Hello from a non-religious new person

[Town Heretic]

@townheretic: Your comments on vanity are amusing since that's all you've demonstrated toward me, in your snide putdowns, since you started your replies in this thread. And I happened upon some other posters in this forum who seem to agree with your poor way of communicating with people.

And they tend to share a common foundation: we've stepped into the ring together and they threw a low aimed punch or two. I can name a number of people, including among them more than a few atheists, whom I've argued with civilly and whom I count as friends. They wouldn't share your opinion.

I don't have time to get into it much right now, but your insistence on this adultery example misses some logical points.

No, you simply missed the point again, though I tried to steer you more directly. I assumed with your education you could follow the parallel without much difficulty. But some people are just built for Hemingway and that's the long and short of it. Well, the short of it then.

You said:

"when a man's actions don't support his declarations it's time to question his understanding or his veracity."

I said exactly that and a bit more. I noted the heart of your mistake and my objection.

I wouldn't disagree with that statement, but it would only apply to me in the negative way you are intending if I continued to proclaim myself a Christian,

Only if you miss the application. When you tell me you loved as I love, were of the faith and then tell me you doubted and fell away then you're making contradictory statements if you understand the the foundation of the Christian walk. If you don't it explains a good bit and I'll consider representing you in the lawsuit.

Then I would of course be a hypocrite, a liar, and a fake.

Not the implied criticism. The point is that you can't love and doubt God at the same time. And to arrive where you find yourself is to engage the will and entertain what is anathema where love is found. It didn't happen to you. You courted it. You reserved, placed something between you and your love of God. And that something had to be present at the inception of your walk.

Or, to use the old country saying, you can't get there from here.

If there is any misunderstanding about your marriage example and my response to it, I would submit that rather than my poor, insufficient theological education, perhaps it's your inability to communicate clearly, and in a charitable way.

You don't invite charity by sneering at my faith. You find it a source of intellectual amusement? Fine. Keep your gloves up.

 

[Glenda]

I realize there are heaps of people who think they are Christian, but in reality have no clue what it's like to "have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ," or to experience true repentance and acceptance and devotion. I, however, am not one of those people. I experienced those things, whether you like to believe that I did or not.

Greetings and welcome to you reasonator.

I appreciate much of what you've said throughout this thread, but I have a problem with your concept of 'relationship'.

For me, relationship is a very serious absolute deliberate choice rather than an 'experience' (which sounds like a term for passive acceptance). I deliberately chose to committ myself to a relationship with my husband, for better or worse, til death did indeed part us.

Real relationship is a chosen committment in good and bad. It's a deliberate total committment which requires personal effort.

The choice to be in relationship involves the choice to risk all and jump in the deep end. I had to seriously consider if I wanted to embrace Jesus as my personal teacher/master/guide/worthy-hero, God-given-King etc. I truly weighed up possibilities to ensure I was willing to live with the consequences of my choice ... I asked myself some really uncomfy questions eg what if Jesus was a liar and could lead me to doom ... that's a truly scary question requiring serious consideration and study to seek if this could be a possibility. I looked at the life and teachings of Jesus and made a decision to be totally committed to embracing everything about him, for better or worse, with all my energy and heart REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES! If my committment to following Jesus would be an offence to God, then may God have mercy coz I'm totally committed to heeding and following Jesus. Everything about him is my heart's desire ... his mercy and kindness and teachings and demonstration of how to live etc. The result isn't passively 'experiencing' relationship, but instead is a daily struggle within a life-long deliberate committment.

When you have a relationship, do you just 'invite someone into your heart' on a feel-good impulse til things 'feel' less ok?

I'm left wondering what the hell people consider as relationship these days and is what they consider relationship even worth having? To me it's not ... it's temporary and disposeable warm-fuzzy-goodwill. Seems you 'experienced' some form of feel-good time regarding religion. To me, you didn't enter a committment with all your heart and mind and efforts ... which to me is what relationship is.

I'm in a committment with Jesus ... like Ruth committed herself to Naomi. My life is focused on following Jesus and heeding and learning from him and having his God to be my God etc.

