 |
 |
 |
encouraging ex-Christians
News of interest to former Christians
GREENWOOD VILLAGE, Colo. -- A high school pastor at Greenwood Community Church surrendered to authorities Wednesday after stating he had been sexually involved with a 16-year-old girl.
The Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office said that Donald Richard Ryan, 33, of Highlands Ranch, Colo., was arrested for investigation of felony sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust and investigation of unlawful sexual contact, a misdemeanor.
"For the past two and one-half years, he has been counseling the 16-year-old female," a sheriff's statement said. "During the relationship, inappropriate cell phone text messages and e-mails were exchanged, which culminated with sexual contact."
Ryan was being held Wednesday on a $50,000 bond while deputies continued their investigation of the allegations. The Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office has asked anyone in the community, who may have information pertaining to inappropriate activity regarding Ryan, to call the Sheriff’s Office at 303-795-4711.
He was listed as the head of High School Family Ministries on the church's Web site, but his name had already been removed on Wednesday afternoon.
The church is located in Greenwood Village, Colo., and is listed as an evangelical Presbyterian church.
The Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office said that Donald Richard Ryan, 33, of Highlands Ranch, Colo., was arrested for investigation of felony sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust and investigation of unlawful sexual contact, a misdemeanor.
"For the past two and one-half years, he has been counseling the 16-year-old female," a sheriff's statement said. "During the relationship, inappropriate cell phone text messages and e-mails were exchanged, which culminated with sexual contact."
Ryan was being held Wednesday on a $50,000 bond while deputies continued their investigation of the allegations. The Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office has asked anyone in the community, who may have information pertaining to inappropriate activity regarding Ryan, to call the Sheriff’s Office at 303-795-4711.
He was listed as the head of High School Family Ministries on the church's Web site, but his name had already been removed on Wednesday afternoon.
The church is located in Greenwood Village, Colo., and is listed as an evangelical Presbyterian church.
Onanite
Blessed be those that inseminate virgins. Amen!!
Click here for a definition
"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the Earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the Earth"
He took literally the "Be fruitful and multiply", "subdue" and "have dominion over every living thing" in the scripture. That, or course, includes underage girls in his church. He most likely thought he was blessed by god to do so.
Serial killers like Ted Bundy and Charles Browne.
Jon Benet Ramsey raped and murdered.
Columbine high school massacre.
Countless pastors busted for sexual abuse (Ted Haggard, now this guy).
http://sailerfraud.blogspot.com/2006/11/colorado-land-of-heinous-right-wing.html
Please, watch what you say. Just because you do not share the same beliefs does not give you the right to be insensitive toward all those involved.
Why, exactly, should WE watch what WE say? Since by your admission you knew them both, what did YOU say, to either defend the girl in question, or to turn Pastor Ryan away from committing, not just a sin, but a crime? Is silence the best way to approach a problem such as this? Since those of us who read the story and ARE appalled that this guy took such liberties with his position, you think we have no right to voice an opinion here, on this website? You sound like you have no backbone and you deal with hard issues in your life by hiding under a rock. I frankly don’t give a damn if that sounds insensitive!
And to the sanctimonious Anony-jerk who posted at 12:25 AM and thinks quoting a scripture passage on an Ex-Christian website somehow carries some weight. Let me guess, since you want to believe in sin, which is only mentioned in the bible, everybody automatically has it and that gets your grand Pator Ryan off the hook. He won’t get stoned to death (which he might deserve, based on what he admitted!) since we’re all “sinners”.
You two cretinous Anony-cowards seem hell-bent on getting Pastor Ryan the lightest sentence possible, if not have the charges dropped outright. Then you can attack the real criminal perpetrator in this story, the young 16 year old girl who was leading this nice Pastor astray. I’m sure there is a way to work “satan in to explanation if you scrounge through the pages of your bible and cherry pick verses that show young girls leading men astray using the wiles of Ol’ Lucifer.
I understand that we are all frustrated and somewhat angry that a Christian or anyone could have done this. We Christians are no better people than non-Christians. We get divorced as often, have affairs as often, lie as often, etc., which is why the really judgemental Christians like Ted Haggart and others frustrate the hell out of me just as much as they do non-Christians.
