|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: People - I /was/ a Christian | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
BobAliceEve: Yes. You boldly go where few EvC religious people have ever gone before. But I guess you know that. Thanks for a forthright response. To all three of you. ____ Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Guess which group is more attractive to me? What on earth does this have to do with the topic, or more specifically, what I wrote? "I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." -Leonardo da Vinci
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
The natural result of that is that I'm always on the very cusp of being shown to be completely wrong in whatever I previously believed. That's what it means to be a rational person. And, of course, that's the farthest thing in the world from being a person of faith. I think faith is a word that has had endure a horribly mangled definition. It seems those of the anti-theist persuasion believe that in order to have faith, one must come to a conclusion based soley on a blind faith-- that one can't reach logical conclusions about it. I think that is totally false from a Judeo-Christian point of view. No one should just assume God for the sake of assuming God. That isn't faith to me. That sounds more like wishful thinking. There are innumerable reasons why I believe as I do. Must I ultimately extend that to faith? Yes, of course. Indeed God is very clear that a measure of faith is necessary, even vital. But this must first derive from an informed faith.
It's possible, however unlikely, that I might be convinced by evidence to believe in God again; but I don't imagine I could ever in this universe become a person of faith, except as a great personal failing. If you came to a faith-based decision based on nothing but faith itself, then we are in agreement.
If there's one thing that I wish for you, in this subject and all others, it's that you'll come to regard yourself as the least trustworthy authority on these issues, rather than the greatest, as you seem to, now. I'm sure you'll misunderstand what I mean, but a reasonable person - rather than a person of faith - would find their personal, irrefutable feelings of communion with God to be an even greater reason to be skeptical of the existence of God - not proof of God. I think some skepticism is an important aspect of faith. I would say that all good Christians should grapple with God. But whenever something trips me up and I can't currently wrap my mind around the concept, at some point I always find the answer eventually. Usually when that happens, its indicative of a lack of understanding on my part. There is only one question that I've never received an answer to. And that's why God would have chosen physical life at all, as opposed to the spiritual. There is no scriptual basis, that I am aware of, that explains why He created life in the physical at all. I'm still mystified by this question. "I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." -Leonardo da Vinci
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
every chance to insult islam, huh buz? nevermind that suicide is forbidden by the quran. they find a way around it just like christian fundamentalists find ways around what their book actually says. i don't think the book itself is much of a standard -- fundamentalism seems to do more with dogma and systems of belief than any holy text. In many ways that is true, which no doubt is why there is an argument concerning what actually constitutes "Fundamentalism." The word is now ambiguous. But I agree with Buzsaw here, that a fundamentalist Christian is someone who steadfastly promotes the gospel as it was presented. Of course, like most things, it opens the door to private interpretation. We all know that cults of various flavours rear their ugly head from these kinds of interpretations. Wahhabi Islam is no different in this aspect, as you've shared. The sad thing that I see is people using that as some sort of evidentiary claim that Christianity itself is inherently wrong. To which I reply: Well, is that evidence of Christ being wrong, or of some His followers who manipulated His words for their own gain? We don't base Christianity on other Christians who are every bit as fallible as any other human being-- rather we base it on Christ alone who uncovers those faults. Indeed, I echo Paul's sentiments here when he said that if anyone brings to you another gospel other than the one presented to you by Yeshua, then let it be anathema. What people love to do is point out how some avowed Christian says or does something counter to their own ascribed theology, only to bring the whole of Christendom in to ill-repute. That kind of reasoning is flawed, as it only serves to confirm that the people espousing it are wrong, not the doctrine itself. Its only been in the last decade that the term "fundy" was representative of a legalist. But there does not seem to be consensus concerning the word. "I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." -Leonardo da Vinci
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPhat Inactive Member |
While the prior dialogues were a bit scintillating (in the same way that the National Enquirer gets read) I think that it is time to slow this team of horses down and allow Mr. Crashfrog to restate his Original Point that he wishes this thread to be about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: The thing that most believers are not aware of, though, is the very strong human ability to deceive ourselves through various sorts of bias and selective thinking. We like to protect our cherished beliefs in order to avoid psychic pain, and many people will go to great mental lengths to do so, even when they must deny reality to do so. It is like the mother who, in retrospect, realizes how obvious the signs were that her new boyfriend was molesting her daughter. At the time it was happening, however, she would have denied the very possibility as absurd, even though the evidence was right there in front of her all the time. She simply chose to ignore the obvious, since it would have been too painful to accept the truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: So when Buz condemns all Muslims for the behavior of a minority, you should be right there, correcting him and telling him that he's wrong, every time. Right? Funny that I don't remember you doing that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
Wahhabi Islam stop saying that. you have no idea what wahhabism means. it is not the arabic word for fundamentalism. just stop. please. you're making a fool of yourself and it hurts my eyeballs. Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
I appreciate all the personal stories being shared here. People have taken real time to do this. In doing so many of them are running their hands over the rough edges of some memories that are not all pleasant. Thanks to all of you.