You can't claim to have had a committed relationship because what you 'experienced' you chose to dispose of without 'feeling' uncomfy.

 

[Refractive]

It was one of the Southern Baptist seminaries, and that's as much as I'd like to say at this time.

Oh. Okay.

It's a good question. I believed I had a personal relationship for the same reason people who are still Christians think they currently have a personal relationship with Jesus

But that's not what you said: "think" you had one. What you said was:

I realize there are heaps of people who think they are Christian, but in reality have no clue what it's like to "have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ," or to experience true repentance and acceptance and devotion. I, however, am not one of those people. I experienced those things, whether you like to believe that I did or not.

You were pretty insistent at the beginning that you knew what that meant and that you experienced it. So, now you are saying you didn't have a personal relationship with Jesus, which is what we already knew and you tried to deflect with: whether you like to believe that I did or not

: Because the term "relationship" is used in a different way than people normally use the word

Not when I use it. Anyone else here? What do y'all mean by "relationship with Jesus?" Something abnormal?

, and secondly, the psychology of people in general allows them to believe religious concepts out of social peer pressure.

I didn't ask anything about people in general. I asked about you. What convinced you that such a relationship existed?

When I prayed and talked to Jesus, I wasn't doing anything differently than if I were talking to a tree. There was no response. I would feel "led" by the Spirit, and I thought this was God's way of speaking back to me,

So at the time you experienced something that felt like communication to you. Now what do you think it was? Gas, maybe or low blood sugar, something like that?

but I know now I was listening to my own inner thoughts and desires for things.

You know now? But didn't you know then? If some atheist had said you were listening to your own thoughts, you would have been convinced he was wrong. Now you are convinced you were wrong. How do you know now you are right?

When you were feeling "led" by the Spirit, it felt exactly like your own thoughts? Like when you think, "Were did I put my keys?" Somehow, even though you'd been listening to yourself for a couple decades, you couldn't tell the difference?

 

[Refractive]

You don't invite charity by sneering at my faith. You find it a source of intellectual amusement? Fine. Keep your gloves up.

Uh-oh.

Guess someone forgot to tell him in seminary about poking a sleeping dragon.

 

[zippy2006]

You don't invite charity by sneering at my faith.

...a faith which says, quite explicitly, that no invitation is necessary, especially when it comes to charity:

Matthew 5:38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
Matthew 5:39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

You find it a source of intellectual amusement?

I don't think he meant any harm by saying that, nor do I think that the concept is inherently insulting. Theology is intellectually stimulating, whether or not one is a believer. Even the pagan philosophers often approached concepts of God as some of the highest thoughts possible.

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

...a faith which says, quite explicitly, that no invitation is necessary, especially when it comes to charity:

Matthew 5:38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
Matthew 5:39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

And Christ, who is our example, dealt rather harshly with wolves among the sheep. And don't get me started on money changers...

I think Hughes has it right:

"Jesus does not teach Christians are not to resist evil. What He forbids is that Christians do not seek to retaliate in personal relationships, which is what the Pharisees were teaching. The scribes and Pharisees took the lex talionis out of the courtroom and brought it into personal relationships, in essence encouraging their disciples to get their "pound of flesh." Clearly Jesus Himself resisted evil in His reaction to the sacrifice sellers and money changers, John recording that...

He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the moneychangers, and overturned their tables and to those who were selling the doves He said, "Take these things away; stop making My Father's house a house of merchandise." (John 2:15-16)

Furthermore believers are commanded to resist the evil one, the devil...

Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. (James 4:7-note)"​

But then I don't recall suggesting that my response was aimed at illustrating anything other than my response.

I don't think he meant any harm by saying that, nor do I think that the concept is inherently insulting.

That's your prerogative and opinion. If I shared it I'd have addressed him differently.

Theology is intellectually stimulating, whether or not one is a believer.

A point I tend to agree with. Doesn't have anything to do with this, but at least we can say we've agreed on something of late.

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

And Christ, who is our example, dealt rather harshly with wolves among the sheep. And don't get me started on money changers...

