It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A Message, Part I
page: 1share:
PRELUDE:
About a month or six weeks ago I had what had been, an ongoing spiritual awakening come to fruition. When I say it came to fruition, I don’t mean that it has stopped, but it brought me to the place that I believe God wanted me at that time. I had two life threatening incidents within two weeks of each other. One was an accident and the other was a situation that got out of hand that could have cost me my life.
One might think that this was akin to a jail house or death bed conversion. However, my background goes much further than that. I use to be a preacher and assistant pastor of a church. I have studied the Bible in depth in the past, was a devout Christian and was blessed by God in my ministry, all by God’s grace. I backslid, I moved, God didn’t. Through these two incidents, God has gotten my attention and has impressed upon me greatly to get back into His will and favor. I am not religious. God despises religion and has taught me the same through His Word. Some of you have probably heard it said that “religion is man reaching up to God, salvation (true Christianity, relationship with God) is God reaching down to man”. This is a true saying. Before I begin, I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to anyone on ATS that I have offended in past threads by way of rude comments, etc. I know that in a couple of the cop threads things got heated and I said some offensive things.
Something that has disturbed me here of late are the anti-God/Christian threads and comments that I have read on ATS. They disturb me to my core and grieve the Spirit within me. Many comments are made with little knowledge of who God is or knowledge of His Word, the Bible. Often, I think, people read an article about atheism, evolution, or just some anti-Christian material on the net or in a book and take it at face value without ever investigating God’s Word or a relationship with God for themselves. It has been my experience through study that there is nothing that is not covered in God’s Word in some form or fashion.
Much of the attitudes of people today are covered in the Word and a great deal is covered in the following passages:
2Pe 2:1 Now there were false prophets among the people, just as there also will be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies and even deny the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction on themselves.
To say that there are false prophets among us is an understatement. We have recently seen it in the news with the prophesy of the rapture on May 21. But more importantly are the words “false teachers”. We do not usually think of ourselves as teachers when we are talking or writing, but the fact of the matter is someone is listening, learning, and taking what we say to heart; right, wrong, or indifferent. The verse above speaks about introducing “destructive heresies” that “even deny the Master who bought them”. The “Master who bought them” is none other than Jesus Christ Himself. He bought us with His blood that He shed on the cross. This was necessary because of the sin of Adam that separated all mankind from a perfect Holy God. The last part of the verse states “bringing swift destruction on themselves”. This is the outcome of false prophets, false teachers, and those that deny the Master (Christ) and the price that He paid on the cross. When we speak things against God and deny His Word. C. S. Lewis said “A man can no more diminish God’s glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling DARKNESS on the wall of his cell.”
2Pe 2:2 Many people will follow their immoral ways, and because of them the way of truth will be maligned.
2Pe 2:3 In their greed they will exploit you with deceptive words. The ancient verdict against them is still in force, and their destruction is not delayed.
Many people will listen to you and be deceived and will face judgment because of your words. It says “in their greed they will exploit you with deceptive words”. Greed does not always imply money or gain, but we can be greedy in our pride and desire for validation as well. Notice in verse 3 that judgment has already been laid up for those of us who do and say these things. Pay particular attention to the following verses;
2Pe 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but threw them into the lowest hell and imprisoned them in chains of deepest darkness, holding them for judgment;
2Pe 2:5 and if he did not spare the ancient world but protected Noah, a righteous preacher, along with seven others when he brought the flood on the world of ungodly people;
2Pe 2:6 and if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and destroyed them by burning them to ashes, making them an example to ungodly people of what is going to happen to them
This is the righteousness and judgment of a just God. Here we see that God is no respecter of person. Even the angels are subject to His righteousness and He showed them no favor for their position in Heaven. We also see here how God saved those that believed on Him and feared Him and His righteousness. Noah was a righteous man among a sea of evil and God rewarded him for his faithfulness.
2Pe 2:7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man who was greatly distressed by the immoral conduct of lawless people—
2Pe 2:8 for as long as that righteous man lived among them, day after day he was being tortured in his righteous soul by what he saw and heard in their lawless actions—
2Pe 2:9 then the Lord knows how to rescue godly people from their trials and to hold unrighteous people for punishment on the day of judgment,
2Pe 2:10 especially those who satisfy their flesh by indulging in its passions and who despise authority. Being bold and arrogant, they are not afraid to slander glorious beings.
The above verses are a strong warning. Here the writer is reminding us of the judgment that God placed upon Sodom and Gomorrah for their immoral living, but at the same time rescued righteous Lot from among them. He goes onto say and to separate out “those who satisfy the flesh by indulging in it’s passions and who despise authority.” He continues and refers to them as being “bold and arrogant” because they are not afraid to slander “glorious beings”. Remember, these words were not written last year, but were written hundreds of years ago and are as alive today, if not more so, than they were when they were written.
2Pe 2:11 Yet even angels, although they are greater in strength and power, do not bring a slanderous accusation against them from the Lord.
Even the angels do not tread lightly when it comes to speaking against Christians or the Lord.
2Pe 2:12 These people, like irrational animals, are mere creatures of instinct that are born to be caught and killed. They insult what they don't understand, and like animals they, too, will be destroyed,
“They insult what they don’t understand”. This is one of the main points of this post. So often we make comments on all kinds of subjects on ATS that we do not have an understanding of or have done little or no research on. When we are talking about aliens, ghost, government, etc, it is no big deal, but when we talk about the Creator, the Lord of host, the Almighty one true God, then we are on a subject that has eternal consequences. Ask yourself: What is my experience with God? Not man or manmade religions but God. Psalm 34:8 says “Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good; Blessed is the man who trust in Him.” This is an invitation to try God. Give Him a chance. Do not give manmade religion a chance, it will fail you. The pastor of a church is just a man, he will fail you. The people that you trusted the first, second, or third time you tried the religion thing are all just people and they failed you and will fail you again. II Peter 3:9 says “The Lord is not slack concerning His promises, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should parish but that all should come to repentance.”
2Pe 2:13 suffering harm as punishment for their wrongdoing. They take pleasure in wild parties in broad daylight. They are stains and blemishes, reveling in their deceitful pleasures while they eat with you.
2Pe 2:14 With eyes full of adultery, they cannot get enough of sin. They seduce unsteady souls and have had their hearts expertly trained in greed. They are doomed to a curse.
2Pe 2:15 They have left the straight path and wandered off to follow the path of Bosor's son Balaam, who loved the reward he got for doing wrong.
2Pe 2:16 But he was rebuked for his offense. A donkey that normally cannot talk spoke with a human voice and restrained the prophet's insanity.
As you can see, God issues a stern warning to those that mislead people from the truth. His Word refers to them as “seducing unsteady souls” and it says that “They are doomed to a curse.”
2Pe 2:17 These men are dried-up springs, mere clouds driven by a storm. Gloomy darkness is reserved for them.
2Pe 2:18 By talking high-sounding nonsense and using sinful cravings of the flesh, they entice people who have just escaped from those who live in error.
Verse 18 rings particularly true with me. People make these astounding post like; The Bible is a forgery or fake, The bones of Jesus found, or God is dead (I’m paraphrasing here, I can’t remember the exact titles, you get the idea). Often they quote or source some book or article they have read to try and give it some sort of legitimacy. Or many will go to science to prove that God does not exist. Science only discovers what God has already created. I Cor. 1:27-28 says “But God has chosen the foolish thing of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty, 28: and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not to bring to nothing the things that are.” God is not asking anyone to put their brains in a box or on a shelf. But He is asking you to use your brain to see the obvious. Roman 1:20 says “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” This is why we see ancient civilizations creating idols or worshiping the sun because they see by the creation the existence of a deity.
2Pe 2:19 Promising them freedom, they themselves are slaves to depravity, for a person is a slave to whatever conquers him.
Yes, many of these post promise enlightenment, but as this verse says it leads to depravity.
2Pe 2:20 For if, after escaping the world's corruptions through a full knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus, the Messiah, they are again entangled and conquered by those corruptions, then their last condition is worse than their former one.
2Pe 2:21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than to know it and turn their backs on the holy commandment that was committed to them.
2Pe 2:22 The proverb is true that describes what has happened to them: "A dog returns to its vomit," and "A pig that is washed goes back to wallow in the mud."
More to come.
Seeashrink
About a month or six weeks ago I had what had been, an ongoing spiritual awakening come to fruition. When I say it came to fruition, I don’t mean that it has stopped, but it brought me to the place that I believe God wanted me at that time. I had two life threatening incidents within two weeks of each other. One was an accident and the other was a situation that got out of hand that could have cost me my life.
