A Message, Part I

reply to post by TILTed


You wrote:

["I'd rather spend my time DOING than PREACHING. Especially since I have no proof other than everything I see around me."]

I can only add my own voice to compliment you for this version of christianity/theism.

One of the most touchings things I ever heard about, was a buddhist monk and a catholic padre running an orphanage together in India. That's the kind of religion I actively can support and admire, though being a non-theist myself.

I also find it positive, that you manifest here with such attitudes. Both to demonstrate, that religion per se isn't always a zombification machine, and to demonstrate that theists and non-theists can get along, when invasive attitudes aren't presented.

reply to post by TILTed


The difference between you and the OP is that you admit that your position and don't try to force it upon me or any other athiest in any way. This is all we want.

You are free to do to others as you wish them to do unto you, just as atheists do, you and I just don't need to threaten the fear of hell to accomplish the same goal, and you are free to practice your religion without hesitation, and you will find no objection from me unless it is turned against me.

Good day..

King

reply to post by bogomil


Thank you too Bogo, but I am not a representative of any religion. I am anti-religion if anything. And I have no need of a bible, though I am somewhat familiar with it.

I can personally verify the validity of three words from the bible. LOVE THY NEIGHBOR. Those are the only ones I need.

BTW - if anyone on this thread had a flat tire, I'd help you change it. Don't care who ya are.

reply to post by TILTed


I had to return to your first post on this thread once more, just to make sure.

You mention a personal belief in God, technically that makes you a theist (an option I included in my post to you).

This RE to you isn't to quibble about what's a religionist, theist or whatever based on definitions of my choice, but rather to re-affirm my sympathy for whatever you are or call yourself.

reply to post by SaberTruth

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.

That is my point, that the absence of respect and understanding may lead to angry responses in some individuals, be they atheist, Christian, or otherwise.

But what I find most disturbing about your observation is it's implication: that atheists' anger is Christians' fault.

My statement did not imply fault or blame in any party to a conversation, only an observation of human tendencies in response to certain triggers. It is up to each person to take responsibility for their own thoughts, words, and deeds.

If something I write on a forum continually elicits angry responses from others, I would also consider it imperative that I examine my own content and manner of communication. Naturally the angry person is responsible for their own anger, but understanding and respect do go a long way to resolving any issues which my inadvertently spark antagonistic reactions in others.

Originally posted by mysticnoon
My statement did not imply fault or blame in any party to a conversation, only an observation of human tendencies in response to certain triggers. It is up to each person to take responsibility for their own thoughts, words, and deeds.

If something I write on a forum continually elicits angry responses from others, I would also consider it imperative that I examine my own content and manner of communication. Naturally the angry person is responsible for their own anger, but understanding and respect do go a long way to resolving any issues which my inadvertently spark antagonistic reactions in others.

We agree on the need for personal accountability and not passing blame, but it still appears that you would consider a Christian merely expressing their faith as a "trigger". The mere expression of Christian views is what I was talking about, even the most irenic and carefully worded ones. In my experience it doesn't matter what the Christian actually says or how they say it, the atheists will pounce and attack.

reply to post by SaberTruth

We agree on the need for personal accountability and not passing blame, but it still appears that you would consider a Christian merely expressing their faith as a "trigger". The mere expression of Christian views is what I was talking about, even the most irenic and carefully worded ones. In my experience it doesn't matter what the Christian actually says or how they say it, the atheists will pounce and attack

I hear what you are saying, but I don't know what further to suggest beyond offering respect and understanding to the views of those who attack your own.

If you agree on the need for personal accountability, then does not this begin with yourself?

Originally posted by mysticnoon
If you agree on the need for personal accountability, then does not this begin with yourself?

Why do you even need to ask me this, after what's been said already? Here again I have the impression that you're putting the blame on Christians for being attacked-- which as I said is a most serious and callous accusation. Any time the victim of an attack is blamed, red flags should be raised; either attacking is wrong for everybody or it isn't wrong for anybody. I would expect, then, that whenever atheists complain about being attacked, they should be told they deserved or asked for it.

Originally posted by SaberTruth
We agree on the need for personal accountability and not passing blame, but it still appears that you would consider a Christian merely expressing their faith as a "trigger". The mere expression of Christian views is what I was talking about, even the most irenic and carefully worded ones. In my experience it doesn't matter what the Christian actually says or how they say it, the atheists will pounce and attack.

I think christians get hassled for trying to use the bible to prove the bible.
Or from trying to convince people that men didn't write it.

?

Originally posted by TILTed

I think christians get hassled for trying to use the bible to prove the bible.
Or from trying to convince people that men didn't write it.

?

Disagree, fine; hassle or attack or belittle, not fine.

reply to post by SaberTruth

Why do you even need to ask me this, after what's been said already? Here again I have the impression that you're putting the blame on Christians for being attacked-- which as I said is a most serious and callous accusation

If this is your impression, then I have failed to make myself understood.

Any time the victim of an attack is blamed, red flags should be raised; either attacking is wrong for everybody or it isn't wrong for anybody. I would expect, then, that whenever atheists complain about being attacked, they should be told they deserved or asked for it.

If a "victim" takes responsibility for their own actions, it does not absolve the attacker from their own wrongdoing. An attack remains an attack, even if the victim of the attack offers consideration and understanding. It is not about apportioning blame to anyone else, it is about looking within oneself to see where there is room for improvement.