Fundies: they understand you because they have worn your shoes.
Nem-Jug: What people love to do is point out how some avowed Christian says or does something counter to their own ascribed theology, only to bring the whole of Christendom in to ill-repute. That kind of reasoning is flawed, as it only serves to confirm that the people espousing it are wrong, not the doctrine itself. Ah yes. When in doubt, retreat into the parallel universe... and feel persecuted. The reality, as we see from the personal histories being shared here, is that the people sharing them well understand the many differences of approach that exist within Christendom. Far from wanting to bring 'the whole' into 'ill-repute', as you say, they just found--without wanting to--that the Christianity they encountered did a thorough job of returning to sender any credibility they gave it. Our colleagues speak of what they know. What you describe here more resembles your own habits. Only recently I caught you generalizing about 'eastern religions' in a way that placed them in an inferior category to your own beliefs. Yet you could produce no reasonable grounds for doing so. It was clear you knew next to nothing about Asian religions. And you showed not the slightest willingness to familiarize yourself with any of them. How did you put it? 'That kind of reasoning is flawed.'
Its only been in the last decade that the term "fundy" was representative of a legalist. But there does not seem to be consensus concerning the word. A high correlation has existed between fundamentalists and 'legalists' since The Fundamentals first appeared in the US in the nineteenth century. We could debate the terms, but it's obvious that both phenomena are based on (1) strictly literal interpretations of ancient texts considered to be both (2) inerrant and (3) authoritative in mandating and prohibiting personal choices. The best working definition of 'fundamentalist' is the one arach provided earlier. It also happens to be precise. It comes straight from the book responsible for the term's coinage. It's as valid a definition today as when the book appeared. The short form 'fundy' is slang. It's not unaffectionate. People use it for fundamentalists the way you might use the word 'daffy' of an uncle or aunt who likes to knock on your door at odd hours, talk too loudly without listening, spout ignorant opinions, and tell you your air conditioner is a tool of the Devil. Since at least the 1960s the word 'fundamentalist' has been adapted by English-language journalists to describe sects in other world religions. The word conveyed the stringent flavour of more extreme sects but said nothing about actual beliefs. It was simply an analogy. Journalists were comparing the exotic with the known to give their readers a sense of it. This group, they said, operates within the mainstream of its society a bit like fundamentalists operate within the mainstream of ours. We have many such 'journalistic quickie' terms that are easy to adopt instead of doing any real thinking. We speak of 'Liberal' and 'Conservative,' 'Eastern' and 'Western' societies. To the extent these terms are useful it's good to have them around. But often they inhibit and constrain thinking instead of enabling it. We don't have to use terms invented for us by the press. It is far better to speak precisely. But then one is obligated to know what one is talking about._____ Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Indeed God is very clear that a measure of faith is necessary, even vital. But this must first derive from an informed faith. So what is faith, then? Or perhaps better - what is the opposite of faith? I've long felt that the opposite of faith was not believing in something until you had ample evidence to. Is that, in your view, incorrect? What is faith, then? What is its opposite?
I think some skepticism is an important aspect of faith. So why not be skeptical about the whole God thing, as I am? Why not be skeptical about the supposed divinity of the Bible? Of all religions, and their texts? If skepticism is so important, why refrain from maintaining it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I think that it is time to slow this team of horses down and allow Mr. Crashfrog to restate his Original Point that he wishes this thread to be about. Basically, just that you can be an ex-Christian and an ex-believer; that the fact that you are not those things now doesn't invalidate the fact that you were those things, back then. Also I'm still waiting for all my supposed legions of detractors to pop in and tell me what's wrong with me. It's still an open invitation, and I promise not to bite.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
ray, (admin)phat is an evangelical christian. he's not a "darwinist." Phat is an evolutionist/Darwinist (said words are synonyms) who thinks he is a Christian. A Christian accepts the fact that their Savior's Father created the world and the appearance of design seen in reality corresponds to His power; evolutionists reject design indicating invisible Designer = Atheism. Logically, real Christians do not agree with Atheists concerning ORIGINS. Phat (like all "Christians" who accept evolution) is deceived; that is how the Bible explains their belief about them self. Phat (and all TEists) think that God has given them a special exemption (= deceived) concerning evolution - the Bible says no such thing exists, but the exact opposite.
and "loser" is an ad-hominem. similarly, so is my post above. what gets me is that your comment attracted moderator attention, but his "cram it up your ass" did not. In the context that I used it ("loser") was not ad hom. It was a logical conclusion based on the preceding argument. The fact that his comment did not attract Phat "the Christian's" attention is easily explained by the fact that both he and Crashfrog are Atheists, at least Crashfrog knows that he is an Atheist, unlike Phat who is deceived and deluded, much like Judas who "walked with" Christ too.
ah, it's "no true scotsman" again, is it? You do not understand NTS. NTS is an attempt to objectify subjectivity.