I think Hughes has it right:

"Jesus does not teach Christians are not to resist evil. What He forbids is that Christians do not seek to retaliate in personal relationships, which is what the Pharisees were teaching. The scribes and Pharisees took the lex talionis out of the courtroom and brought it into personal relationships, in essence encouraging their disciples to get their "pound of flesh." Clearly Jesus Himself resisted evil in His reaction to the sacrifice sellers and money changers, John recording that...

He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the moneychangers, and overturned their tables and to those who were selling the doves He said, "Take these things away; stop making My Father's house a house of merchandise." (John 2:15-16)

Furthermore believers are commanded to resist the evil one, the devil...

Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. (James 4:7-note)"​

But then I don't recall suggesting that my response was aimed at illustrating anything other than my response.


That's your prerogative and opinion. If I shared it I'd have addressed him differently.


A point I tend to agree with. Doesn't have anything to do with this, but at least we can say we've agreed on something of late.

:e4e:

Jesus never acted uncharitably, and that is the point TH. No one is claiming that we should not resist evil. :e4e:

 

[Refractive]

Jesus never acted uncharitably, and that is the point TH. No one is claiming that we should not resist evil. :e4e:

Two of my favorite posters around here are you and TH. I understand your point and don't want to seem like I am defending him, but speaking for myself.

One of the atheist's favorite tactics, among many, is to accuse a Christian of being uncharitable or rude. They will do it with pretty much no provocation or great provocation. They, themselves, of course, do what they can to be first provocateur. This pattern is replicated perfectly ITT. It's like a textbook example.

It's a diversionary tactic meant to put the Christian on the defensive or, as a bonus, get some other Christian to come in and defend the poor atheist who is, after all, lost.

BTW - one of the other more common tactics is to claim you are either: not an atheist but an agnostic interested in any "proofs" of faith or a "fallen away" former Christian who might just be returned to the fold if only someone could explain away their doubts.

These tactics are designed to manipulate the theists into the atheist's favorite game: "Frustrate and Control the Theists and Show Them Up for the Ignorant Fools They Are." Note that early in his response s the OP brought up one of the doubt questions to get right into the game.

Being in your face with an atheist is no more unChristian than Jesus calling the Pharisees a den of vipers, a quite accurate descriptor of their actions and the results, rather than an insult.

In poker, one of the things people do at the table before they act is give what we call a "speech." Sometimes it's a couple words, sometimes they do go on, but they say something in order to convince their opponent to take the action they wish. Even sighing and looking sad before "reluctantly" calling a bet is meant to get the opponent to read you as weak so he will bet again on the next street. This OP, like many, entered the forums with a speech; he told us a story.

I did the same thing, BTW, for a specific reason and I got just the responses I wanted.

So, what was the purpose of the OP's speech and what was he trying to elicit? Who does he want us to think he is? Do any of his responses support his self-identity?

In poker, like life I guess, action is communication. On forums, communication, or lack thereof, are the only actions we have, so we are always "playing" on at least the 2nd level with straightforward posters and on at least the 3rd level with everyone else.

1st level "What do I have?"
2nd level: "What does my opponent have?"
3rd level: "What does my opponent think I have?"

Someone once said to me about the internet and identity: "You could be a 400 pound bouncer in a biker bar for all I know."

I personally find everything about this poster suspicious: the timing of his arrival, the timing of his responses after his arrival, his speech, his additional tidbits of speechifying, his inability to account in any straightforward way for the facts he claims about himself and went to the trouble to include here.

I can be wrong. I am, in fact, trying to verify that he is exactly what he says he is. So far, not having much luck. I believe TH has been doing the same thing. But I can think of little that would please him more than seeing Christians fighting over him.

 

[Town Heretic]

Jesus never acted uncharitably, and that is the point TH. No one is claiming that we should not resist evil. :e4e:

The commentary was on the verses you used to support your point. So great. I wasn't being uncharitable either. :chuckle:

 

[alwight]

I can be wrong. I am, in fact, trying to verify that he is exactly what he says he is. So far, not having much luck. I believe TH has been doing the same thing. But I can think of little that would please him more than seeing Christians fighting over him.

Is it really so hard to think that perhaps, occasionally, someone can just lose their faith and might not be an atheist troll?

