The more you know, the more you dislike it?

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by G0D, Mar 25, 2002.

  1. G0D G0D - Gee Zero Dee Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    150
    A spinoff from Tiassa's writings on "Christians vs Infidels" and Living Sacrifice's "Why ppl oppose christianity"

    In L-S's thread, many ppl came foward with their experiences with xtnty. Among them, Tiassa, Lightbeing, Pragmathen, etc.

    One thing common to all their accounts was that many have had pretty long associations with the religion, before ultimately turning around and rejecting it. And elsewhere, Cris mentioned that he was in a school (for 12 yrs) where there was a religious ceremony daily. It seems to me that all these posters have had long and possibly deep experiences of xtnty - and yet, to varying degrees of intensity, they dislike it.

    And on the other hand, we have the rabidly devoted xtians. KalvinB, for instance. Given his age alone, could not have possibly have had a very long association with the religion. Dan1123 mentioned he was a (recent?) convert.

    Of Loone, we know nothing, and can derive nothing. Tony1 only quotes others, so we know nothing of him personally. blonde-cupid has not responded to my queries about her association with xtnty.

    So, from this limited sample, we see that -
    Opponents - long association, very knowledgable about xtianity.
    Xtians - shorter association, limited knowledge about xtnty.


    From this, one wonders if it might be a trait of xtnty that -

    The more one knows it, the more one comes to dislike it?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. dan1123 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    302
    I don't know about you, but when I have gone to many churches, I see far more christians who have been actively a christian for 20 or 30 years than new people. I have been a christian for a little over three years, but one of the guys I'm friends with is a geneticist and an elder at the church I attend. I was an atheist for four years, which was reinforced by my friends and family. Before that, I was too young to care (I'm 23 now). I don't think many long-time christians would even bother to look for a site like this. The people are too set in their opinions to convert, so it just becomes a place to have ideas put to the test for the enjoyment of it. At least that's why I post here.

    I think you overestimate the knowledge of tiassa and Chris. I got much of what tiassa talks about shoved down my throat in high school and college english and philosophy classes. Both Chris and tiassa seem more familiar with the sunday school version of the Bible rather than the culture, language, and practices that are necessary to get a grasp of what a contemporary of the text would understand. Further, both seem more well versed in post-Biblical religious activism than theological issues.

    By the way, did anyone else notice the spell check stopped working? I used to run my posts through for the benefit of others (my spelling isn't that bad to begin with, but it would occasionally find a typo or two) but now it just gives an error message.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. G0D G0D - Gee Zero Dee Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    150
    Exactly! Because they are set in their opinions, they do not bother to increase their knowledge of their faith. My contention is that those who do increase their knowledge about xtnty, will soon come to dislike it.
    In the case of tiassa, I disagree. What the average person on this site knows, is largely limited to biblical stuff. None of them has demostrated a knowledge of the developments in xtnty over the last 2000 yrs, as has tiassa.

    (Does that not strike you as strange? That xtians prefer to limit their knowledge to the first 300 yrs of their religion, when it was actually at it's weakest? And totally ignore the "golden age of christianity" in the 1300-1400, when it was at it's strongest?

    Perhaps it is because the teachings of the "golden age" included limiting physical hygiene, and praising lice as the "handmaidens of god".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )

    When I say "knowledgable", I mean knowledge about ALL of xtnty. Starting with judaism roots, going onto the bible, all the way to writings in the dark ages, on to contemporary xtnty. To my recall, no religionist here has ventured any further than the bible. OTOH Tiassa has.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Is not "blondE" for women, and "blond" gor men?

    Nelson is a xtian who believes in karma, chakras, re-birth, tao, etc. One hesitates to use his example. McFly is a recent convert as well,

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    thanks for that.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Dan1123

    That's the spirit!
    If you remove my name and Cris' from that statement, you have just accurately described the majority of American Christians, at least. The touring international religionists who would occasionally drop by the Catholic school to affirm the faith weren't much different. I might assert that you've described the majority of Christians. Are all of these Christians astray from God in their faith?

    thanx,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. dan1123 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    302
    tiassa
    You don't need to know the intricate details of Christianity in order to be close to God in faith. The reasons for a Christian to know the Bible deeply are to get closer to God and please Him, and to be able to satisfactorily answer hard questions about why he or she believes.