"fundamentalist" is someone who accepts the fundamentals (trinity, divinity of jesus, salvation by crucifixion, resurrection, etc) and generall attends one of the smaller denominations (ie: not catholic, anglican, etc). you are a fundamentalist -- i don't mean that as any kind of insult. that's just the definition. i was one too. so was crash. No, that is not the definition of a Fundamentalist. A Fundamentalist is many things, theologically (the main issue) Fundamentalists accept the message of the book of James to be equal and congruent with Pauline epistles. This means they are legalists and have rejected the gospel (= way of faith alone, Paul's message). James wrote to contradict Paul. Jesus, in Acts 9, chose Paul as His mouthpiece. The purpose of the book James is to showcase the perversion of the gospel as explained by Paul. Fundamentalists do not understand this.
yes, that's "fundamentalism." Negative. That is evangelicalism. "ev" in Greek means "good." "angel" is a messenger from God. In other words, evangel[ist] means "good message" from God. What is the "good message" from God? It's in Paul's epistles and not James: God will accept faith, in place of works, to relate to Him through Christ - period. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
http://EvC Forum: People - I /was/ a Christian -->EvC Forum: People - I /was/ a Christian
You have ran away. In addition, this thread is not about the views of an ex-Christian turned apostate. It is Atheist evangelism telling Christians that they are deluded and an attempt to deconvert them. CHRISTIANS: Crashfrog is an Atheist-evolutionist, his hero is an idiot who is loved by the secular world (Richard Dawkins). Their message is "Evolution Saves." Intelligent persons with God-sense can see how pathetic they are. They are too stupid to be Christians and/or believers. The Bible says these persons have not rejected God, but that God has rejected them. That is why they reject God. Go ahead and read Crashfrog's posts and thank God that He thought better of you and did not let you go. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You have ran away. From what? I'm sorry you got lost in the shuffle, but there's not much in your post worth responding to. Somebody who thinks "you're a loser" doesn't constitute a personal attack has bigger problems than my next post, I assure you.
Intelligent persons with God-sense can see how pathetic they are. Ah, yes. The mythical "God-sense." Is yours tingling? Let me cover just a few more of your misunderstandings.
First off, you admit to being a Fundamentalist - they aint real Christians. They are legalists who do not understand the gospel, but superimpose Christ ONTO Mosaic law/code of conduct as the way one walks with Christ. Actually that's exactly what my church preached - "it's not about legalism." "It's about a personal relationship with Jesus." "But also, if you have sex before you're married, you'll burn in hell, slut." (The last is a paraphrase.) There's no less legalism in the religion you describe. Legalism is inherent to religion; that's what a lot of people want out of it. "How am I supposed to live?"
Are you blind to the contradiction in this statement? If you had really discovered God or like you say "had genuine communion with God" then we would not be having this conversation, would we? If there really was a God, then no, we wouldn't be having this conversation. It's no contradiction. I had the genuine "God" experience. It's just that - the "genuine" article is But your next comment admits that you were not and did not have "genuine communion with God": The genuine communion is the delusion. Don't you see? It's not just my experience of God that's invalid; it's yours, too. Because there's no such thing as God. That's why, in your cowardice, you have to deny everything I'm saying. Because recognizing that my experience is identical to yours means that yours is delusion, too. And you're scared to death of that. Thus, the personal attacks. Anything you can do to push my argument away. But it's already inside you, CFO, the doubt. I know you feel it. If even Mother Theresa doubted the existence of God, you can't possibly be immune. What a beacon of hope I found her letters, hope for mankind. In her struggle was the very struggle for humanity. And if even near-sainthood cannot immunize someone from their own good sense, then I have great hope for humanity waking up from millenia of delusion. I have hope even for you, Ray.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
somethings about your etymology of "evangelical".
First, "eu-" means good. That's a tiny point.Second, it's "angellein", not angel. "Angellein" means to announce, and comes from "angelos", which means messenger. Unless you can find the greeks using "angelos" specifically for messengers from God, you cannot make the claim that evangelicalism means "good message from God". That is how we use the word, but that is not what the word means is you base the definition from the constituent parts (and you were giving the definition based on the constituent parts). eu + angellein = evangelical.eu + angellein = good announcement Finally, about your ad hominem against Crash. If he's a loser who couldn't make it with god, it only means you're a loser who can't make it without god. Ah well, what am I saying? After all, you'll only retort by saying that since I disagree with you you are actually right and I'm actually wrong.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024