 

[Town Heretic]

Is it really so hard to think that perhaps, occasionally, someone can just lose their faith and might not be an atheist troll?

I don't doubt he thinks he lost what he had; I doubt he had what he thinks he lost. And so the parallel in my complaint.

 

[alwight]

I don't doubt he thinks he lost what he had; I doubt he had what he thinks he lost. And so the parallel in my complaint.

I will sometimes suspect theists who claim to have once been atheists, particularly when they talk about a hating of God, of ever really being atheistic, my own bias perhaps.

 

[Town Heretic]

I will sometimes suspect theists who claim to have once been atheists, particularly when they talk about a hating of God, of ever really being atheistic, my own bias perhaps.

O....kay. Never been my part and nothing like my point here, but I can understand how it would rankle.

 

[alwight]

O....kay. Never been my part and nothing like my point here, but I can understand how it would rankle.

Fair enough TH.
Refractive (see my first post in this section) however continues to spout many a thing about atheists, which does not seem a particularly courageous stance imo given that s/he has me and most other atheists on ignore, so I probe occasionally to see if there is any response.

 

[zippy2006]

Two of my favorite posters around here are you and TH. I understand your point and don't want to seem like I am defending him, but speaking for myself.

One of the atheist's favorite tactics, among many, is to accuse a Christian of being uncharitable or rude. They will do it with pretty much no provocation or great provocation. They, themselves, of course, do what they can to be first provocateur. This pattern is replicated perfectly ITT. It's like a textbook example.

It's a diversionary tactic meant to put the Christian on the defensive or, as a bonus, get some other Christian to come in and defend the poor atheist who is, after all, lost.

BTW - one of the other more common tactics is to claim you are either: not an atheist but an agnostic interested in any "proofs" of faith or a "fallen away" former Christian who might just be returned to the fold if only someone could explain away their doubts.

These tactics are designed to manipulate the theists into the atheist's favorite game: "Frustrate and Control the Theists and Show Them Up for the Ignorant Fools They Are." Note that early in his response s the OP brought up one of the doubt questions to get right into the game.

Being in your face with an atheist is no more unChristian than Jesus calling the Pharisees a den of vipers, a quite accurate descriptor of their actions and the results, rather than an insult.

In poker, one of the things people do at the table before they act is give what we call a "speech." Sometimes it's a couple words, sometimes they do go on, but they say something in order to convince their opponent to take the action they wish. Even sighing and looking sad before "reluctantly" calling a bet is meant to get the opponent to read you as weak so he will bet again on the next street. This OP, like many, entered the forums with a speech; he told us a story.

I did the same thing, BTW, for a specific reason and I got just the responses I wanted.

So, what was the purpose of the OP's speech and what was he trying to elicit? Who does he want us to think he is? Do any of his responses support his self-identity?

In poker, like life I guess, action is communication. On forums, communication, or lack thereof, are the only actions we have, so we are always "playing" on at least the 2nd level with straightforward posters and on at least the 3rd level with everyone else.

1st level "What do I have?"
2nd level: "What does my opponent have?"
3rd level: "What does my opponent think I have?"

Someone once said to me about the internet and identity: "You could be a 400 pound bouncer in a biker bar for all I know."

I personally find everything about this poster suspicious: the timing of his arrival, the timing of his responses after his arrival, his speech, his additional tidbits of speechifying, his inability to account in any straightforward way for the facts he claims about himself and went to the trouble to include here.

I can be wrong. I am, in fact, trying to verify that he is exactly what he says he is. So far, not having much luck. I believe TH has been doing the same thing. But I can think of little that would please him more than seeing Christians fighting over him.

Thanks for the input 'frac. I'll give you a decent reply since I think this is a big issue on TOL (charity in response).

1. Reasonator questioned TH's charity in response, TH responded by saying that Reasonator didn't invite charity.

As I noted, it doesn't matter whether he invited charity (and whether he did is another question). TH's response here is simply problematic for any Christian.