As Christians, we have chosen to engage in the battle-where the enemy and God meet-and that's a scary place to be. Whether you believe in Christ or not, you may still agree that there does seem to be good and evil in the world. We all struggle with that every day. Christians and non-Christians alike engage in evil everyday. Whether it's judgement, gossip, affairs or murder, it's not the best thing for any of us.
It seems to me that the easier thing to do is believe there is no God, believe there is no evil, and not engage in the REAL battle at all.
The founders of this site seem to be determined to do just that.
Understandibly, you are battling and arguing against the bad things Christians have done that you have seen in the media or witnessed personally. Judging ALL Christians for the actions of a few (or even many) would be like me judging all non-Christians every time one of you did something stupid. I am the first to say that many of the jerks I know claim to be religious-and the jerk Christians are the most frustrating to me. I am frustrated by jerks in general-religious or NOT.
If we all tried to live the way of Christ-which would mean first and foremost, above all else, love one another and ourselves as Jesus loved us, the world would be a better place for all-Christian or not.
If we were all willing to die for one another because we loved each other so much-what a world THAT would be!
God bless you all, and
Cheers!
(Feel free to visit MY blog-dannystratford.blogspot.com)
A couple of things---firstly, "evil" is simply doing unnecessary harm to others, or in some cases, even yourself. "Evil" is a by-product of fear, and usually comes from the inside, out. It doesn't come from some "big bad" entity in a red suit and a pitchfork. Moreover, it seems that people can't even agree on what is "good", and what is "evil"---and this definitely includes Christians. Again, this is because the bible's "one size fits all" mentality doesn't work across the board. It never has; it never will. To a head hunter, chopping people's heads off is "good"; to a cannibal, eating human flesh is "good". To an Angolian, a clitorectomy is "good", because pre-teen sex is "evil". To a Catholic, using a spermacide is "mass murder", therefore, "evil"; to a liberal Christian, birth control is "good". You see?...this blatant subjectivity is due to the fact that all religious dogma, along with cultural relativity, is just that---totally subjective. Religionists like to ignore these facts, as they like to pretend that the religion/sect that they subscribe to, delineates the objective "truth" on what is "right" and "wrong"/"good and "evil", this, for all societies and cultures. It is THIS erroneous "idea" that causes the "battles" and the divisivness.
Next, the assertion that not believing in God and it's "fringe benefits" is "easier" than not believing in God, and therefore, NOT getting such "benefits", is self-evidently, absurd. Just because I believe that I will cease to exist when I die, doesn't mean I'm totally thrilled about it. Moreover, what sounds "easier" to believe?...the former?..or the notion that I will never die, and at death, be granted a "pass" to float around with my dead friends and family members for eternity without a care in the world? What sounds "easier", being responsible for my own actions?...or blaming some "big bad ghost" for my short comings? What sounds "easier", saying "God did it", or taking the time to objectively search for truth, and living with these results, even if they make me uncomfortable? Gee, I wonder.
The way we are designed by that great intelligent designer in the sky is: Be very aware of those who appear to want to do us harm and keep us from reproducing with the most attractive and successful of the opposite sex. Avoid them as much as possible. Run from them as fast as you can. Wish as many bad things to happen to them as possible, Make as many bad things happen to them as you can. Show them in every way possible that you don't want their company, and don't desire to subject yourself to their ways, that are destructive to you and your clan.
What has worked for billions of years to propel us along and help us evolve into "Thinking Man" is: Gravitate mostly toward those who appear to want to help you be happy, healthy, and to reproduce with the most attractive and successful of the opposite sex. Seek their company, solicit their favor, and join with them in as many activities as possible As they are so fond of saying in "Survivor" Make coalitions with only those people who love you or want to help you, and stay away from the Assholes, and vote em off as soon as you can!
Dano (Jesus was just a Rabbi that talked to much during a Roman holiday)
What's the point of calling yourself a christain, if you're no different than a non-christian?
What's the point of following the words of a preacher, if they themselves are no different than a non-christian and cannot restrain themselves from doing evil?