    For someone trying to put Christianity in a bad light, one must know certain facts and ignore many others. Such a person must know about the crusades, witch trials, Galileo, banning books and/or burning books, holy wars in the Bible, a few quotes about women being submissive, and Leviticus and stoning homosexuals. Such a person must ignore the low loss of life in the crusades and witch trials, the church beginning higher education, monks bringing forth scientific discovery with the church's blessing, the church's promotion of the early feminist movement, the church's primary role in ending slavery, Galations 3:28 with respect to women, the church starting the hospital movement, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 with respect to homosexuals. To choose one set of facts and ignore another is the definition of misrepresentation.
     
  9. G0D G0D - Gee Zero Dee Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    150
    A fine reply, dan. Of the xtians on the forum, you seem to do the best job of presenting the religionist view, without resorting to quotations, dogma, insults, evasion, denial, etc.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Your reply puts a positive spin on the generally uninformed state of the religionist horde, albeit at the expense of reinforcing the notion of "sacrificing the intellect". However, the interpretation could vary from person to person, and I'm willing to let it go for now.

    I recall that you wrote somewhere that you converted to xtnty some 4 yrs ago, after much introspection. If I were not intruding, may I ask if your parents or siblings are of the same faith?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    regards, G0D.


    Edit: My apologies, dan.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Just 3 posts up you had mentioned that your parents "reinforced your athiesm". I missed that bit. May I ask if they are still athiests?

    =====

    You mentioned elsewhere that you had subjected your faith to tough questions before deciding to accept it. Did you ask any questions about the afterlife? ie. heaven, hell, etc. Perhaps your particular sect of xtnty (or you yourself) has good answers for this question ...?
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2002
  10. pragmathen 0001 1111 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    452
    You've got something ...

    <b>G0D</b>, thanks for the reference. How can I not respond?

    I had a serious discussion with my younger brother about my altered belief system and I mentioned several specifics as to why I not only no longer believed the same as he, but also why I thought religion was an overall fraud. I learned from that experience that many people can still be very active in their churches, but choose to put the majority of their issues on the back-burner.

    When I was in Japan, I had the opportunity to teach a black man. He was from the US, but he had married interracially in one of Moon's mass weddings. He spoke very little Japanese and his wife spoke even less English. His in-laws were very prejudiced against him and he couldn't find a satisfactory job. He was an exceptionally nice guy, very cordial. It was the first time in nearly a year that I had taught someone about Christianity <i>in English</i>. It was very difficult (to this day, sometimes I still intersperse Japanese slang into my everyday phrases). Naturally, he had heard some things about the LDS religion, many of which I thought I had a pat answer for and would be able to win him over to my way of thinking. He brought up the fact that the LDS religion refused priesthood rights to blacks until 1978, why was this so? I tried to skate around the issue (because I hadn't thought deeply enough about the subject until then basically), but failed. I had no intention of deceiving him and replied that we just don't know, but someday perhaps we will. In the meantime ...

    Thankfully, he never joined. Alas, I just hope his marriage is all right. But there's a point to this experience. When I started questioning the answers I was given for the questions I had, I realized that I didn't want to put things on the back-burner. I wanted to find out for myself all that I could about any given topic. I didn't want to wait (in faith) for the answers to be given from some aging defunct religious figure. My brother did. Has. Still does. Probably will ever-after.

    I think a misnomer about those that leave the religion is that they're taking the easy way out. It sure as hell wasn't easy for me. And for those that take beliefs seriously in life, I think it wasn't easy for the others as well.

    And it's right back to that old saying, <i>To thine own self, be true</i>. For the moment, I forget the philosopher that coined that. Anyway, for me, I'm being true.

    Thanks!

    prag
     
  11. Tony H2o Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    441
    Tony H2o Christian + 20 years and still believing, still following and still have doubts every now and again.

    But like the 12 "Lord we believe, help our unbelief". Like them I understand my flaws and by Gods grace learn from them.

    I think your statement "The more you know, the more you dislike it?" is half correct.