Originally posted by bogomil
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..

edit on 31-5-2011 by bogomil because: grammar

Thank you for your kind remarks! I am prone to intemperance myself, so I am pleased that you don't hold that against me.. I understand your distinction between active and passive language, I spend a lot of time on a couple of websites using my 3rd language (and have fallen into trouble by assuming I knew the meaning of a word - I am thinking right now of a 'false friend', namely 'simpatia' - I don't know if you speak Italian?)
The word missionary means, as Saber Truth has said, someone who leaves their home, their country, their job and their community, to travel to places where the Gospel is not known (or not well known). In the 1840s (probably earlier, my son would tell me, he knows New Zealand history better than I do) the first European settlers here were whalers, sealers and missionaries, and contrary to what many people now believe, the missionaries were welcomed by the indigenous people, not least because because they kept the whalers and sealers in check!
Missionaries seldom these days, have evangelisation as their primary purpose. A church I attended in the 1990s, sent a couple as missionaries to Outer Mongolia. She was a town planner, and working with the local government on planning the infrastructure was her primary purpose. Other missionaries are nurses, doctors and school teachers.
Missionaries are the 'professionals' so to speak, although they seldom get any money, and never get rich from what they do.
Every Christian is obliged to talk about her relationship with God, when asked. But that doesn't make them a missionary. There's been a phenomenon in recent years of people from 3rd world countries travelling to Europe and the UK (the USA also as far as I know), to bring the Gospel, as there are so many people in developed countries who don't actually understand that it is good news - or why!
Vicky

What I try to do here, as does Daber Truth, is to correct misconceptions, and they're rife here on ATS!

Originally posted by TILTed


The Catholic KNOWS that the catholic church IS TRUE and the POPE is the word of God on earth, and he knows you are going to hell if you are not catholic.

So - which version of "god's word" is it that you KNOW to be TRUE?

edit on 11/5/31 by TILTed because: (no reason given)

Point of order, that's not what Catholics believe, and the word of God is the word of God. Muslims and Mormons use different texts (neither are Christian, obviously) but Catholics use the same Bible as Protestants.

Originally posted by bogomil

And the dishonesty of advocating 'love'/compassion as universal, also in social contexts as a moral guide, but not being explicitely clear on the differences on the CONDITIONS of divine and mundane 'love' is seen as missionary trickery.

There are no conditions on Divine Love.
V

Originally posted by TILTed


Share the truth with me. Which version of the bible is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH, written by God.

There are not 'versions', there are different translations. None was written directly by God and no one claims they were...
V

Originally posted by Kingalbrect79

Of course, because any supreme being would post his divine word in broken english and confusing, contradicting passages that have been edited for content over the course of 2000 years.

Broken English? What on earth do you mean by that? (I could claim you use broken English because that's what the American dialect looks like to me...
V

Originally posted by Vicky32

Broken English? What on earth do you mean by that? (I could claim you use broken English because that's what the American dialect looks like to me...
V

It's called sarcasm.

But your example is good too. The translation of scripture from one language to many others naturally has different interpretations, and therefore different meanings. So, which one is the "right" one?

King

reply to post by Vicky32


Thanks Vicky,

I'll try to remember the defintion you sent me (old habits die hard), but I'll need a word to describe what I assumed to be 'missioning', so I better start looking.

(My italian consists of a few words).

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by bogomil

And the dishonesty of advocating 'love'/compassion as universal, also in social contexts as a moral guide, but not being explicitely clear on the differences on the CONDITIONS of divine and mundane 'love' is seen as missionary trickery.

There are no conditions on Divine Love.
V

On the assumption, that divine love exists, there shouldn't be. And taking 'das ding an sich'-the thing as such, it would be a uniform/universal experience, at least in a portion of mankind. So a buddhist would experience it, call it something according to his/her background, and if 'semi-theologically' (it's a question if buddhism falls in the group of theology) interested, ascribe it to buddhistic concepts of 'greater reality'.

As would other religionists/semi-religionists.

But both in the area of labelling and giving 'divine love' reality-credibility there appear to be some copyright issues going on in some groups. Often on doctrinal grounds.

And furthermore aren't all presentations of 'divine love' unconditional, in many cases there's a pricetag attached somewhere in the relationship divine/human. E.g. in fire-and-brimstone religions.

I know, that the witch-hunts weren't so extensive as some believe, but the inner-european religious crusades were, they took a considerable percentual toll on the then european population. Burning people for 'their own good', so their souls could be cleansed and thus have a chance to achieve whatever divine benefits eventually being promised.

Man-made fabrications...bible-misinterpretations....false doctrines ?, the problem is real and exists to this day.

The main christian positions of faith, law and unconditional compassion is a schism only christians can solve. But for a non-theist/atheist only the pragmatically observable outcome is of real interest and even in the mini-universe of ATS can this be seen.

The unconditional-compassion group, relating to the bible, Jesus etc. this way, is usually treated with the politeness, even formal 'respect', which many christians demand. The ideological-fascism christian representatives are not.

Just to make sure: I can hardly imagine, that you are amongst the fire-and-brimstoners. In spite of your sometimes intemperance you come across as a sympathetic and quite reasonable person, so my ruminations above are of general character, not implying criticsm against you.

reply to post by Kingalbrect79

King,

I'm not sure how you have decided that I have attacked you or anyone else. The title of this post is "A Mesage". It is not "A Message to Atheist". One of the most basic principle of communication is that it takes two to have a conflict. In this post and it's title I could not have been more objective as to whom it was addressed. If you have a conflict, it is yours and yours alone. I will be busy with work today and tomorrow but when I return I will try to answer questions more specifically as you have requested. But remember, my beliefs are faith based and yours are totally based on what is tangible and can be proven without a doubt. I don't anticipate bridging that gap. It is a matter of the heart and the mind must follow. That is what faith is in a matter of speaking. I hold no ill will for you or anyone else posting on this thread. I have not attacked or even become defensive if you have noticed. I have not sung my own praises. Any warning I have given come from the Word of God, not me, I have just repeated them for the caution of myself and others.
Sincerely,
Seeashrink