Now there seems to be a difference in reading Reasonator's intent. I think that if you look at the posts you will find a rather innocent OP (we can't be upset with an atheist for stating that they believe Christianity to be false, that is simple honesty, and I don't think there was reason to believe he was being militant). But clearly TH disagrees, so there are two possible scenarios:

2. Reasonator was trolling.

In this case the Christian is still required to show charity. If this case is true then TH was simply sinking down to Reasonator's level. He intended to harm and dismiss him by mocking, ridiculing, and provoking, although in his mind it may have been "protecting the sheep" etc. TH's actions here are not problematic in the eyes of the world, but they are in Christ's eyes, and they work to no good end, embittering both parties and moving Reasonator further from faith.

3. Reasonator was sincere.

In this case TH's harmful intent is very problematic indeed, even in the eyes of the world. This is a particularly bad reflection on Christians because you have a righteous atheist and a believer taking pot shots at him. Even if someone mistakenly read this scenario it will reflect badly upon us, we must stay far from it. This is all very Biblical Matt 5:44


So whether it is 2 or 3 we must respond charitably as Christians. We've all responded as TH has in this thread, he isn't alone in it. But it concerns me that we are quick to rebuke someone like Nick M who is merely uncharitable, and yet when someone adds wit to uncharitableness we secretly delight in the plight of the atheist who is "getting what he deserves" (thank God none of us get what we deserve). I think that is a black hole on TOL and a terrible route for us. I also think that we should give the atheist the benefit of the doubt when possible and try not to think of it as a war or poker game that must be won. The atheist is a child of God, not a pawn in one of our games, and we have been called to bring him back, not ostracize him further. Each word spoken in our apologetics should have the well-being of the opposing party in mind; if we find ourselves exchanging petty words intended to harm and mock we have gone astray, whether or not we are loved or hated by our opposition.

Hope that makes sense,
-zip :e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

Thanks for the input 'frac. I'll give you a decent reply since I think this is a big issue on TOL (charity in response).

1. Reasonator questioned TH's charity in response, TH responded by saying that Reasonator didn't invite charity.

No. I responded to you and the challenge on the issue of charity by way of the scripture you advanced to support it. I used Hughes commentary on that point of disagreement. My response to Reasonator was to challenge what seemed to me at best an ill considered foundation and at worst intentionally misleading and damaging statements.

In post 23 I literally said my point in the parallel was:

"to illustrate what you only just did here and the reasonable response you might expect if you were inclined to see the other side of it. A pretty clear parallel for someone with your education to miss. You might want to ask yourself why that is."

That is, I meant to force a defense and reexamination.

As I noted, it doesn't matter whether he invited charity (and whether he did is another question). TH's response here is simply problematic for any Christian.

You're just wrong in this, zip. You're letting your personal irritation with our ongoing arguments over differences in our faith and practice get the best of you and it's sad to see it spill over into this public setting.

Now there seems to be a difference in reading Reasonator's intent...

At that point the parallel and his address was meant to draw out the distinction. Speculation needn't really enter into it, though I had stated, based on his declarations, my opinion that he was blinded and in love with his notions in the sense the rich young ruler was in love with his riches.

...there are two possible scenarios:

2. Reasonator was trolling.

In this case the Christian is still required to show charity.

The same charity Christ showed to Peter? Or to those among the religious of his day who misled the faithful, within that context?

If this case is true then TH was simply sinking down to Reasonator's level.

Well, no. Given my point and purpose was to impact the authority of his declarations to his benefit, if an honest error, or the faithful and undecided who might be misled or harmed by giving them weight else, it isn't sinking to anything.

He intended to harm and dismiss him by mocking, ridiculing, and provoking, although in his mind it may have been "protecting the sheep" etc.

Rather, I intended and actually did confront the foundational flaw in his approach to Christendom. I think your personal issue with me shows through in your willingness to declare my mind in my intent of address while only allowing for the possibility that if right it had some higher aim.

TH's actions here are not problematic in the eyes of the world, but they are in Christ's eyes, and they work to no good end, embittering both parties and moving Reasonator further from faith.

And you're the judge and jury of that? Beans. And unripened beans at that, if curiously spoiled.