    The more I know of religion, that is of mans attempts to structure faith, the less I like it.

    But the more I know of God, of who He is, of what He had done and why.........well I'm awestruct, blown away and dumbfounded by my mortality in the presence of such an immortal being.

    God rocks you to your core if you'll let Him.

    Religion rots you to the core if you let it.

    Allcare

    Tony H2o

    PS Lookup my past posts if you want to know more.
     
  12. dan1123 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    302
    G0D
    I was the second in my family to convert. My mother was the first, and I have been and am opposed to many of her beliefs. I wanted to show her that Christianity was a foolish set of beliefs Christianity was, so I set out to disprove it for her sake. In the process I realized that most of what I saw wasn't so foolish and in fact looked like it was trying to be honest with those who question its validity. So after further inspection I decided to believe what it says.

    My father wasn't going to have anything to do with it though. Neither was my brother. They had different issues, and through their consideration, came to believe a few years later.

    pragmathen
    What different churches do is decided by people. churches may follow or not follow the Bible, or any teachings of Jesus. If the LDS church considered the Ethiopian official helped by Phillip in Acts 8, or the blatant anti-racism statement in Galations 3, then maybe they would have put aside their own racism. (and the LDS church is on the verge of putting aside the book of mormon because of the trouble it has gotten them in.)

    As far as your "know thyself" statment, I have another quote for you, "If you have questions about reality, don't look within yourself... you're the one who's confused."

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. tony1 Jesus is Lord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,279
    *Originally posted by G0D
    So, from this limited sample, we see that -
    Opponents - long association, very knowledgable about xtianity.
    Xtians - shorter association, limited knowledge about xtnty.


    From this, one wonders if it might be a trait of xtnty that -

    The more one knows it, the more one comes to dislike it?
    *

    Sounds almost cute.

    In actual fact, the opponents are non-believers and the Christians are believers.
    Christianity doesn't "work" unless you believe, so if you're a non-believer, you hear promises that do not come to pass for you.
    Thus, the no-brainer conclusion is that Christianity doesn't work.
    These non-believers eventually become opponents.

    It's explained in the Bible...

    A sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it.
    ...
    Those by the way side are they that hear; then comes the devil, and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

    (Luke 8:12, KJV).

    *My contention is that those who do increase their knowledge about xtnty, will soon come to dislike it.*

    100% incorrect.
    It would be the stupidest thing in the world to stop believing after being miraculaously healed and saved a few times and after watching one's income increase 30% per year for several years straight.

    *None of them has demostrated a knowledge of the developments in xtnty over the last 2000 yrs, as has tiassa.*

    tiassa's problem is that he knows about Catholicism, but he does not know Christianity at all.
    In effect, it is as if he were married and wondering why he's having difficulties, and it turns out that not only does he not have a relationship with his wife, but that the closest he's ever gotten to her is to be introduced to his wife's sister.

    *And totally ignore the "golden age of christianity" in the 1300-1400, when it was at it's strongest?*

    That was the golden age of Catholicism, otherwise known as the Dark Ages.

    *OTOH Tiassa has.*

    I'll finish the sentence...
    tiassa has no clue.
    Roman Catholicism isn't, and never will be Christianity.
    The first clue? The name.

    The name itself is a lie.
    If it's Roman, then it isn't catholic, and if it's catholic, then it isn't Roman.
    Tiassa is very knowledgeable about this counterfeit of Christianity, but he has zero knowledge of Christianity, which is true for all non-believers.

    *Originally posted by tiassa
    I might assert that you've described the majority of Christians. Are all of these Christians astray from God in their faith?
    *

    Pretty much.
    Attending church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a barn makes you a horse.

    *Originally posted by Tony H2o
    But like the 12 "Lord we believe, help our unbelief".
    *

    They said that BEFORE they were converted.
    I'd hope that in 20+ years you would be past that pre-conversion stage.

    I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
    (Deuteronomy 30:19, KJV).

    As a Christian, you have chosen life in the choice between life and death, but have you chosen blessing in the choice between blessing and cursing?

    Satan knows those two choices are crucial in a person's life, so one of the two biggest fights is trying to get a person to choose life instead of death, and the other is to get a person, even a Christian, to choose blessing.
     