One might think that this was akin to a jail house or death bed conversion. However, my background goes much further than that. I use to be a preacher and assistant pastor of a church. I have studied the Bible in depth in the past, was a devout Christian and was blessed by God in my ministry, all by God’s grace. I backslid, I moved, God didn’t. Through these two incidents, God has gotten my attention and has impressed upon me greatly to get back into His will and favor. I am not religious. God despises religion and has taught me the same through His Word. Some of you have probably heard it said that “religion is man reaching up to God, salvation (true Christianity, relationship with God) is God reaching down to man”. This is a true saying. Before I begin, I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to anyone on ATS that I have offended in past threads by way of rude comments, etc. I know that in a couple of the cop threads things got heated and I said some offensive things.
Something that has disturbed me here of late are the anti-God/Christian threads and comments that I have read on ATS. They disturb me to my core and grieve the Spirit within me. Many comments are made with little knowledge of who God is or knowledge of His Word, the Bible. Often, I think, people read an article about atheism, evolution, or just some anti-Christian material on the net or in a book and take it at face value without ever investigating God’s Word or a relationship with God for themselves. It has been my experience through study that there is nothing that is not covered in God’s Word in some form or fashion.
Much of the attitudes of people today are covered in the Word and a great deal is covered in the following passages:
2Pe 2:1 Now there were false prophets among the people, just as there also will be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies and even deny the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction on themselves.
To say that there are false prophets among us is an understatement. We have recently seen it in the news with the prophesy of the rapture on May 21. But more importantly are the words “false teachers”. We do not usually think of ourselves as teachers when we are talking or writing, but the fact of the matter is someone is listening, learning, and taking what we say to heart; right, wrong, or indifferent. The verse above speaks about introducing “destructive heresies” that “even deny the Master who bought them”. The “Master who bought them” is none other than Jesus Christ Himself. He bought us with His blood that He shed on the cross. This was necessary because of the sin of Adam that separated all mankind from a perfect Holy God. The last part of the verse states “bringing swift destruction on themselves”. This is the outcome of false prophets, false teachers, and those that deny the Master (Christ) and the price that He paid on the cross. When we speak things against God and deny His Word. C. S. Lewis said “A man can no more diminish God’s glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling DARKNESS on the wall of his cell.”
2Pe 2:2 Many people will follow their immoral ways, and because of them the way of truth will be maligned.
2Pe 2:3 In their greed they will exploit you with deceptive words. The ancient verdict against them is still in force, and their destruction is not delayed.
Many people will listen to you and be deceived and will face judgment because of your words. It says “in their greed they will exploit you with deceptive words”. Greed does not always imply money or gain, but we can be greedy in our pride and desire for validation as well. Notice in verse 3 that judgment has already been laid up for those of us who do and say these things. Pay particular attention to the following verses;
2Pe 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but threw them into the lowest hell and imprisoned them in chains of deepest darkness, holding them for judgment;
2Pe 2:5 and if he did not spare the ancient world but protected Noah, a righteous preacher, along with seven others when he brought the flood on the world of ungodly people;
2Pe 2:6 and if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and destroyed them by burning them to ashes, making them an example to ungodly people of what is going to happen to them
This is the righteousness and judgment of a just God. Here we see that God is no respecter of person. Even the angels are subject to His righteousness and He showed them no favor for their position in Heaven. We also see here how God saved those that believed on Him and feared Him and His righteousness. Noah was a righteous man among a sea of evil and God rewarded him for his faithfulness.
2Pe 2:7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man who was greatly distressed by the immoral conduct of lawless people—
2Pe 2:8 for as long as that righteous man lived among them, day after day he was being tortured in his righteous soul by what he saw and heard in their lawless actions—
2Pe 2:9 then the Lord knows how to rescue godly people from their trials and to hold unrighteous people for punishment on the day of judgment,
2Pe 2:10 especially those who satisfy their flesh by indulging in its passions and who despise authority. Being bold and arrogant, they are not afraid to slander glorious beings.
The above verses are a strong warning. Here the writer is reminding us of the judgment that God placed upon Sodom and Gomorrah for their immoral living, but at the same time rescued righteous Lot from among them. He goes onto say and to separate out “those who satisfy the flesh by indulging in it’s passions and who despise authority.” He continues and refers to them as being “bold and arrogant” because they are not afraid to slander “glorious beings”. Remember, these words were not written last year, but were written hundreds of years ago and are as alive today, if not more so, than they were when they were written.
2Pe 2:11 Yet even angels, although they are greater in strength and power, do not bring a slanderous accusation against them from the Lord.
Even the angels do not tread lightly when it comes to speaking against Christians or the Lord.
2Pe 2:12 These people, like irrational animals, are mere creatures of instinct that are born to be caught and killed. They insult what they don't understand, and like animals they, too, will be destroyed,
“They insult what they don’t understand”. This is one of the main points of this post. So often we make comments on all kinds of subjects on ATS that we do not have an understanding of or have done little or no research on. When we are talking about aliens, ghost, government, etc, it is no big deal, but when we talk about the Creator, the Lord of host, the Almighty one true God, then we are on a subject that has eternal consequences. Ask yourself: What is my experience with God? Not man or manmade religions but God. Psalm 34:8 says “Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good; Blessed is the man who trust in Him.” This is an invitation to try God. Give Him a chance. Do not give manmade religion a chance, it will fail you. The pastor of a church is just a man, he will fail you. The people that you trusted the first, second, or third time you tried the religion thing are all just people and they failed you and will fail you again. II Peter 3:9 says “The Lord is not slack concerning His promises, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should parish but that all should come to repentance.”
2Pe 2:13 suffering harm as punishment for their wrongdoing. They take pleasure in wild parties in broad daylight. They are stains and blemishes, reveling in their deceitful pleasures while they eat with you.
2Pe 2:14 With eyes full of adultery, they cannot get enough of sin. They seduce unsteady souls and have had their hearts expertly trained in greed. They are doomed to a curse.
2Pe 2:15 They have left the straight path and wandered off to follow the path of Bosor's son Balaam, who loved the reward he got for doing wrong.
2Pe 2:16 But he was rebuked for his offense. A donkey that normally cannot talk spoke with a human voice and restrained the prophet's insanity.
As you can see, God issues a stern warning to those that mislead people from the truth. His Word refers to them as “seducing unsteady souls” and it says that “They are doomed to a curse.”
2Pe 2:17 These men are dried-up springs, mere clouds driven by a storm. Gloomy darkness is reserved for them.
2Pe 2:18 By talking high-sounding nonsense and using sinful cravings of the flesh, they entice people who have just escaped from those who live in error.
Verse 18 rings particularly true with me. People make these astounding post like; The Bible is a forgery or fake, The bones of Jesus found, or God is dead (I’m paraphrasing here, I can’t remember the exact titles, you get the idea). Often they quote or source some book or article they have read to try and give it some sort of legitimacy. Or many will go to science to prove that God does not exist. Science only discovers what God has already created. I Cor. 1:27-28 says “But God has chosen the foolish thing of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty, 28: and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not to bring to nothing the things that are.” God is not asking anyone to put their brains in a box or on a shelf. But He is asking you to use your brain to see the obvious. Roman 1:20 says “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” This is why we see ancient civilizations creating idols or worshiping the sun because they see by the creation the existence of a deity.
2Pe 2:19 Promising them freedom, they themselves are slaves to depravity, for a person is a slave to whatever conquers him.
Yes, many of these post promise enlightenment, but as this verse says it leads to depravity.
2Pe 2:20 For if, after escaping the world's corruptions through a full knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus, the Messiah, they are again entangled and conquered by those corruptions, then their last condition is worse than their former one.
2Pe 2:21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than to know it and turn their backs on the holy commandment that was committed to them.
2Pe 2:22 The proverb is true that describes what has happened to them: "A dog returns to its vomit," and "A pig that is washed goes back to wallow in the mud."
More to come.
Seeashrink
reply to post by seeashrink
Considering that most of us atheists only ask that you provide proof of the claims that you make, and not refer us to a 2000 year old book written by different authors, edited for content over centuries and INSISTED upon as absolute truth (Ironic Isn't it?), we simply ask that you keep it to yourself until you can provide the proof we are asking of you. That really isn't too much to ask is it?
Funny, that is exactly what you want us to do with religion and "god". You want us to accept everything you tell us at face value, and regardless of the blatant contradictions, negative passages and obvious hypocricy within the pages of your only "proof', how are we to accept anything less than what we can see?
Personal relationships are based on context. Many people over the years have claimed to have personal relationships with Elvis, JFK, Abraham Lincoln and a host of others. Yet without the context of a savior or the fear of hell, they are nothing more than delusional individuals. Personal relationships are not proof of anything; you can't prove that you have it, therefore there are no grounds to accept that as evidence for anything other than a chemical reaction in your brain based on your needs and beliefs to get you through this life without feeling alone.