It's all human invented bullshit and you know it, why don't you for once in your life be honest with yourself, just as we have??
Joe answers(his own question): "Jesus is the truth".
Well everybody, I guess that settles it, doesn't it? Yep, God definitely exists. Holy mackeral.....why didn't the other Christian fundamentalists think of this? It's BRILLIANT, I say!
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!
That being said, whether you think it would work or not, whether you believe in Christ or not, if we ALL truly loved each other first and foremost the world would be a better place.
Is that realistic? Maybe.
It's a good place to start.
I wish most people (Christians or not) felt the same way.
By the way, I don't really like to say I am a Christian, I prefer to say I am living in the way of Christ. That alone does not make me better or worse than anyone else. The difference is simply that I have chosen something different than some other people, and I have faith that it is the right way to live. The hard thing is, is that I will never be able to live up to the way Christ wants me to live. I will be in this battle for the rest of my life.
"Danny myboy" loves all of you-even if you annoy the crap out of me at times with your anger and sarcasm.
I have never loved perfectly, but I am trying real hard.
If I am wrong-if there is no God-if after we die we are nothing but fertilizer, then I would still be proud to say I tried to live a life of hope and loving others, rather than a life of sarcasm and hatred towards my brother and sisters.
Why don't you join me in a rational, anger free discussion on the topic. We are both probably mad at the same types of jerks in the world anyway. Anger is OK-but it's what we do with that anger that can seperate us from those who make us angry, and help us live a productive and loving life.
As far as "evil" goes. Christian or not, we all battle evil every day. I don't think it' some guy with horns (but you never know), but it takes form in our lives. It could take the form of gossip, hypocrasy, hatred, condemnation of others-not just murder and rape.
That's how we battle with it every day.
One more thing-I have not tried to tell you that MY beliefs are the truth-nor have I even mentioned the bible (until this sentence).
They are simply my beliefs. I have yet to meet anyone who agreed with me on all of my beliefs.
Do any of you know of anyone who always agrees with you?
The web master has cited the purpose of this website as:
"This forum exists for the express purpose of encouraging those who have decided to leave religion behind. It is not an open challenge to Christians to avenge what they perceive as an offense against their invisible friend"
I am sure the regulars on this site, some of the most grounded, intelligent, logical ex-believers of mythology on earth would love to discuss "God" with you, if you would just flesh out your definition of what "God" is. I have been reading about "God" for some years now, and no one can agree about what it is.
Dano (Who is posting on the correct website, as opposed to those who are here because they want to explain Jesus)
1) We're not Christians, so quoting Scripture to us is like us quoting the Qur'an to you
2) go read a book on the pericope adulterae -- it was an interpolated story. Therefore, John 8 shouldn't be used authoritatively to preach at others. See here.
Danny,
I hope the writing at your blog is not as hopelessly contradictory as this comment:
It seems to me that the easier thing to do is believe there is no God, believe there is no evil, and not engage in the REAL battle at all.
The founders of this site seem to be determined to do just that.
So if the founders of this site don't believe in wrong and right, why would they post pieces outlining the wrongs committed by pastors?
If we all tried to live the way of Christ-which would mean first and foremost, above all else, love one another and ourselves as Jesus loved us, the world would be a better place for all-Christian or not.
The real problem is in defining what it means to "love others". According to Jesus, you had to "hate" your father, mother, brother, sister, etc., by leaving them behind to follow after Jesus -- that is, God supposedly wants us to love our own religion at the expense of our love for each other.
If I am wrong-if there is no God-if after we die we are nothing but fertilizer, then I would still be proud to say I tried to live a life of hope and loving others, rather than a life of sarcasm and hatred towards my brother and sisters.
I am living a life of hope and love. I simply don't place my hope in some eternal bliss in the "sweet by-and-by". I hope for the future of humanity -- progress in science and education to alleviate the pain and suffering and ignorance of the present world. I don't hate Christians, I just think they're wrong.
As far as "evil" goes. Christian or not, we all battle evil every day. I don't think it' some guy with horns (but you never know), but it takes form in our lives. It could take the form of gossip, hypocrasy, hatred, condemnation of others-not just murder and rape.