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Dan1123

    I tried actively not paying attention to your post, Dan1123, but in the end I found it too fulsome to ignore.
    By what measure, Dan1123?

    On the one hand, if someone starts a nuclear war and kills, say, a billion people, does that mean we're being too hard on Hitler or Stalin? To the other, what constitutes a low death toll?

    Here's one person's take on the situation:
    Now, those are some stiff numbers; if you go to the page, you'll note he's got a bunch of his assertions linked to other essays, such as this one to support his claims about the Crusade ....

    To respond to you in kind, sir, for someone to ignore the low loss of life in the Crusades is to respect history; for someone to accept the notion of the church bringing higher education, we might ask whether it was education or indoctrination, and, furthermore look to Christian opposition of the mass-printing of the Bible, thus removing church monopoly on scripture, as well as the anti-Darwinian temper-tantrum that still goes on today; to note the church as pro-woman is to ignore the result of it, as well as the scriptures about it (I'm intrigued by your idea of the "early feminist movement"); to note the church's role in ending slavery--which slavery? for many of the faith in the United States invented "Christian" justifications to keep human beings in shackles; here, let's look at these:
    • There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3.28)

    So, with respect to women, what does this mean? That they are one and equal in Christ? What, then, of 1 Timothy?

    • A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed. But she will be saved through motherhood, provided women persevere in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. (1 Timothy 2.11-ff)

    So what, then, is the actual result of the Bible's seemingly mixed-up, muddled-up, madonna/whore approach to women? This is why I'm interested in what you mean by early feminist movement; were women raised by education or indoctrination? I assert that we can see the oppression of women throughout Church and faith history; there are organizations today (SBC) which mandate dress codes for a proper woman.

    • Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6.9-11)

    It's a nice interpretation of Jesus by a later author. It is also an excellent example of why Christianity is a danger to the United States of America. We live in a society which guarantees equality and freedom. What, then, does this mean? Does the above passage from 1 Corinthians justify the actions of the bigots and haters who clothe themselves in the appearance of the lamb's mercy? If it's merely about wanting to believe in Heaven and going there, then I have no real objections to the passage in Corinthians you've provided. However, in terms of the license Christians take to legislate against others who are outside the faith, I think you may have missed the point.
    Then why do you? You show me a part of the Bible that says "women are equal in Christ"; well, what does that mean? After they go to heaven?

    For instance, do you really think that we've never heard of these passages before? Do you really think that we're so inherently sinful by proxy of creation that we would not have been bright enough to honestly consider such a passage?

    We see, we read, we observe. We judge according to the result. Imagine this: I give you a design for a building that is attractive, large enough for your company's needs, and insanely inexpensive. Great plan, eh? So we build the building and the reason for its phenomenal price is that it's not actually well-designed, so that it falls down shortly after completion. Is it still a great building plan?

    The failure of Christians to execute the idyll you advertise is a result. We see misogyny in Christians, we see a lack of equality. The living result of the implementation of the Biblical result more closely agrees, for instance, with the part of 1 Timothy I have cited. I would love very much for Christians to properly apply what you've presented from Galatians 3.28, but the observable fact is that it's not true.

    I agree with you, Dan1123: To choose one set of facts and ignore another is misrepresentation.

    Why, then, are you misrepresenting the Bible? Is it really the notion of being born into sin, of corruption requiring redemption, that would compel you to operate from the perspective that I've spent the last 15 years of my life not seeking a reconciliation 'twixt scripture and conduct? That I've spent all that time slobbering over the politics and dogma? Take a look over in the crucifixion thread; I admit there's a couple of your posts I haven't gotten to, and I've lost them in the mire, but we've got 10 pages of someone standing on dogma and refusing to look at the scripture behind the dogma.

    Or is it that you're not misrepresenting the Bible, but merely speaking out without knowing the intricate details of Christianity? After all, such details are unnecessary when you're scrambling after the comfort of eternal life: You don't need to know the intricate details of Christianity in order to be close to God in faith.

    What does that mean, Dan1123? Does it mean that someone like Lon Mabon, who worked to destroy liberty and civil rights, doesn't need to know what he's talking about? Does it mean that he's only viewing one set of facts and therefore misrepresenting?