I am an atheist, and I'm glad you are happy where you are, but just don't go trying to push your religious agendas on me and anyone else unless you can prove that what you claim is true, really is true. Regarding the remainder of your post, while it falls under typical theistic rhetoric, it doesn't really have any basis because the bible is not a valid source of information, therefore it must be in-admissable so to speak.
Oh, and stop trying to denouce science, it just makes you sound silly. (general statement, not directed solely at you)
King
Something that has disturbed me here of late are the anti-God/Christian threads and comments that I have read on ATS. They disturb me to my core and grieve the Spirit within me. Many comments are made with little knowledge of who God is or knowledge of His Word, the Bible.
Considering that most of us atheists only ask that you provide proof of the claims that you make, and not refer us to a 2000 year old book written by different authors, edited for content over centuries and INSISTED upon as absolute truth (Ironic Isn't it?), we simply ask that you keep it to yourself until you can provide the proof we are asking of you. That really isn't too much to ask is it?
Often, I think, people read an article about atheism, evolution, or just some anti-Christian material on the net or in a book and take it at face value without ever investigating God’s Word or a relationship with God for themselves.
Funny, that is exactly what you want us to do with religion and "god". You want us to accept everything you tell us at face value, and regardless of the blatant contradictions, negative passages and obvious hypocricy within the pages of your only "proof', how are we to accept anything less than what we can see?
Personal relationships are based on context. Many people over the years have claimed to have personal relationships with Elvis, JFK, Abraham Lincoln and a host of others. Yet without the context of a savior or the fear of hell, they are nothing more than delusional individuals. Personal relationships are not proof of anything; you can't prove that you have it, therefore there are no grounds to accept that as evidence for anything other than a chemical reaction in your brain based on your needs and beliefs to get you through this life without feeling alone.
I am an atheist, and I'm glad you are happy where you are, but just don't go trying to push your religious agendas on me and anyone else unless you can prove that what you claim is true, really is true. Regarding the remainder of your post, while it falls under typical theistic rhetoric, it doesn't really have any basis because the bible is not a valid source of information, therefore it must be in-admissable so to speak.
Oh, and stop trying to denouce science, it just makes you sound silly. (general statement, not directed solely at you)
King
edit on 30-5-2011 by Kingalbrect79 because: (no reason given)
reply to post by Kingalbrect79
The point of this post is not to try and prove Christ, the Bible, or creationism, but to testify of them and to share what God has shared with me. It is also to try to warn people against blaspheming a righteous and just God. I am certainly not here to debate the existance of God. It is obvious that I cannot prove Him to you. I can promise you that one day you will see Him as He is and your knees will bow and your tongue confess that He is God.
Seeashrink
The point of this post is not to try and prove Christ, the Bible, or creationism, but to testify of them and to share what God has shared with me. It is also to try to warn people against blaspheming a righteous and just God. I am certainly not here to debate the existance of God. It is obvious that I cannot prove Him to you. I can promise you that one day you will see Him as He is and your knees will bow and your tongue confess that He is God.
Seeashrink
Originally posted by seeashrink
reply to post by Kingalbrect79
The point of this post is not to try and prove Christ, the Bible, or creationism, but to testify of them and to share what God has shared with me.
That's fine, you have the right to practice your religion.
It is also to try to warn people against blaspheming a righteous and just God.
Ehh, it's a fine line, but this could fall under the fearmongering category if you aren't careful. Depending on how far you take it, a simple statement ends up testifying to the theistic motto of "Believe me OR ELSE!"
I am certainly not here to debate the existance of God. It is obvious that I cannot prove Him to you.
You admit you have no proof, yet you continue to persist. At least you are consistant.
I can promise you that one day you will see Him as He is and your knees will bow and your tongue confess that He is God.
You just proved my initial point, and this is also where you cross the line. This exact statement, coupled with the afore mentioned statement (lack of proof) is EXACTLY the reason atheists post as they do. You INSIST that despite everything, we are going to be judged and we are to bow to some mythical bearded sky daddy who apparently needs my obedience otherwise his infinite wisdom is wasted.
I will not "bow my knees", I will not confess and I will not accept that a stone age barbaric, violent, hypocrit is my one and true creator. The mere fact that you chose to post such a line proved what I warned against in my previous post.
Unfortunately, it's also the default answer for any theist who is challenged when he/she has nothing to back it up.
I will be a false prophet for a minute for you and prophesize this:
1. You will post endless streams of bible passages and disguise them as warnings.
In reality, these are nothing more than re-hashes of previous posters' threads doing exactly the same thing. You aren't really stating an ephiphany of sorts, you are merely setting down your soap box and turning on your microphone.
2. Atheists will post contradictory bible passages to the ones you post and refute your points with little effort.
In a bout of circle talk, you will dodge the questions, and merely repeat the last sentence you did to me about bowing down, yada yada.
3. People will attack each other eventually out of frustration.
The theist will dodge and re-emphasize the same points without actually adressing the questions posed to them; atheists will pose the questions and become more angry because you dodge them.
In the end, we solve nothing other than to prove that preaching should be kept to your church, not to conspiracy websites.
We are supposed to DENY IGNORANCE, not embrace it.
Have a good day,
King
edit on 30-5-2011 by Kingalbrect79 because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-5-2011 by Kingalbrect79 because: (no reason
given)
reply to post by Kingalbrect79
I'm certain that you are right on much of your prediction on the direction of this thread.
I wanted to revisit your initial reply for a moment where you stated something to the effect that a chemical reaction in the brain cannot be considered any proof of God. I'm sure that you were referring to my personal feelings and emotions where God is concerned. I will admit that a relationship with God is not based on emotions but faith, however emotions are certainly a part of it.
Based on your logic, any love that you have ever felt for mother or father, children, or mate cannot be validated.
They are all just chemical reactions in the brain. Love is a powerful emotion and it has a source and that source is God. Can you deny the existance of love in your own life? Have you never loved or been loved? If it just boils down to a chemical reaction then existance is void of life.
You see, God loves you despite your contempt for Him. So much so that He gave His Son Jesus for you. That is love, not just a chemical reaction.
I'm certain that you are right on much of your prediction on the direction of this thread.
I wanted to revisit your initial reply for a moment where you stated something to the effect that a chemical reaction in the brain cannot be considered any proof of God. I'm sure that you were referring to my personal feelings and emotions where God is concerned. I will admit that a relationship with God is not based on emotions but faith, however emotions are certainly a part of it.
Based on your logic, any love that you have ever felt for mother or father, children, or mate cannot be validated.
They are all just chemical reactions in the brain. Love is a powerful emotion and it has a source and that source is God. Can you deny the existance of love in your own life? Have you never loved or been loved? If it just boils down to a chemical reaction then existance is void of life.
You see, God loves you despite your contempt for Him. So much so that He gave His Son Jesus for you. That is love, not just a chemical reaction.
Originally posted by seeashrink
Based on your logic, any love that you have ever felt for mother or father, children, or mate cannot be validated.
They are all just chemical reactions in the brain. Love is a powerful emotion and it has a source and that source is God. Can you deny the existance of love in your own life? Have you never loved or been loved? If it just boils down to a chemical reaction then existance is void of life.
You see, God loves you despite your contempt for Him. So much so that He gave His Son Jesus for you. That is love, not just a chemical reaction.
Hi, Seeashrink, it's just occurred to me to wonder.. I have read a lot of atheist anger here on ATS. Maybe that's the root of a lot of it, they don't love and are n ot loved?
That's maybe why they don't get it!
V
reply to post by Vicky32
From my own observation, if atheists are given respect and understanding for their own views, then there is rarely any evidence of anger in their response.
Respect and understanding are central to feeling loved. If these are absent, then anger may arise.
Hi, Seeashrink, it's just occurred to me to wonder.. I have read a lot of atheist anger here on ATS. Maybe that's the root of a lot of it, they don't love and are n ot loved?
That's maybe why they don't get it!
From my own observation, if atheists are given respect and understanding for their own views, then there is rarely any evidence of anger in their response.
Respect and understanding are central to feeling loved. If these are absent, then anger may arise.
Originally posted by seeashrink
reply to post by Kingalbrect79
Based on your logic, any love that you have ever felt for mother or father, children, or mate cannot be validated.
This is a valid argument in itself, but not within the context of a religious discussion. Love cannot be proven, but then again I don't claim that love poofed me and everything into existance, therefore I don't have to prove it exists either.
Love is a powerful emotion and it has a source and that source is God.
You are drawing the assumption that the source of Love is "god", yet you admit you can't prove it, your argument is invalid.
Can you deny the existance of love in your own life? Have you never loved or been loved? If it just boils down to a chemical reaction then existance is void of life.
