If you think it possible to discuss your OP with those biases but not intending malice, then by all means, examine my arguments and critique them. If not, you may want to skip this post as I don't debate in a Miss Goody Two Shoes style.

</end disclaimer>

The irrational 'I don't see it but I sense it's true' statement and 'bad Christians said something mean to me so you're all meanies' theme don't help your case either. You're now approaching an absolute truth based religion from a relative truth based religion - you may as well expect that truth claims are going to be much more critically scrutinized.

I'm gonna assume the 'we' application is a rhetorical device or habit and not intended to be patronizing. If the question is why can't some people distinguish between 'different' and 'bad' you have a point that can be valid - but isn't always. If 'different' will inevitably result in a bad outcome the distinction is questionable. Since from the Christian POV of sotiology this is going to be true in most doctrines (all orthodox) different is not neutral. If the point is merely that jumping down someone's throat - or a presumption of conscious motive out of likely outcome - is not generally warranted, I'd grant that.

As a former atheist, I'm well aware that some doctrines are particularly antithetical to rejection of the faith as a legitimate possibility. People from those doctrines aren't going to buy into the 'my new faith is just as legit as my old one and my old faith was really real' argument and it's foolishness to expect otherwise (also shows a lack of understanding of their POV). Logic problems aside, why are you debating against that POV in the first place? That's begging for the kind of conflict you spent an entire OP bewailing.

I never understood as an atheist the obsessive need some atheists felt to tear down Christianity. I don't understand the need in a former Christian to gain affirmation from their former faith - if you don't believe Christ is Lord then why do you need His followers to accept your new belief system as legitimate? If you don't need that affirmation then what's with the whiny OP?

And if you aren't willing to have your new beliefs challenged what the heck are you hanging around an apologetics debate forum for? If you are, then quit whining about the POV you know won't accept you and deal with the people that will grant you the courtesy you seem to want.

I could understand an appeal for civility but you are appealing for an acceptance of legitimacy that is irrational - that legitimacy is a valid point of debate. Why can't they assume your view of sin* is correct? Because it's at odds with their view of sin and you've given no reason why your view is more valid/correct than theirs.

So, in answer to your question, they assume malice/ill motive because their understanding of the rejection of the faith necessarily requires such negative motivation. Not all doctrinal views have that requirement - the argument can be validly made both ways (validity =/= correctness) - so you might be better served to find people from other doctrinal views that can engage you more in the manner you wish.




Hmm, I spent a lot more time on that than I intended... And people wonder why I quit debating so often...



*That's the issue of your OP - the nature of sin. Rejection of the faith slams straight into that wall - hence the flack you get and are bewailing.

I'm sorry you saw my post that way. I can only say it was not the way I intended. Perhaps Apologetics is indeed the wrong forum where it all seems to be about winning or losing debates. I simply wanted to explore an issue which I found with some people and have already acknowledged it to be an issue found across all faiths. I'm not really attacking Christianity and I apologise if you saw it that way.

[Alien]

I do not mind telling you that I do not know how I will survive among them. They are too hard to be true. The love among them (different denominations) is a rarity and the love for those who do not believe or have other religions is fully gone!

Hi Hannah.

This bothers me a little. I have found many many Christians who don't fit that description. They are not "hard", they do love others, they don't think they have a corner on the truth and everyone who doesn't believe their way is stupid/damned/ignorant/whatever.

I don't know where you are meeting Christians, but if it is on Websites like this one, you should understand that "birds of a feather flock together", and once a certain "culture" is established in a group of people, be it a website, church, political party, or club, it tends to attract people of like mind and repel those who are different. This website used to be much more "mixed" in its adherents, but over time it has become much less so.

And that is fine because there is a simple choice: "If you don't like it, don't come here", as Teal said in different words.

Personally, I found this site to be a great help to me since my conversion to theism a few years back. I had a lot of stuff to work through in Christianity, and it gave me a place to see different viewpoints in action, as it were, and forced me to seek alternative explanations for those that I found unacceptable. Having served that purpose, though, I don't feel the need to continue with much posting here any more, and particularly debating matters of dogma.

[yo lunch]

You are deliberately mocking and as such you have no value in any conversation.

Ploy # 101 when no refutation can be done!

[shunyadragon]

People who want proof and hard core evidence before they can believe, have a problem when it comes to G_d.

Those who reject G_d because of lack of proof, do, in reality, not reject G_d but reject themselves as believers. (a type of person who is too stupid to know and therefore believes)

When they start to read the Bible, they literally stop at the first word because that word, Bereesjiet (in the beginning), provokes all the questions they could possibly have.

The non-believers I know are very intelligent and extremely well schooled. Their cognitive mindset is excellently honed. However, conversations about G_d with them turn into battles as they want to be right (in not believing) or proven wrong.

As I see it, non-believers have the same headache questions as believers about the great issues of life (love, honour, guilt, redemption etc) only the answers believers have, or come up with, non-believers fully reject. Why? Because the answers of believers reflect exactly the word belief.

The author of this thread is Budhist. Is he wrong? Only to those who believe differently!