That's how we battle with it every day.
Well obviously all of us opppose the ill effects of those things as well, but you assumed in your first comment that people here aren't interested in "battling" those things because they don't believe in good and evil, right and wrong. You seem to be confused?
Look, don't pull the holier-than-thou act when your god-talk fails. That's your problem. Don't put the blame on us. It's only a defense mechanism you use when your fake-loving approach goes nowhere.
I think Dano has it right where he says its impossible to love Everyone. Just love the ones close to you and treat the rest humanely. And get on with the business of living.
My brother reminded me of something George Carlin said in his last comedy special, "Do you know what the secret of life is? Not dying!" I laughed so much at that because of how true it is.
Michelle
I recognize the fact, also, that hope for something better than this "veil of tears", is probably innate in our makeup, because men would never have had enough courage to go out of the cave and kill something to eat if they didn't believe that drawing a picture of the prospective kill on the cave wall.and grunting something akin to "Our Father...",or "Yea though I walk through the valley of death..., would help"
The most successful hunters, and thus the most prolific progenitors, were probably those who had the imagination to envision that the God of the hunt was looking out for them.
When Man invented civilization, and perfected it, that imagination evolved right along with it. I'm sure the Michelangelo's, and the Galileo's believed in some kind of supreme guiding force
The only thing we Agnostics gain by rejecting mythological belief systems is intellectual integrity, and that is a "beautiful thing."
I know that the longer I embrace it, the more I like myself, and the more that I feel that God likes me.
Just like my ancestors believing that the God of the hunt was on their side, I believe that when I go out amongst the evangelicals, and they repeat their illogical, silly nonsense over and over, God is telling me; "Keep your brain my son, don't give it to them to squander like they have theirs."
DAN, Dano (Agnostic)
Hi Michelle! Glad to see you are still around.
Plus that was very rude and insensitive considering that the person who posted is probably a high school student who is going through hell right now after finding out that his youth pastor is in jail for having sexual contact with one of his church friends.
I don't know what your problem is, but you don't have any good reason to go out attacking people like that.
As a Bigfoot tracker, I believe that Sasqutch is a son-of-a-gun...especially when it comes to being photographed.
Joe, a belief is a belief is a belief...it says nothing about reality.
Futhermore, I believe that I am to live a life that models his, since that's what the Bible teraches.
Oh really?...so then, Joe, do you "hate" your parents? Do you "hate" your own life? Do you keep slaves? Will you let me rape your daughter and then marry her? Do you hang out at Walmart on Sundays stoning the employees who work that day? Joe, I'll bet you adhere to none of this. You are not following what the bible teaches. Joe, you need a better role model.
Jesus asked questions then turned right around and answered them, so pointing that out only proves that I attempt to live like Christ so thank you.
The point is, Joe, if you have all the "answers", why ask questions?
Attacking People??? This pastor uses HIS position to basically attack this young girl and you are worried about what I write, here on this website? Are you vaguely familiar with the First Amendment Chris? I wasn’t shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre…
“No one knew what was going on until Tuesday”….so that means my observations about this jerk were baseless?
My comments are considered rude and insensitive, but you apparently don’t think what the pastor did was in any way rude or insensitive. You must be part of Pastor Ryan’s defense team.
Are you saying that poor innocent high school student, as you called them, should be encouraged to hide under a rock when life doles out some hard blows?
Sorry to disappoint you Chris but I have no problem, except with self righteous hypocrites who think it is their job to police websites, looking for language, or observations, they don’t like and then accuse the writer of having a problem, or needing to chill.
I just want to be sure I understand...You, Chris, are defending Pastor Ryan and what he did? And that is why you are upset with what I wrote?
Could it be that Chris and Pastor Ryan are romantically involed and Chris having found out about his envolvement with the young girl is driving Chris to be insanely jealous?
If the shoe fits, buy it!!
So I wasn't defending pastor Ryan, I was defending the anonymous person who posted. I don't see where you get this thing about self righteous policing. I'm not trying to pick a fight, just make a point.
Protect anonymous posters from “disillusionment”.