Nope, can't deny the existance of a strong bond between my wife and I, and yes I feel that I have been loved by her. Then again I am following the socially accepted version of how we understand love, so therefore it is not relavent to religious discussion. Your last statement is completely illogical. Life exists regardless of what exact chemical composition it is derived from, so to claim it is void is illogical.
You see, God loves you despite your contempt for Him. So much so that He gave His Son Jesus for you. That is love, not just a chemical reaction.
Again you make assumptions. Since love cannot be proven, you cannot draw the connection between science and an unprovable "god" and claim it to be true. This really comes down to semantics and I don't want to get into giving you the possibility to set up straw men arguments.
Vicky32
.. I have read a lot of atheist anger here on ATS. Maybe that's the root of a lot of it, they don't love and are n ot loved? That's maybe why they don't get it!
So without "god", people are incapable of love? Is that what you are saying? I suppose next you are going to tell me that anyone who isn't religious is immoral too. This is just ignorant. People are capable of love and being honest, moral and hard working WITHOUT a diety to dictate how they run their own life.
MysticNoon
From my own observation, if atheists are given respect and understanding for their own views, then there is rarely any evidence of anger in their response.
Respect and understanding are central to feeling loved. If these are absent, then anger may arise.
True for the most part. Atheists are usually actually more frustrated than angry because blind faith is ignorant to common sense. Faith makes people ignore facts and instead accept fantasy, this usually leads to wild claims and baseless arguments without merit that defy all BASIC general knowledge that a child could differentiate.
And most of the time this leads to arguments where my predictions come true, the atheist asks questions and the theist just says "god did it." All of my posts may seem like a harsh response to theistic comments, but I have been very respectful and not insulted, berated or attacked the OP in any way.
King
edit on 31-5-2011 by Kingalbrect79 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by mysticnoon
From my own observation, if atheists are given respect and understanding for their own views, then there is rarely any evidence of anger in their response.
Respect and understanding are central to feeling loved. If these are absent, then anger may arise.
I haven't found that to be the case at all, here or elsewhere. Many atheists join Christian sites just to flame (and have admitted as much), and here at ATS the first people to respond to threads directed at Christians are often hateful, bitter atheists. Some seem obsessed with Christianity and cannot allow any Christians here to have a conversation without their attacks. Respect has nothing to do with it.
But what I find most disturbing about your observation is it's implication: that atheists' anger is Christians' fault. It's just like spousal abuse or rape: the man blames the woman; the perp blames the victim. When atheists learn to take responsibility for their own anger and aggression against Christians, then we can talk about understanding and respect. Yes there are bad Christians, but there are bad atheists too, and all need to control themselves and stop passing blame for their behavior.
To christian missionaries:
This is the same old tired sermon, the same old tired sales techniques, the same old tired megalomania and elitism; ..... I wonder why you guys bother.
Probably the last 4-5 centruries of attitude-changes in mankind have escaped your attention, living as you do in the self-contained bubble build around your holy manual, and your equally self-contained sub-culture. Many of the missionary fundies I see here on ATS are out-of-touch with anything contemporary.
The resulting sheer incompetence in your 'PR' consequently works against you, instead of for you. Even a car-salesman trying to push a pile of rust on four wheels could do better.
Personally I formally and ideologically left christianity 50 years ago, but for a few years in my early adulthood, I was actively searching for an ideology to belong to (well, the folly of youth) and naturally my search-criteria included the quality of the intrinsic content in an ideology, but also the social- and communication skills of the adherers.
The question: "Does it really benefit an individual, as a person, to join this" can be answered by looking at the 'saved' and ask yourself, if you want to become like that.
The rational arguments concerning the christian message (or rather the 34.000 christian schismed messages) must be familiar to everyone, who's been at this forum for a while and is presented in other posts on this thread, so just now I'll concentrate on the sermon-wrappings.
In just a year, I've seen some change in the preaching-style here.
The endless bible-verse citers (up to pagelong posts on occasion) is practically extinct, because of the boredom implied.
The, from a street-theater perspective, more interesting fire-and-brimstone types are also mostly gone. The fire-and-brimstoners eventually become so personally fire-and-brimstone abusive against critics, that their accounts are cancelled.
A few pseudo-rationalists are still hanging around, but have an increasingly hard time with pushing hijacked science/logic or creating false syncretism of 'all religions are one, and that one religion is mainly christian'.
Then there is the variety of: "I am a TRUE christian, and all the others are pretending nincompoops". Claiming various kinds of superior expertise, from esoterism and talking with parts of the christian trinity to bible-interpretation skills. And naturally: Heresy-claims on doctrinal grounds.These are just funny, because they make christianity appear confused and self-contradictory, and no external criticism is needed at all to point that out.
The recent effort of catching up with times is the 'love'-oriented, pseudo-tolerant and glossy preacher. But I doubt, it will fool anyone.
The 'love' is still the submissive variety in a context with alleged divinity. Seldom the 'love' manifested practically by soup-kitchens etc. (such christians do exist and are praiseworthy. But it's unusual they preach here).
The pseudo-tolerance is a veneer a millimeter thick. Scratch it and the old missionary ideological fascism is there.
And personally my favourite 'what I love to hate': The glossiness. SLIGHTLY patronizing ("poor you, being somewhat inferior to us, not through character defects, but from lack of Jesus etc); we're all equal, but mankind needs guidance...OUR guidance; and last, but not least, the unbeatable allegories made for seven year old intellectually underprivileged children:
"And there were three bears living in the forest. Pappa Bear, who's like God...mama Bear, who's like the holy spirit...and baby Bear, who's like Jesus".
An amount of extra sugar-coating and abra-cadabra: Christianity is THE thing.
Talking to adults in this baby-language is a JOKE, but it's the new fashion here amongst preachers.
A small observation. My example of the three bears is ofcourse irony, and can in any case not be used, as the holy spirit early in christianity had a gender change and became male. So unless mama Bear actually is male and live in a same-gender marriage with papa Bear (and this being very unholy) it's not straight in accordance with christian doctrines.
PS Much of this post relates directly (but maybe not immediately obvious) to OP.
This is the same old tired sermon, the same old tired sales techniques, the same old tired megalomania and elitism; ..... I wonder why you guys bother.
Probably the last 4-5 centruries of attitude-changes in mankind have escaped your attention, living as you do in the self-contained bubble build around your holy manual, and your equally self-contained sub-culture. Many of the missionary fundies I see here on ATS are out-of-touch with anything contemporary.
The resulting sheer incompetence in your 'PR' consequently works against you, instead of for you. Even a car-salesman trying to push a pile of rust on four wheels could do better.
Personally I formally and ideologically left christianity 50 years ago, but for a few years in my early adulthood, I was actively searching for an ideology to belong to (well, the folly of youth) and naturally my search-criteria included the quality of the intrinsic content in an ideology, but also the social- and communication skills of the adherers.
The question: "Does it really benefit an individual, as a person, to join this" can be answered by looking at the 'saved' and ask yourself, if you want to become like that.
The rational arguments concerning the christian message (or rather the 34.000 christian schismed messages) must be familiar to everyone, who's been at this forum for a while and is presented in other posts on this thread, so just now I'll concentrate on the sermon-wrappings.
In just a year, I've seen some change in the preaching-style here.
The endless bible-verse citers (up to pagelong posts on occasion) is practically extinct, because of the boredom implied.
The, from a street-theater perspective, more interesting fire-and-brimstone types are also mostly gone. The fire-and-brimstoners eventually become so personally fire-and-brimstone abusive against critics, that their accounts are cancelled.
A few pseudo-rationalists are still hanging around, but have an increasingly hard time with pushing hijacked science/logic or creating false syncretism of 'all religions are one, and that one religion is mainly christian'.
Then there is the variety of: "I am a TRUE christian, and all the others are pretending nincompoops". Claiming various kinds of superior expertise, from esoterism and talking with parts of the christian trinity to bible-interpretation skills. And naturally: Heresy-claims on doctrinal grounds.These are just funny, because they make christianity appear confused and self-contradictory, and no external criticism is needed at all to point that out.
The recent effort of catching up with times is the 'love'-oriented, pseudo-tolerant and glossy preacher. But I doubt, it will fool anyone.
The 'love' is still the submissive variety in a context with alleged divinity. Seldom the 'love' manifested practically by soup-kitchens etc. (such christians do exist and are praiseworthy. But it's unusual they preach here).
The pseudo-tolerance is a veneer a millimeter thick. Scratch it and the old missionary ideological fascism is there.