    Your answer is well enough, but I would here echo G0D's note that you're reinforcing the notion of the sacrifice of the intellect.

    Perhaps it's just a simple difference: When it's about such an ultimate stake as your eternal soul, I understand that you would not be well-inclined to consider those facts and the issues they present. Since you've made such a thoughtful and well-considered conversion, we might then ask you for the resolution to the issues we have before us.

    What, for instance, is the result? Does the Bible's regard for women give us a living result that more closely matches what you cite in Galatians or what I cite in 1 Timothy? Does the Bible's regard for homosexuals truly license you to go out and violate a free society which, by any definition of liberty, allows your faith to exist? Take a look at the state of Christianity before its post-American liberalization. Would your faith have survived and been accepted by the extant European churches?

    And so now we have a society in which you are free to believe what you choose, and the Christian belief seems to have a consistent result, as seen in the case of homosexuals at least, but well-known beyond that particular issue, of working to undermine the freedom which Christians enjoy. To me it's ridiculous that the freedom that allows you to hate someone else should be taken away from the object of your hate. E.g. I think it ridiculous that a free society should be reserved to Christians. Remember that, technically, Nazi Germany was a free society: You are free to agree with us. And if you didn't meet the prerequisites of the society--e.g. non-Jewish &c.--you did not qualify even as "you". It's not too different, in that abstract sense, from the living result of Christianity. I've often said that the only difference 'twixt "then and now" is that nobody's being burned at the stake.

    I've tried to take your post in the most open sense possible, but it can't clean the offensive taste it leaves behind from my palate.

    Watch the process at work, Dan1123; compare the process to the scripture. The process is sinister; whether you choose to believe the process reflects the scripture is up to you, but the implication becomes clear: if the process reflects scripture, the scripture is sinsister. If the process does not reflect scripture, then the scripture is ineffective. Christians have had two millennia to blow it out their asses; that, at least, I can say they did supremely well.

    If only it was as simple as abstractions of faith on paper or e-stock. But it's not. Some of us are watching very closely, and I deeply resent the hypocritical implicatons of your post.

    It does, in fact, make it easier for your argument to achieve legitimacy if we're all blithering idiots, but we're not. It's well enough for you to believe that Christians are so inherently evil as to require intervention, but leave the rest of us alone in the meantime.

    thanx,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. tony1 Jesus is Lord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,279
    *Originally posted by tiassa
    quote:
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ... An estimated nine million people died during these series of wars.

    ...The medieval Inquisition caused the death of more than one million people in the crusade against what was considered a "heretical" sect called the Albigensians in the South of France.

    Of course it did not stop there, fresh from this "success" the Inquisition hunted down witches all over Europe. The death toll for the witch-hunts which terrorized Europe for three centuries (from 1487 to circa 1782) has been estimated to be as high as two million.

    The Spaniards learned from these and came up with their own Spanish Inquisition. The death toll here exceeded thirty thousand. The victims ranged from girls as young as thirteen to women as old as ninety. Such was the extend of God's grace!
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    *

    Oooh, sounds bad.
    But what do the atrocities of the Roman Catholic church have to do with the topic at hand?

    *furthermore look to Christian opposition of the mass-printing of the Bible,*

    That was Roman Catholic opposition, as you well know.

    *as well as the anti-Darwinian temper-tantrum that still goes on today*

    My, my, aren't we having a classic fit of projection!
    You know perfectly well that the evolutionists have nothing (excuse me, almost nothing; your inventive gill-on-top-of-the-head had me laughing for days, and I thank you for that), and they're the ones with the anti-Christian tantrum.
    After all, I can laugh, but evos rarely can.

    *Is it really the notion of being born into sin, of corruption requiring redemption, that would compel you to operate from the perspective that I've spent the last 15 years of my life not seeking a reconciliation 'twixt scripture and conduct?*

    I can't speak for dan1123, but who told you to do that?
    If you know what the conduct should be, then show us.
    Surely, the mental picture of appropriate conduct would cross religious boundaries, so a non-Christian America would benefit from your demonstration as well as a Christian America.