Self-righteous policing is not self-righteous policing.
Okay, got it!
1) Man is weak. We are fallen. Christian or not. I think that this obvious given the news of these two men.
2) God is bigger than sin. I do not know how God will do it but He will supernaturally bring good out of these situations. God is bringing healing to this girl, to Don, and to everyone involved. He is bigger than the sin that is in my life and He is bigger than sin that is in Don's life. God is bigger than sin.
Many of the comments by Christians on this blog are not edifying to God. Getting offended by comments made by people and lashing right back at them is not bringing honor to Jesus. We Christians have a lot to learn and we need to be quiet about things that we don't know about. Jesus did no come to condemn but he came to give abundant life. Why do we so often condemn?? Read John 8 and you will find the way that Jesus deals with the "sinner". Grace softens hard hearts, not condemnation.
I know you mean well. It is evident in the tone you take.
I am amazed at how often Christians come on this website and think that if they just talk about god or jesus, or suggest a bible verse, that we as EX-Christians will suddenly come to our senses and revert back to being full fledged Christians.
What is it that you think is going to do the trick? Have we not made it clear enough that we have read the bible, we’ve been Christians in every sense that the word connotes, probably longer than you’ve been alive, and we’ve been where you are now in your own faith. We’ve realized after long, careful, and many times painful, consideration, that it is all a bunch of baloney. And that is an insult to baloney.
I am not going to try to convince you that your faith is misplaced or silly. From the things you wrote about in your post, you’ve got bigger issues to deal with, like believing you are fallen, that god will magically create good out of the hypocrisy within the church, and that you are being “taught” something by an invisible being who, I would think, would have more pressing matters to address, like dying and starving children, than to worry about giving you a Sunday school lesson
God is bigger than sin. I do not know how God will do it but He will supernaturally bring good out of these situations. God is bringing healing to this girl, to Don, and to everyone involved. He is bigger than the sin that is in my life and He is bigger than sin that is in Don's life. God is bigger than sin.
What we're hearing:
Gloop is bigger than gleepglop. I do not know how Gloop will do it, but Gloop will magically bring good out of these situations. Gloop is bringing healing to this girl, to Don, and to everyone involved. Gloop is bigger than the gleepglop that is in my life and Gloop is bigger than the gleepglop that is in Don's life. Gloop is bigger than gleepglop.
'Lillpop, in case you missed the point----your theological rhetoric has no referant in reality on this website. Mind you, while we are not all Atheists, we all have concluded that Christianity, along with all it's affiliated catch-words..i.e.."GOD", "Faith", "Truth™, "Trinity", "sin", "soul", "spirit", etc..... is all a bunch of bunk---in other words, no referant in reality. What on earth is a "sin"? What and where, exactly, is a "spirit"? Where is this "Jesus" character right this very second? Where?..in your "heart"?..your cerebellum?..your liver? Where? Oh yeah, once and for all....is this "thing" alive?....or dead?
Waiting.
You got it backwards, I was a "Christian" (for lack of a better word), then I was agnostic, then I became a follower of Christ. 6 years ago I was where YOU are, and I would have enjoyed blogging in condescending and provacative ways to moronic Christians. I LOVED making fun of "those idiots"!
I understand where you are coming from-and I don't blame you for feeling the way you do, nor do I think you should believe differently.
I try to be the light in the dark and evil world of Christians.
I probably would rather have a beer with you than most "Christians" I run into.
Having said all of that, I have "Landed" as a follower of Christ. I disagree with the blogger that said Jesus has ANYTHING to do with hatred. Jesus never hated anyone-it doesn't mean he was never angry, just that he never hated.
I may have been a bit too harsh on the writers on the site. You don't necessarily hate just because you are angry, condescending and sarcastic. I can be all three of those things on a regular basis myself (just ask my wife).
I also have NOT quoted the bible at all in my postings-I agree that that makes no sense in this forum.
Also-pointing out someone's hypocrasy or contradictions is a fairly easy thing to do to anyone-if that is your goal. Most of my thoughts run deeper than what I am able to put down in words, and I don't always have time to elaborate. When you take things out of context, hypocrasy shines. Of course NO ONE takes things out of context more than Christians do when it comes to quoting the bible!