And personally my favourite 'what I love to hate': The glossiness. SLIGHTLY patronizing ("poor you, being somewhat inferior to us, not through character defects, but from lack of Jesus etc); we're all equal, but mankind needs guidance...OUR guidance; and last, but not least, the unbeatable allegories made for seven year old intellectually underprivileged children:
"And there were three bears living in the forest. Pappa Bear, who's like God...mama Bear, who's like the holy spirit...and baby Bear, who's like Jesus".
An amount of extra sugar-coating and abra-cadabra: Christianity is THE thing.
Talking to adults in this baby-language is a JOKE, but it's the new fashion here amongst preachers.
A small observation. My example of the three bears is ofcourse irony, and can in any case not be used, as the holy spirit early in christianity had a gender change and became male. So unless mama Bear actually is male and live in a same-gender marriage with papa Bear (and this being very unholy) it's not straight in accordance with christian doctrines.
PS Much of this post relates directly (but maybe not immediately obvious) to OP.
edit on 31-5-2011 by bogomil because: vocabulary change of one
word
reply to post by SaberTruth
You wrote to mysticnoon concerning atheists:
["I haven't found that to be the case at all, here or elsewhere. Many atheists join Christian sites just to flame (and have admitted as much), and here at ATS the first people to respond to threads directed at Christians are often hateful, bitter atheists."]
The bandwagon of self-pity. An imagined christian persecution, cooked up to look like a defense, but in reality being an effort of censoring criticism.
Your sweeping and imprecise generalizations is what I've come to expect from missionary demagogues. Sooo: ........I, Bogomil the bounty-hunter, am actually amongst the least polite on the christian-critic (or theist-critic) side. Unfortunately for your generalizations, I'm NOT an atheist. The atheists amongst my fellow christian/theist-critics are usually rather more polite than me.
So it would be reasonable to direct your demagogy at people like me. Feel free.
Quote: ["Some seem obsessed with Christianity and cannot allow any Christians here to have a conversation without their attacks."]
Bravo, more rhetoric. A 'conversation', is that like 'sharing'? Euphemisms for preaching? Turning a public forum into a pulpit and trying to silence opposition (as would be a natural part of a church, but not here). You guys have some nerve, and the underlying message is, as always, ideological elitism with privileges to the elect.
Quote: ["But what I find most disturbing about your observation is it's implication: that atheists' anger is Christians' fault."]
SOME christians' fault, dude, some christians. Do not try to identify yourself with or be a spokesperson for the majority of decent christians outside the invasive missionary group of evangelists.
Quote: ["It's just like spousal abuse or rape: the man blames the woman; the perp blames the victim."]
Your christian-persecution tactics don't gain in credibility because you include misrepresentative allegories.
Quote: ["When atheists learn to take responsibility for their own anger and aggression against Christians, then we can talk about understanding and respect."]
And the situation and the conditions are ofcourse to be presented on your terms.
Quote: ["Yes there are bad Christians, but there are bad atheists too, and all need to control themselves and stop passing blame for their behavior."]
A bit late in your post, but welcome to the real world not running on black/white.
You wrote to mysticnoon concerning atheists:
["I haven't found that to be the case at all, here or elsewhere. Many atheists join Christian sites just to flame (and have admitted as much), and here at ATS the first people to respond to threads directed at Christians are often hateful, bitter atheists."]
The bandwagon of self-pity. An imagined christian persecution, cooked up to look like a defense, but in reality being an effort of censoring criticism.
Your sweeping and imprecise generalizations is what I've come to expect from missionary demagogues. Sooo: ........I, Bogomil the bounty-hunter, am actually amongst the least polite on the christian-critic (or theist-critic) side. Unfortunately for your generalizations, I'm NOT an atheist. The atheists amongst my fellow christian/theist-critics are usually rather more polite than me.
So it would be reasonable to direct your demagogy at people like me. Feel free.
Quote: ["Some seem obsessed with Christianity and cannot allow any Christians here to have a conversation without their attacks."]
Bravo, more rhetoric. A 'conversation', is that like 'sharing'? Euphemisms for preaching? Turning a public forum into a pulpit and trying to silence opposition (as would be a natural part of a church, but not here). You guys have some nerve, and the underlying message is, as always, ideological elitism with privileges to the elect.
Quote: ["But what I find most disturbing about your observation is it's implication: that atheists' anger is Christians' fault."]
SOME christians' fault, dude, some christians. Do not try to identify yourself with or be a spokesperson for the majority of decent christians outside the invasive missionary group of evangelists.
Quote: ["It's just like spousal abuse or rape: the man blames the woman; the perp blames the victim."]
Your christian-persecution tactics don't gain in credibility because you include misrepresentative allegories.
Quote: ["When atheists learn to take responsibility for their own anger and aggression against Christians, then we can talk about understanding and respect."]
And the situation and the conditions are ofcourse to be presented on your terms.
Quote: ["Yes there are bad Christians, but there are bad atheists too, and all need to control themselves and stop passing blame for their behavior."]
A bit late in your post, but welcome to the real world not running on black/white.
edit on 31-5-2011 by bogomil because: spelling and clarifying addition
Originally posted by bogomil
The bandwagon of self-pity. An imagined christian persecution,
Not imagined, just look around you, especially here on ATS! You angry-atheists have it all your own way, with Moderators on your side! (At least 2 of them I've seen.)
Originally posted by bogomilBravo, more rhetoric. A 'conversation', is that like 'sharing'?
I am pretty sure he/she meant by conversation what I would mean - a conversation! It's not rocket science, man.
Originally posted by bogomilSOME christians' fault, dude, some christians. Do not try to identify yourself with or be a spokesperson for the majority of decent christians outside the invasive missionary group of evangelists.
a) Two problems here, Mister Man. You appoint yourself the definer of missionary/evangelist and then feel free to attack/abuse those whom you have so defined.
b) After 50 years of bullying Christians, you ought to know that all Christians are obliged to evangelise!
Originally posted by bogomilAnd the situation and the conditions are ofcourse to be presented on your terms.
Pot meet kettle. The hypocrisy, it burns!
Originally posted by bogomil
The bandwagon of self-pity. An imagined christian persecution, cooked up to look like a defense, but in reality being an effort of censoring criticism.
The member who can't figure out how to quote properly, and who broadcasts utter disdain for Christians by using the term "missionaries" (typically the favorite term of Jews who resent Christian evangelization), has once again proven the point for us as a classic object lesson. Many like this person believe that criticism is the same as attack, and differences of opinion expressed in public is censorship. Orwell would be proud.
Your sweeping and imprecise generalizations is what I've come to expect from missionary demagogues. Sooo: ........I, Bogomil the bounty-hunter, am actually amongst the least polite on the christian-critic (or theist-critic) side. Unfortunately for your generalizations, I'm NOT an atheist. The atheists amongst my fellow christian/theist-critics are usually rather more polite than me.
As already stated, pot meet kettle. And thank you for adding support to my suspicion that you got the "missionary" term from anti-Christian sources, atheist or not. You apparently don't realize that by answering for atheists yet claiming not to be one, you are nonetheless on their side-- any side against Christians. When a non-atheist volunteers to respond to a criticism of atheists, it's like the old joke of someone yelling "Hey, stupid!" and you say "What?"
Other examples, starting here
edit on 31-5-2011 by SaberTruth
because: added link
reply to post by Kingalbrect79
Again, I'm not here to argue or debate and I will not be drawn into either. The simple fact of the matter is God is love, He is also righteous and just. All the debate or arguement in the world will not change His existance or make Him go away. Love Him, hate Him, belittle Him, deny Him, His existance remains.
If you are looking for complex facts or theories, with references to Greek and Hebrew text, carbon 13 testing, old and new earth theories. There are hundreds of theories on the Bible, it's translations, it's authenticity, it's cannonicity (if that's a word), it's similarity to other ancient writings, etc, etc etc; I'm not going to debate any of those things.
I will tell you what God has done for me. He has changed my life. He has given me peace where there was once turmoil. He has delivered me from death on several occasions and His hand in the matter was obvious. I could go on and on, but I realize that these are mere concepts, chemical reactions, misinterpreted emotions on one level or another to you. But you see, that is the point. A relationship with God is based on faith. Believing what you can't see or show to someone. The Bible say that "faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen."
Regardless of what you believe, Christ died for you and your sins and loves you even as you read this, and desires a relationship with you.
Seeashrink
Again, I'm not here to argue or debate and I will not be drawn into either. The simple fact of the matter is God is love, He is also righteous and just. All the debate or arguement in the world will not change His existance or make Him go away. Love Him, hate Him, belittle Him, deny Him, His existance remains.
If you are looking for complex facts or theories, with references to Greek and Hebrew text, carbon 13 testing, old and new earth theories. There are hundreds of theories on the Bible, it's translations, it's authenticity, it's cannonicity (if that's a word), it's similarity to other ancient writings, etc, etc etc; I'm not going to debate any of those things.