    *Perhaps it's just a simple difference: When it's about such an ultimate stake as your eternal soul, I understand that you would not be well-inclined to consider those facts and the issues they present.*

    That's just it.
    There is no eternal soul. It's just Catholic propaganda that you are so familiar with.

    *And so now we have a society in which you are free to believe what you choose, and the Christian belief seems to have a consistent result, as seen in the case of homosexuals at least, but well-known beyond that particular issue, of working to undermine the freedom which Christians enjoy.*

    Homosexuals aren't actually free, seeing as they are forced by their proclivities to research each others' anuses.
    To consider a person free who is essentially forced to spend time compacting another's fecal matter with his own penis, is ludicrous.

    * It's well enough for you to believe that Christians are so inherently evil as to require intervention, but leave the rest of us alone in the meantime.*

    To your evil?
     
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Um ... Tony1?

    Really, man ... all else aside: is it a reading disorder?
    Well, perhaps if you had read Dan1123's post, you would see that he pointed out the low loss of life.
    Well, it is a daily challenge. I advocate peace between people and seek the source of conflicts; I advocate harmonious progress of the human endeavor; I advocate the best potential of all people. Practical considerations, of course, are problematic. However, one of the critical failures of Christianity in this regard is that many of these practical considerations are inescapable. People disagree, and sometimes they take it personally. As we see here at Sciforums, though, many Christians outright reject the Bible and refuse to "turn the other cheek" when they feel insulted or offended, whether that feeling is justified or not. Take KalvinB, for instance. When he was accosting Elbaz and Godless, he stated that he has no obligation to be patient with people. Like all things in the past, we could forgive this, as, in fact, we've discussed elsewhere. But as we see, KalvinB sought to justify that conduct in his anti-Islamic post by relying heavily on comparisons of Islam and Judaism; how do these ideas reflect on Christianity? We don't know, since he didn't give much consideration to Christ in that one. And yet he continues to behave that way, cussing out Markx and other posters in his wrath. He can call himself a Christian all he wants, but the example he sets, much like the example you set, Tony1, does not reflect scripture and presents an interesting appearance of hypocrisy to those of us watching.

    For a non-Christian America to follow my lead in conduct, then, would involve Christians actively revoking their Biblical faith. It is a comparison between principles and reality. It will be a wonderful day when people no longer choose to fight. However, Christians are supposed to be at the forefront of that.

    Take a look at the above words; I could, for instance, have replied to you with a one-liner in the same mean spirit you present yourself, but instead I've chosen to try to explain it to you. I could simply say that if you don't understand by now, you never will, but I also tend to think that human beings give up on each other too quickly, so it would be wrong and hypocritical of me to simply assume that you are, in fact, that stupid. Despite your best efforts to prove it, though, I'm obliged to consider any result that avoids rendering you a worthless human being. So if I have to assume you're crazy, or misguided, or even undereducated, fine. It's a better result than saying you have nothing and will never have anything to offer. I'm very unhappy that it came down to putting Loone on my ignore list. The only reason you or KalvinB or Blonde Cupid haven't made it there yet with your overflowing disrespect is that you do, occasionally, have a point worth discussing or at least refuting.

    As to who told me to consider such issues, well, what would you? To remove oneself from a paradigm does not mean opposing it point-for-point. The fact that I must live with this Christian majority daily in my community means that I must find a way to get along with them. I could have, I supposed, taken the hateful route that you and KalvinB have quite apparently taken, and simply despise you for not being me.

    Or I suppose I could have believed the Christians when they said I was too stupid to think for myself. Then I could be one of them and never have to worry about issues like integrity and the value of other people.
    A temporary soul? I gotta call a friend of mine--it's a perfect name for his band, or at least the album.
    I think you've hit an important point, Tony1. Nobody is free in the context you're addressing. That's why we're talking about freedom and society.