3. Reasonator was sincere.

My response worked either way. In fact, had he applied himself to the parallel we wouldn't need to speculate, though his comments about finding the faith a matter of intellectual amusement doesn't help his best case scenario.

In this case TH's harmful intent is very problematic indeed, even in the eyes of the world.

No more true than the first time you sat in judgement. My intent was to harm the presumption, to do to death the offensive notion that apostasy is a virus instead of an act of will.

This is a particularly bad reflection on Christians because you have a righteous atheist and a believer taking pot shots at him.

Now reducing my entry to the level of a personal trifling amusement. Simply untrue. I'll leave it at that.

So whether it is 2 or 3 we must respond charitably as Christians. We've all responded as TH has in this thread, he isn't alone in it.

Have you done that? Because otherwise you don't mean "we" do you?

But it concerns me that we are quick to rebuke someone like Nick M who is merely uncharitable, and yet when someone adds wit to uncharitableness we secretly delight in the plight of the atheist who is "getting what he deserves."

What troubles me is the way we observe what might be a plank in our brother's eye when, you know...or was that too witty to serve its purpose?

I also think that we should give the atheist the benefit of the doubt when possible

With that "possible" being what a man understands as reasonable. Or must it be run by you and meet your agreement? Or is that "our" agreement? If not the gracious thing would be to simply lead by example and credit the next man with his conscience.

The atheist is a child of God, not a pawn in one of our games, and we have been called to bring him back, not ostracize him further.

Back to the game playing, demeaning inference then. :sigh: We aren't differing on what a Christian is called to do, only on the means to both do that and to protect those who might misled and harmed at the margins.

Each word spoken in our apologetics should have the well-being of the opposing party in mind;

Did Christ have Peter's well being in mind when he called him Satan? I believe so. It probably shocked Peter to his core. Now I didn't do anything like that here, though I did poke at his intellectual vanity, which seemed the best road to that same shock and reconsideration, assuming he wasn't the troll you admit he might be.

if we find ourselves exchanging petty words intended to harm and mock we have gone astray, whether or not we are loved or hated by our opposition.

Where have you been guilty of doing that again? A specific instance would be nice and would set the ongoing we in a much better relief.

Else, again, who decides who is being petty or playing a game?

:e4e:

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Parents made me go to church when I was in elementary school. After that, I only went if I wanted to go. I still wasn't "saved," until high school. And even at that, I was a baby chrisitan until college. And that was all my decision, not my family's. Not sure what your point is, though.

It just seems to be a common thread with some of the people I've debated in the past.

 

[Ktoyou]

I’m looking forward to some good discussions in this forum, and to getting to know some of the regular posters -- and becoming one, myself.

Some background:

I’m non-religious, but used to be a Christian. I realize that some may be skeptical about how “Christian” I actually was. To use some Christian terms, I had what I believed to be a personal relationship with Jesus, and had a salvation experience and commitment of my life as a disciple of Christ.......................
Nice to meet everyone.

Sounds to me like you were trying to drink out of a fire hydrant!

 

[Ktoyou]

It just seems to be a common thread with some of the people I've debated in the past.

Yes, scalded dogs.:dog:

 

[Refractive]

As I noted, it doesn't matter whether he invited charity (and whether he did is another question). TH's response here is simply problematic for any Christian.

I loved your post. It sounds like something I would have written myself. I guess the thing is that stuff is relative. I didn't see anything TH wrote as uncharitable. I did see it as boundry-establishing.

It's hard to know what's in someone's heart. Sometimes I really make people angry and apparently hurt their feelings, when I am thinking I am just being brief or informative or sometimes funny!

I don't feel like an arrogant fool as I was recently called, but then, I'm not going to spend a lot of time explaining the basics of something I spent years and $ studying to get some guy to accept my definition of "theory" is correct and his is wrong. Just look it up, and let's move on.

I think I'm getting curmudgeonly in my old age. :mmph:

Anyway, I'm sure it's a good thing for us to challenge each other to be more charitable, but I also think it's thread-derailing and perhaps best kept to private communications unless someone is just not listening and we feel a real need to confront them publicly.

In any case, always enjoy your posts.

'frac <--I like it!