I will tell you what God has done for me. He has changed my life. He has given me peace where there was once turmoil. He has delivered me from death on several occasions and His hand in the matter was obvious. I could go on and on, but I realize that these are mere concepts, chemical reactions, misinterpreted emotions on one level or another to you. But you see, that is the point. A relationship with God is based on faith. Believing what you can't see or show to someone. The Bible say that "faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen."
Regardless of what you believe, Christ died for you and your sins and loves you even as you read this, and desires a relationship with you.
Seeashrink
reply to post by Vicky32
You wrote to me:
["Not imagined, just look around you, especially here on ATS! You angry-atheists have it all your own way, with Moderators on your side! (At least 2 of them I've seen.)"]
What do you mean by "You angry-atheists"? A post addressed to me, with the word "you" as a category-inclusion, would put me in the atheist category also. I have CLEARLY stated, that I am NOT an atheist. So don't use me as a representative of atheism. It's not fair to the atheists and is generally sloppy reasoning.
Quote: ["I am pretty sure he/she meant by conversation what I would mean - a conversation! It's not rocket science, man."]
I assume, that we're at least somewhat topic-related. Would you consider OP as a 'conversation'? Is that how christians 'converse'. If the OP had been more rational, I could with some leniency have considered it an academic lecture at best, but considering the propagandistic elements in it, it's just a sermon.
If my memory serves me, you are a professional (concerning language). I would expect defense of semantic gymnastics to be below you. That's not saying, that the form of opposition or criticism I present isn't irritating, and I may be wrong. But I can actually communicate decently, if I'm offered the option (I don't consider sermons or propagandistic clichées as communication).
Quote: ["a) Two problems here, Mister Man. You appoint yourself the definer of missionary/evangelist and then feel free to attack/abuse those whom you have so defined."]
I have in the post above the one you refer to, outlined the various kinds of missionaries/evangelists I've met on ATS, not making any sweeping generalizations of the various sub-categories (except, that they all somehow are in the maincategory of missionaries/evangelists).
And sure, I do appoint myself a 'definer', representing ME, my opinions, perspectives and position. Would you prefer some 'authority' reference, such as if I cited from Wikipedia.
Quote: ["b) After 50 years of bullying Christians, you ought to know that all Christians are obliged to evangelise!]
Accepting the word 'bullying' (I'm no paragon of linguistic purity and virtue, when it comes to excesses in some contexts), this bullying is a recent phenomenon in my life. Starting with my first direct internet contacts with extremist christianities a few years ago. I've never been exposed to such a degree of christian extremism before (though to a few hard-core commies), and it was quite a surprise to see, that people could be like that.
Quote: ["Pot meet kettle. The hypocrisy, it burns!"]
The initial position referred to here can be regressed to more basic (and hopefully more) factual levels. I'm game for that.
You wrote to me:
["Not imagined, just look around you, especially here on ATS! You angry-atheists have it all your own way, with Moderators on your side! (At least 2 of them I've seen.)"]
What do you mean by "You angry-atheists"? A post addressed to me, with the word "you" as a category-inclusion, would put me in the atheist category also. I have CLEARLY stated, that I am NOT an atheist. So don't use me as a representative of atheism. It's not fair to the atheists and is generally sloppy reasoning.
Quote: ["I am pretty sure he/she meant by conversation what I would mean - a conversation! It's not rocket science, man."]
I assume, that we're at least somewhat topic-related. Would you consider OP as a 'conversation'? Is that how christians 'converse'. If the OP had been more rational, I could with some leniency have considered it an academic lecture at best, but considering the propagandistic elements in it, it's just a sermon.
If my memory serves me, you are a professional (concerning language). I would expect defense of semantic gymnastics to be below you. That's not saying, that the form of opposition or criticism I present isn't irritating, and I may be wrong. But I can actually communicate decently, if I'm offered the option (I don't consider sermons or propagandistic clichées as communication).
Quote: ["a) Two problems here, Mister Man. You appoint yourself the definer of missionary/evangelist and then feel free to attack/abuse those whom you have so defined."]
I have in the post above the one you refer to, outlined the various kinds of missionaries/evangelists I've met on ATS, not making any sweeping generalizations of the various sub-categories (except, that they all somehow are in the maincategory of missionaries/evangelists).
And sure, I do appoint myself a 'definer', representing ME, my opinions, perspectives and position. Would you prefer some 'authority' reference, such as if I cited from Wikipedia.
Quote: ["b) After 50 years of bullying Christians, you ought to know that all Christians are obliged to evangelise!]
Accepting the word 'bullying' (I'm no paragon of linguistic purity and virtue, when it comes to excesses in some contexts), this bullying is a recent phenomenon in my life. Starting with my first direct internet contacts with extremist christianities a few years ago. I've never been exposed to such a degree of christian extremism before (though to a few hard-core commies), and it was quite a surprise to see, that people could be like that.
Quote: ["Pot meet kettle. The hypocrisy, it burns!"]
The initial position referred to here can be regressed to more basic (and hopefully more) factual levels. I'm game for that.
reply to post by SaberTruth
You wrote:
["The member who can't figure out how to quote properly,........"]
Why don't you question my spelling and grammar also, while you're at it? I'm a computer-incompetent for sure. Does that mean, that I'm intellectually subnormal, or that my understanding of ideology etc is impaired?
This primitive effort of credibility-undermining sets YOUR standards, not mine.
Quote continued: ["......and who broadcasts utter disdain for Christians by using the term "missionaries" (typically the favorite term of Jews who resent Christian evangelization), has once again proven the point for us as a classic object lesson"]
Patronizing me won't help you; you have actually no idea of my competence (or incompetence as it may be). And just for the record: I'm no jew either. But don't let that prevent you from further black/white categorizations of me. Eventually you may hit the proper one, and from there carry on.
You could even just ASK me about my position.
If you can propose a word more suitable than 'missionary' in this context, I will consider it.
Quote: ["Many like this person believe that criticism is the same as attack, and differences of opinion expressed in public is censorship. Orwell would be proud."]
Is 'this person' me? And yes, I DO know the differences between attack, criticism, semantic gymnastics, evidence, validation, censorship and free speech.
In a context of bringing in Orwell, I can inform you, that some of the closest I get to 'absolutes' is a stout defense of liberal, secular, egalitarian democracy. If you want a further extension of this subject (relevant in a context of elitist christiany), I'm at your service.
Quote: ["As already stated, pot meet kettle."]
I'm unfamiliar with the exact meaning of this (it's not part of my repertoire of english idioms), but I take it to mean unrelated argumentation/information.
Quote: [" And thank you for adding support to my suspicion that you got the "missionary" term from anti-Christian sources, atheist or not."]
I'm not anti-christian. I'm anti-missionary in a broader sense (until you find a better word). I dislike invasive communism, nazism and Jihadism, as much as I dislike invasive christiany.
Quote: ["You apparently don't realize that by answering for atheists yet claiming not to be one, you are nonetheless on their side"]
I'm not answering FOR atheists (not being one myself), I'm commenting ON atheism. As to your analyzing of what I 'realize' or not, and kindly informing me of my shortcomings in that direction, I actually DO know, that I in many contexts side with them.
Quote: ["....any side against Christians."]
Nope. And it's against MISSIONARY christians, and it doesn't mean that I'm pro-anything extremistic, just because it's non-theistic. I'm not even pro-'scientism'.
It's your persecution gambit manifesting again.
Quote: ["When a non-atheist volunteers to respond to a criticism of atheists, it's like the old joke of someone yelling "Hey, stupid!" and you say "What?""]
It's regrettable that you reduce your options to black/white. There are other moderate, legitimate and autonomus positions than atheism, from where criticism of invasive theism can derive.
You wrote:
["The member who can't figure out how to quote properly,........"]
Why don't you question my spelling and grammar also, while you're at it? I'm a computer-incompetent for sure. Does that mean, that I'm intellectually subnormal, or that my understanding of ideology etc is impaired?
This primitive effort of credibility-undermining sets YOUR standards, not mine.
Quote continued: ["......and who broadcasts utter disdain for Christians by using the term "missionaries" (typically the favorite term of Jews who resent Christian evangelization), has once again proven the point for us as a classic object lesson"]
Patronizing me won't help you; you have actually no idea of my competence (or incompetence as it may be). And just for the record: I'm no jew either. But don't let that prevent you from further black/white categorizations of me. Eventually you may hit the proper one, and from there carry on.
You could even just ASK me about my position.
If you can propose a word more suitable than 'missionary' in this context, I will consider it.
Quote: ["Many like this person believe that criticism is the same as attack, and differences of opinion expressed in public is censorship. Orwell would be proud."]