    Why is it that your most consistent points are those which are A) irrelevant to the concept you're addressing, and B) narrowly interpreted to exclude the full range addressed by the concept? I would hope you have a better response than that, despite the fact that I'm not expecting one. (See? I still hope for you to be a better person than your online persona indicates.)
    On the one hand, sure, if that's how you choose to see it. But just because you believe that people are inherently evil does not make it so. In fact, if people are inherently evil as Biblical dogma indicates (e.g. unsatisfactory by the nature of our existence to that which created us), then such is the will of God. What you fail to realize is that nothing happens without God's will; this is biblical. Thus:

    • Nothing happens without the will of God.
    • People operate outside the paradigm expressed by God (e.g. evil).
    • Therefore, God wills that people operate outside the paradigm expressed by God.

    If you find something to be evil in the world, remember that God wills it to be this way, and perhaps that means you should think twice before engaging the perceived evil.

    Many religions understand this, Tony1. Consider the old point about why I have so few issues with Jews and Muslims and Hindus &c. These people are not trying to force me to live according to their will. Certes, there are those among them who would wish dominion, but I have not had to vote against an official state endorsement of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, or any other religion. Christians, however, have repeatedly attempted to usurp a free society and return it to dark theocracy.

    Posting to you is a little like dealing with a child. It seems to me that you see the object of your victorious desire, but are unable to express it. Thus, you seem to be overlooking the integrity of character required to properly execute Christian faith or any other religious paradigm.

    As an example, we can point to your conduct in the crucifixion thread. Is it a reading disorder or deliberate will which compels you to omit the actual subject of a chosen citation and apply it incorrectly to another point? You attempted to answer what only Blonde Cupid can answer, and I advised you that it was not your point to defend, whereupon you asked why the topic in general shouldn't be yours to participate in. Did you miss the point by accident or on purpose?

    Integrity, Tony1. Integrity. It's what's lacking among Christians.

    That you've been raised that way means that I don't hold you responsible for such erroneous and spiteful notions. That you insist upon maintaining them, however, speaks hordes of your character.

    Integrity, Tony1--it might taste bad at first, but you'll get used to it eventually if you just try it once.

    --Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. tony1 Jesus is Lord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,279
    Re: Um ... Tony1?

    *Originally posted by tiassa
    Really, man ... all else aside: is it a reading disorder?
    *

    It must be.
    I've been toying with the idea that you suffer from dyslexia, too, but you don't seem to exhibit the classic symptoms.
    It must be a new disorder, which I am going to name "antilexia."

    In your reading of dan1123's post you must have antilexically thought that the low loss of life was somehow not connected with Christian-caused loss of life, which is low at most times.
    You then, antilexically, went on to prove that Catholic-caused loss of life was quite high.
    That's fine, antilexically speaking, but what does high Catholic-caused casualty rates have to do with disliking Christianity, which is the topic?

    *Well, it is a daily challenge. I advocate peace between people and seek the source of conflicts; I advocate harmonious progress of the human endeavor; I advocate the best potential of all people.*

    I admire your philosophy in that respect, however your actions belie your ideals.
    You say you advocate peace between people, yet you deny the Prince of Peace.
    You advocate harmony, yet you spend countless hours attempting to criticize Christianity, although you keep confusing it with the oxymoronically-named Roman Catholicism.
    You advocate the best potential of all people, which presumably would be life, yet with all of your doing you seek death, both for yourself and all around you.

    *the example he sets, much like the example you set, Tony1, does not reflect scripture and presents an interesting appearance of hypocrisy to those of us watching. *

    Granted, I may be somewhat different from the picture you have painted in your brain of what a Christian should be like, but what are you watching for?
    From what I can gather, a Christian to you should be broke, but there is nothing in scripture to indicate that.
    Thus you will experience a certain amount of cognitive dissonance there, particularly if you view the contents of your own wallet and find little there.
    Also, from what I can gather, a Christian to you should suffer silently, presumably from some illness, but there is nothing in scripture to indicate that.
    Further, apparently a Christian should work themselves into the ground "serving" others. I place that in quotes because you would gladly step forward with a novel definition of said service.
    Ad infinitum...

    In sum, your view of Christianity amounts to me doing what you think I should do.
    Be prepared for some serious cognitive dissonance, because Jesus is my Lord, not you.

    *For a non-Christian America to follow my lead in conduct, then, would involve Christians actively revoking their Biblical faith.*

    Like I said, some serious cognitive dissonance.