Maybe his journey in life has provoked questions that he found answered in the religion of Budhism. Why should he be cursed and mocked for that? Does not G_d rule this universe and is not all creature precious to Him? When Jesus says He is the only way, then that is that. I have come to recognize Him. So will others. People whose eyes are not opened, cannot believe different from what they (non)believe.

Sha`ul a man of knowledge.....he fervently believed in what he believed. Hannah (me) a jew ... fervently believed what she believed. The author of this thread.... is just believing what he believes.

We know what happened to Sha´ul. And I have seen the same happening to full convinced atheists. And you know what..... it can even happen to jews (of all people). They can come to see Jesus as their longwaited Messiah (and they are even being hated more for it)

But christians are not perfect.

They should understand that it is not they who hold the monopoly of salvation....

Jesus Christ being the only way, does not mean that christians are the only way. From what I have seen on this forum, christians have a strong tendancy to confuse these two - unfortuantely - entire different things.

To the author of this thread I would like to say.... you have not seen anything yet (as to not being wrong but bad) but to G_d you are precious. As much as you feel stoned by christians, you are cherished by Him. Your path is not that of a christian but you will end up finding Christ (again). Christians do not always want to accept that G_d loves all people but you should try to look through their handicaps and harshness. They too are only human. Believe me when I say to you that christians are the hardest people to believe with. They have a hard time in doing to others what they expect G_d to do to them all the time: love and forgive.

I do not mind telling you that I do not know how I will survive among them. They are too hard to be true. The love among them (different denominations) is a rarity and the love for those who do not believe or have other religions is fully gone!

But..... I am not a christian because christians are such nice people! I am a christian because I believe Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. And my turning point came when I realized how much a sinner I am. How much I depend on a Healer and Redeemer here and now in my life.

It took me a real long time to accept that I am a sinner. Because ..... well because a smart person like myself is not really a sinner. A smart person like me only makes mistakes and by the way, nobody is perfect....

oh well, the bottom line is, I thought I pretty much knew it, until I met someone who knew more. No it was not a christian..... it was Christ actually.

So if you know of someone who knows more than Christ.... you can private message me.

I do not consider this rant helpful in response to the thread. You personal views and testimony do not necessarily reflect how nonbelievers are considered and treated in history and today. I am a theist who has gone through the atheist/agnostic continuum, and yes I have experienced similar treatment and responses.

I have cited in the Bible where these views come from and yes I believe they are predominant today and in the history of Christianity, not whether they are right or wrong, but because they reflect scripture, actually Paul's.

[Doug Shaver]

oh well, the bottom line is, I thought I pretty much knew it, until I met someone who knew more. No it was not a christian..... it was Christ actually.

So if you know of someone who knows more than Christ.... you can private message me.

When you can give me something besides your word for it that have met Christ, you can let me know by any means you prefer.

[Teallaura]

I'm sorry you saw my post that way. I can only say it was not the way I intended. Perhaps Apologetics is indeed the wrong forum where it all seems to be about winning or losing debates. I simply wanted to explore an issue which I found with some people and have already acknowledged it to be an issue found across all faiths. I'm not really attacking Christianity and I apologise if you saw it that way.

Fair enough. Don't sweat it - text doesn't always communicate as well as it should.

Later!

[Teallaura]

...

And that is fine because there is a simple choice: "If you don't like it, don't come here", as Teal said in different words.

Side note: That wasn't exactly the impression that I meant to give - I only meant the particular area (Apologetics), not Tweb as a whole.

Personally, I found this site to be a great help to me since my conversion to theism a few years back. I had a lot of stuff to work through in Christianity, and it gave me a place to see different viewpoints in action, as it were, and forced me to seek alternative explanations for those that I found unacceptable. Having served that purpose, though, I don't feel the need to continue with much posting here any more, and particularly debating matters of dogma.

Awww, you're one of my favorite aliens, too.

Ya could at least with the rest of us weirdos sometime...

[Teallaura]

When you can give me something besides your word for it that have met Christ, you can let me know by any means you prefer.

First you need to prove you're not a bot. After all, fair's fair - if you're gonna insist on proof of experiential statements then you should have to prove you're really a people and not just a malicious computer program out to rule the world or something.

So, since there aren't any catcha's around here, let's see you prove you're a human (or close relative - we're very open minded! ).

[Kane]

First you need to prove you're not a bot. After all, fair's fair - if you're gonna insist on proof of experiential statements then you should have to prove you're really a people and not just a malicious computer program out to rule the world or something.

So, since there aren't any catcha's around here, let's see you prove you're a human (or close relative - we're very open minded! ).

I'm not sure this is a fair riposte, really. Doug is challenging Hannah to demonstrate beyond words the reality of Christ. You are asking Doug to prove he is human. In the first instance, Doug is asking Hannah to prove as actual a thing that is essentially mystical. In the second situation, you are asking Doug to prove as actual a being that is actual.

The first scenario is a reasonable request: prove your non-actual to be real, and I'll concede. The second scenario is circular reasoning: prove yourself to be real and I'll believe you're real. The difficulty is merely one of organization: Doug can arrange with you via a plane ticket to meet you; then you'll know he's real. You can't do the same thing with Jesus. You can only claim your personal, subjective experience which cannot be validated beyond your say-so.