Is 'this person' me? And yes, I DO know the differences between attack, criticism, semantic gymnastics, evidence, validation, censorship and free speech.
In a context of bringing in Orwell, I can inform you, that some of the closest I get to 'absolutes' is a stout defense of liberal, secular, egalitarian democracy. If you want a further extension of this subject (relevant in a context of elitist christiany), I'm at your service.
Quote: ["As already stated, pot meet kettle."]
I'm unfamiliar with the exact meaning of this (it's not part of my repertoire of english idioms), but I take it to mean unrelated argumentation/information.
Quote: [" And thank you for adding support to my suspicion that you got the "missionary" term from anti-Christian sources, atheist or not."]
I'm not anti-christian. I'm anti-missionary in a broader sense (until you find a better word). I dislike invasive communism, nazism and Jihadism, as much as I dislike invasive christiany.
Quote: ["You apparently don't realize that by answering for atheists yet claiming not to be one, you are nonetheless on their side"]
I'm not answering FOR atheists (not being one myself), I'm commenting ON atheism. As to your analyzing of what I 'realize' or not, and kindly informing me of my shortcomings in that direction, I actually DO know, that I in many contexts side with them.
Quote: ["....any side against Christians."]
Nope. And it's against MISSIONARY christians, and it doesn't mean that I'm pro-anything extremistic, just because it's non-theistic. I'm not even pro-'scientism'.
It's your persecution gambit manifesting again.
Quote: ["When a non-atheist volunteers to respond to a criticism of atheists, it's like the old joke of someone yelling "Hey, stupid!" and you say "What?""]
It's regrettable that you reduce your options to black/white. There are other moderate, legitimate and autonomus positions than atheism, from where criticism of invasive theism can derive.
Originally posted by bogomil
Quote: ["As already stated, pot meet kettle."]
I'm unfamiliar with the exact meaning of this (it's not part of my repertoire of english idioms), but I take it to mean unrelated argumentation/information.
It comes from the expression "the pot (is) calling the kettle black" - and that in turn comes from pre-electricity days, when pots and kettles would both be set over a fire to heat, and both would get soot on the bottom. So what it means is, one person makes an accusation, but is himself guilty of the same thing. So, your assumption in this case, was wrong! But you've learned a new idiom...
If I knew your native language, I could explain it better probably..
V
Originally posted by bogomil
Why don't you question my spelling and grammar also, while you're at it? I'm a computer-incompetent for sure. Does that mean, that I'm intellectually subnormal, or that my understanding of ideology etc is impaired?
In that other thread I linked to, you claim to have trouble stooping down to the level of people who don't hang out with the Ivory Tower crowd, so maybe that's the problem. But I'll try to explain anyway: proper quoting is not difficult for anyone who managed to register here, it is just common courtesy to do so, and to refuse to learn or go to the minimal trouble of quoting properly might indicate laziness and feeling that such trifles are beneath you.
If you can propose a word more suitable than 'missionary' in this context, I will consider it.
His royal ivory towerness will consider it! Wow! Anyway, the use of "missionary" for Christians in general is rare and almost exclusive to Jews. You picked that up at an anti-Christian site.
Is 'this person' me? And yes, I DO know the differences between attack, criticism, semantic gymnastics, evidence, validation, censorship and free speech.
Then you might consider starting to demonstrate such knowledge around here. I haven't seen it yet.
I'm unfamiliar with the exact meaning of this (it's not part of my repertoire of english idioms), but I take it to mean unrelated argumentation/information.
This is not the first time someone has used the term for you, why didn't you ask before? It is from "the pot calling the kettle 'black'" and is a referral to hypocrisy, or the double standard of criticizing others for the very same faults you possess. It does not mean "off topic" or "irrelevant".
I'm not anti-christian. I'm anti-missionary in a broader sense (until you find a better word). I dislike invasive communism, nazism and Jihadism, as much as I dislike invasive christiany.
Being anti- other things does not mean you're not anti-Christian; that's elementary logic. And I'm sure that no matter what term I come up with, it won't be good enough. And FYI, to us a 'missionary' is a specific term for those who give up homes, possessions, friends and family to travel to a foreign land to bring the gospel to others who have never heard it. Lesson to learn here: don't throw around terms you don't understand.
I'm not answering FOR atheists (not being one myself), I'm commenting ON atheism. As to your analyzing of what I 'realize' or not, and kindly informing me of my shortcomings in that direction, I actually DO know, that I in many contexts side with them.
Actions speak louder than words; you play the part of atheist in all the Christian-related threads I've seen you in. As I said, you answer when the question is put to atheists. If that isn't "answering FOR atheists" then I don't know what would be.
Clearly it is pointless to try anymore communication with you.
reply to post by Vicky32
Thanks Vicky,
as always when we 'correspond', I appeciate your capacity to bring levelness into debates otherwise tending to become overheated (I am aware of my own contributions to such overheating).
My passive english is, as is common, naturally better than my active english. So I did get your meaning.
So maybe you could also add your voice to the semantic quibblings I have on 'missionary'. I would gladly listen to you, even a more extensive comment. Just to be sure I looked up the word, and can presently not find any faults in my use of it..
From another perspective than an actual defintion of the word per se, I am aware of your formerly mentioned christian obligation of missioning/evangelization. From your position it's legitimate, but then it's a question of regressing arguments to the area of positions, rather than to their outgoing 'answers'. I know, that such regressions can be carried far, sometimes beyond the competence of some contributors (which I don't use as an intimidating 'academism', where authority has the last word).
But I do believe, that average intelligence and 'common sense' will be enough to understand such advanced speculations, when these speculations are translated to 'normalese'. It's just a question of e.g. asking:"But what does epistemology MEAN" (to take a word I'm fond of). Sometimes specialist jargon can be precise, practical, short and useful. But I'm not trying to create an intellectual hierarchy based on sheer knowledge of 'complex' words.
Thanks Vicky,
as always when we 'correspond', I appeciate your capacity to bring levelness into debates otherwise tending to become overheated (I am aware of my own contributions to such overheating).
My passive english is, as is common, naturally better than my active english. So I did get your meaning.
So maybe you could also add your voice to the semantic quibblings I have on 'missionary'. I would gladly listen to you, even a more extensive comment. Just to be sure I looked up the word, and can presently not find any faults in my use of it..
From another perspective than an actual defintion of the word per se, I am aware of your formerly mentioned christian obligation of missioning/evangelization. From your position it's legitimate, but then it's a question of regressing arguments to the area of positions, rather than to their outgoing 'answers'. I know, that such regressions can be carried far, sometimes beyond the competence of some contributors (which I don't use as an intimidating 'academism', where authority has the last word).
But I do believe, that average intelligence and 'common sense' will be enough to understand such advanced speculations, when these speculations are translated to 'normalese'. It's just a question of e.g. asking:"But what does epistemology MEAN" (to take a word I'm fond of). Sometimes specialist jargon can be precise, practical, short and useful. But I'm not trying to create an intellectual hierarchy based on sheer knowledge of 'complex' words.
edit on 31-5-2011 by bogomil because: grammar
reply to post by SaberTruth
You wrote:
["In that other thread I linked to, you claim to have trouble stooping down to the level of people who don't hang out with the Ivory Tower crowd, so maybe that's the problem."]
How's that? I admit to some language problems, I tend to be stilted and circumstantial, but a derogative 'stooping' I'm not aware of. Though my introspection on the point may be insufficient; so I'm open for suggestions and examples.
Quote: ["But I'll try to explain anyway: proper quoting is not difficult for anyone who managed to register here,"]
Well, it is to me. My computer skills go as far as being able to handle texts, e-mail etc.
Quote: ["it is just common courtesy to do so,"]
I'm not trying to be impolite or making things difficult for anyone by using brackets.
Quote: ["and to refuse to learn or go to the minimal trouble of quoting properly might indicate laziness and feeling that such trifles are beneath you."]
Sorry if that's your interpretation of it.
Quote: ["His royal ivory towerness will consider it! Wow! Anyway, the use of "missionary" for Christians in general is rare and almost exclusive to Jews. You picked that up at an anti-Christian site."]
Did you expect me to take YOUR word for it just like that. I make my own evaluations on such.
How do you know, where I picked up ANY word. I VERY seldom use pro- or anti-theist sites for information, except for a bible-sceptic site. And in that case I don't blindly cite pre-digested opinions. I use it for references of specific points of interest to my argumentation, e.g. specific bible-verses or a ground for doctrinal positions.
Quote: ["Then you might consider starting to demonstrate such knowledge around here. I haven't seen it yet."]
Sofar you've been to busy examining my character, ascribing imagined qualities to it, and place me in positions I don't have, to get around to factual knowledge.