    *I could have, I supposed, taken the hateful route that you and KalvinB have quite apparently taken, and simply despise you for not being me. *

    I haven't taken that route.
    I've listened to you moaning and complaining about your sorry lot in life and I offer the solution.
    That you refuse that solution doesn't make me evil.

    *A temporary soul?*

    You got it.

    The soul that sinneth, it shall die....
    (Ezekiel 18:20, KJV).

    *Nobody is free in the context you're addressing. That's why we're talking about freedom and society.*

    So you DO see the problem?
    Yet you write as though you don't.

    *... remember that God wills it to be this way, and perhaps that means you should think twice before engaging the perceived evil.*

    I'm not Sufi.
    The perceived evil had better think twice before it engages me.

    *Consider the old point about why I have so few issues with Jews and Muslims and Hindus &c.*

    Those religions are not a threat to your practice of evil.

    *These people are not trying to force me to live according to their will.*

    They're caught in the same snare as you are.
    They aren't so much letting you live your life as you see fit, as they are concerned for their own survival.

    *Christians, however, have repeatedly attempted to usurp a free society and return it to dark theocracy.*

    It's only dark to you because the light to you is darkness.

    *It seems to me that you see the object of your victorious desire, but are unable to express it.*

    I see it, and to some extent I am unable to express it.
    It is so simple.
    Choose life and blessing and get it.
    What could be simpler?

    What puzzles me is why so many people resist that which is good, not so much for them, but as defined by them.
    I was that way myself, but I have forgotten what that is truly like.
    Of course, I have no desire to relearn such a Sisyphean lifestyle again.

    *Is it a reading disorder or deliberate will which compels you to omit the actual subject of a chosen citation and apply it incorrectly to another point?*

    I'd say that it would have to be a reading disorder, let's call it antilexia, on your part to overlook what seems obvious to others.

    *You attempted to answer what only Blonde Cupid can answer, and I advised you that it was not your point to defend, whereupon you asked why the topic in general shouldn't be yours to participate in.*

    You're forgetting that that followed AND preceded comments by you to the effect that one should stick to the topic at hand.
    Imagine my surprise (ha!) at finding you to to be the one that was causing all the digression.

    *That you've been raised that way means that I don't hold you responsible for such erroneous and spiteful notions. That you insist upon maintaining them, however, speaks hordes of your character.*

    I wasn't raised that way; I was raised more your way, except for the Catholic high school.
    I favored satanism and every form of witchcraft and evil, just like you.

    *Originally posted by DR EVYL
    Yet the events associated with these people are so completely ludicrous that it's difficult for me to comprehend how any sane adult could take them seriously, let alone accept them as "the truth".
    *

    And he made them a feast, and they did eat and drink.
    (Genesis 26:30, KJV).

    And Rebekah arose, and her damsels, and they rode upon the camels, and followed the man: and the servant took Rebekah, and went his way.
    (Genesis 24:61, KJV).

    Imagine that!
    Eating and drinking!
    Riding on camels, and in the Middle East, yet.

    That is almost incomprehensible stuff.

    *The only difference between scientific theories and non-secular views is the introduction of "magic" to explain the unexplainable.*

    It's amazing how otherwise learned people would introduce "magic" into a discussion.
    Look at evolutionists and their magical theory, as an example.
    There is no mechanism even proposed for evolution, so presumably, rocks magically turn into frogs which in turn magically turn into men.

    Thus, non-secular, or religious views attract many due to the solid grounding based in reality.
    Unfortunately, many religions have been influenced by such magical, "scientific" thinking, so they have lost that solid grounding, but fortunately for billions of people, Christianity remains rooted in reality.

    *The Big Bang theory supposes that once there was nothing, then an explosion happened, and there was everything.*

    That was an excellent example of typical "magical" thinking.
    Nothing exploded.
    Magically, of course.

    *The only way I could ever convert to Christianity is by proving it TRUE.*

    That's how most Christians converted.
     
  18. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Tony1--two out of three ain't bad, but ...

    Tony1, normally I'd say hitting 2 for 3 is a good number. But why? ... Satanism, check; witchcraft, check ... Evil--why did you choose to keep the evil?

    --Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page