Quote: ["This is not the first time someone has used the term for you, why didn't you ask before?"]
Partly because I wrongly believed, that I had a somewhat correct understanding of it, and partly because it's never been an important point for me. I'm not overly fond of using allegories or ideoms as 'arguments' (only occasionally as illustrative).
Quote: ["It is from "the pot calling the kettle 'black'" and is a referral to hypocrisy, or the double standard of criticizing others for the very same faults you possess. It does not mean "off topic" or "irrelevant"."]
Thank you. Vicky also explained it to me; it's always good to learn correct language etc.
Quote: ["Being anti- other things does not mean you're not anti-Christian; that's elementary logic."]
True, ....if your use of category was more precise and in accordance to my self-declared position (which you still don't know or want to know 'officially'). I believe, that I sufficiently clear have stated, that I don't categorize all christians in the same sub-category. So whether you try to 'imply' something in your double-negation inductive sentence, or openly accuse me of being anti-christian, the answer is no.
Quote: ["And I'm sure that no matter what term I come up with, it won't be good enough."]
You appear to know much more about me than I do. But in any case I asked Vicky also. She may be able to help, not least because I respect her and would trust her opinion on this.
Quote: ["And FYI, to us a 'missionary' is a specific term for those who give up homes, possessions, friends and family to travel to a foreign land to bring the gospel to others who have never heard it."]
You may be right, but I'm uncertain as to the specific conditions you put up. Christians on ATS, whom I respect for their competence and knowledge, have never objected to my use of the word before, so your use of the word could be a special definition related to a certain version of the christianities.
Quote: ["Lesson to learn here: don't throw around terms you don't understand."]
Wait with assuming the patronizing role, until the question is settled.
Quote: ["Actions speak louder than words;"]
Technically speaking everything on ATS are words, but I understand your meaning.
Quote: ["you play the part of atheist in all the Christian-related threads I've seen you in."]
Mostly I side with atheists, yes. But that's not my position, in spite of your enthusiasm for enforcing it on me.
Quote: ["As I said, you answer when the question is put to atheists."]
It's fascinating subject (theism/atheism), and relates closely my own position and interests. How would you e.g. approach buddhist concepts of 'gods', which are far from identical with abrahamic concepts on the subject? But as I've said before, your premature efforts of categorizing me is wasted time, considering that I could give you a straight and relatively simple answer to a simple question on my position (which by the way also is presented in the thread you have referred to above).
It's ofcourse flattering, that you use so much time and energy on analyzing my character, motivation, position, competence etc., but all your guesses and pidgeon-holing me practically exclude any factual debate.
Quote: [" Clearly it is pointless to try anymore communication with you."]
Your choice. And you set your standards, I set mine.
You wrote:
["In that other thread I linked to, you claim to have trouble stooping down to the level of people who don't hang out with the Ivory Tower crowd, so maybe that's the problem."]
How's that? I admit to some language problems, I tend to be stilted and circumstantial, but a derogative 'stooping' I'm not aware of. Though my introspection on the point may be insufficient; so I'm open for suggestions and examples.
Quote: ["But I'll try to explain anyway: proper quoting is not difficult for anyone who managed to register here,"]
Well, it is to me. My computer skills go as far as being able to handle texts, e-mail etc.
Quote: ["it is just common courtesy to do so,"]
I'm not trying to be impolite or making things difficult for anyone by using brackets.
Quote: ["and to refuse to learn or go to the minimal trouble of quoting properly might indicate laziness and feeling that such trifles are beneath you."]
Sorry if that's your interpretation of it.
Quote: ["His royal ivory towerness will consider it! Wow! Anyway, the use of "missionary" for Christians in general is rare and almost exclusive to Jews. You picked that up at an anti-Christian site."]
Did you expect me to take YOUR word for it just like that. I make my own evaluations on such.
How do you know, where I picked up ANY word. I VERY seldom use pro- or anti-theist sites for information, except for a bible-sceptic site. And in that case I don't blindly cite pre-digested opinions. I use it for references of specific points of interest to my argumentation, e.g. specific bible-verses or a ground for doctrinal positions.
Quote: ["Then you might consider starting to demonstrate such knowledge around here. I haven't seen it yet."]
Sofar you've been to busy examining my character, ascribing imagined qualities to it, and place me in positions I don't have, to get around to factual knowledge.
Quote: ["This is not the first time someone has used the term for you, why didn't you ask before?"]
Partly because I wrongly believed, that I had a somewhat correct understanding of it, and partly because it's never been an important point for me. I'm not overly fond of using allegories or ideoms as 'arguments' (only occasionally as illustrative).
Quote: ["It is from "the pot calling the kettle 'black'" and is a referral to hypocrisy, or the double standard of criticizing others for the very same faults you possess. It does not mean "off topic" or "irrelevant"."]
Thank you. Vicky also explained it to me; it's always good to learn correct language etc.
Quote: ["Being anti- other things does not mean you're not anti-Christian; that's elementary logic."]
True, ....if your use of category was more precise and in accordance to my self-declared position (which you still don't know or want to know 'officially'). I believe, that I sufficiently clear have stated, that I don't categorize all christians in the same sub-category. So whether you try to 'imply' something in your double-negation inductive sentence, or openly accuse me of being anti-christian, the answer is no.
Quote: ["And I'm sure that no matter what term I come up with, it won't be good enough."]
You appear to know much more about me than I do. But in any case I asked Vicky also. She may be able to help, not least because I respect her and would trust her opinion on this.
Quote: ["And FYI, to us a 'missionary' is a specific term for those who give up homes, possessions, friends and family to travel to a foreign land to bring the gospel to others who have never heard it."]
You may be right, but I'm uncertain as to the specific conditions you put up. Christians on ATS, whom I respect for their competence and knowledge, have never objected to my use of the word before, so your use of the word could be a special definition related to a certain version of the christianities.
Quote: ["Lesson to learn here: don't throw around terms you don't understand."]
Wait with assuming the patronizing role, until the question is settled.
Quote: ["Actions speak louder than words;"]
Technically speaking everything on ATS are words, but I understand your meaning.
Quote: ["you play the part of atheist in all the Christian-related threads I've seen you in."]
Mostly I side with atheists, yes. But that's not my position, in spite of your enthusiasm for enforcing it on me.
Quote: ["As I said, you answer when the question is put to atheists."]
It's fascinating subject (theism/atheism), and relates closely my own position and interests. How would you e.g. approach buddhist concepts of 'gods', which are far from identical with abrahamic concepts on the subject? But as I've said before, your premature efforts of categorizing me is wasted time, considering that I could give you a straight and relatively simple answer to a simple question on my position (which by the way also is presented in the thread you have referred to above).
It's ofcourse flattering, that you use so much time and energy on analyzing my character, motivation, position, competence etc., but all your guesses and pidgeon-holing me practically exclude any factual debate.
Quote: [" Clearly it is pointless to try anymore communication with you."]
Your choice. And you set your standards, I set mine.
edit on 31-5-2011 by bogomil because: missing word
edit on 31-5-2011 by bogomil because: (no reason given)
new topics
-
Potter to WHU
World Sports: 16 minutes ago -
Dr. Demento
Music: 2 hours ago -
The elephant in the room (wearing a hoodie)
US Political Madness: 2 hours ago -
To become president, Zelensky had to learn Ukrainian
Political Conspiracies: 8 hours ago
top topics
-
Green Grapes
General Chit Chat: 12 hours ago, 6 flags -
To become president, Zelensky had to learn Ukrainian
Political Conspiracies: 8 hours ago, 6 flags -
The elephant in the room (wearing a hoodie)
US Political Madness: 2 hours ago, 5 flags -
Those Great Fresh Pet Commercials
Television: 17 hours ago, 3 flags -
Dr. Demento
Music: 2 hours ago, 2 flags -
Potter to WHU
World Sports: 16 minutes ago, 1 flags
active topics
-
Steering the Titantic from the Drydock.
Rant • 45 • : Freeborn -
The elephant in the room (wearing a hoodie)
US Political Madness • 8 • : xuenchen -
To become president, Zelensky had to learn Ukrainian
Political Conspiracies • 8 • : WaESN -
Potter to WHU
World Sports • 1 • : gortex -
Dr. Demento
Music • 3 • : xuenchen -
Green Grapes
General Chit Chat • 4 • : AlroyFarms -
Los Angeles brush fires latest: 2 blazes threaten structures, prompt evacuations
Mainstream News • 125 • : xuenchen -
Those Great Fresh Pet Commercials
Television • 5 • : CosmicFocus -
Planned Civil War In Britain May Be Triggered Soon
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 23 • : AdultMaleHumanUK -
Those stupid GRAVITE commercials
Rant • 14 • : FlyersFan