LOL
dannystratford@blogspot.com
OK Danny, we agree on most things.
1. Most Christians are very unchristian.
2. We can use Anger, condescension, and sarcasm, without being full of anger.
3. I don't think we should believe differently either.
Here is what I don't agree with you about.
1. If you consider your self a Christian, I don't think you can be "The light in the dark and evil world of Christians"
2. I don't think very many regulars on this site would enjoy sitting around drinking beer with some guy who has a deep relationship with Jesus.
You say Jesus never hated but: Who was it who said? "You gotta hate anyone in your family who don't buy into my story about my coming here as a sacrifice to my father, to atone for your sins." "You gotta love me, and hate anyone who don't!"
That's OK it could have been any of the Jesus' who were running around the Middle east, telling everybody that they were the savior.
Hey! Constantine's "Council" put it in the "Book" so it must be true. Why else would all the sects that were deemed not worthy to be included, like the Gnostics, go into hiding? Because the only true stuff, is the stuff that them Romans put into the book, that why.
Dano (Your friend, and lover of truth)
You can insist “we’ve got it backwards” until you are blue in the face, and it won’t change the fact that you are STILL behind the curve of where we, as Ex-Christians, are at. Based on your most recent post above, six years ago is about where I was 20 years ago. And NO, you DON’T know where I am coming from so don’t be so hasty in thinking you have some insight you don’t really have. Nor do I, or have I ever, trolled Christian websites blogging them in condescending and provocative ways. That’s the sure sign of an immature mind.
I’m sure you are looking for rational, thought-provoking discussion, but all of your posts can be summed up by a sentence in your entry of 11/19/06 3:28 AM where you wrote “They are simply my beliefs.” They are your beliefs Danny. They aren’t mine, or anyone else’s here and I am not going to discuss your “beliefs”. If you have something different to add that we haven’t already heard from a thousand trolls already then we can have a polite conversation. Until then, enjoy your beliefs on a Christian website where it is welcome.
Just so you know, you are wrong if you think Jesus didn’t hate, because he must have hated fig trees. He cursed one to death. One would think an enlightened savior/creator would use his ability to have the tree produce fruit out of season, rather than kill it for not growing fruit out of season.
LOL also!
I am really just like him
Look beneath the floor boards
For the secrets I have hid
-sufjan stevens
It is evident that followers of Christ are not wanted here so I guess that I will honor that. If you have anything to say feel free to email me at chris_lillpop@hotmail.com.
Also, if you are a Christian posting on this site I think that it is only fair to show who you are. don't be anonymous. Show who you are and be upfront with people.
Chris
I've seen your blogsites and figure you have much to be thankful toward God. It says you are 21, recently got married, and got hired by Allstate. Good for you.
However, your writings show you are rather immature and fail to understand the audience you are speaking. This is a site for exchristians, people who already went through the same churches and religious experiences you are experiencing. The reality is, we are not ignorant of the Bible or church theology, and many of us have had far more experiences with Chrtistianity than you.
So God lead you to your marriage and career. That's proof that God exists? What about the other 99% of prayers that go unanswered, like the time when your close friend or relative died (or will die) from cancer which you so fervently prayed for healing?
Then comes the brutal reality of religion. What do you do when your wife gains like 60+ pounds and you lose all attraction in her? You'll preach morals, then secretly engage with internet pornography and prostitution? Perhaps even more devious sexual patterns like homosexuality and child molestation?
Think that can't happen? I've been involved in the church life over 10 years, and it does happen quite frequently. When your marriage reaches the pits and you face depression, and realize prayers go unanswered, is that enough evidence that you are merely following a fictitous deity?
Go ahead, write all you want about how it is God's will and all unanswered prayers and negative events are a test of faith, but we've been through all that and only laugh when we see gullible victims giving away their entire life possessions out of faith in the irrational.
What about a Muslim, Hindu, Jew, cult follower, etc... who also experiences similar good events. That must mean their god exists, because their god answered their prayers for now.
Come on, you'll have to do better than that to prove your god exists.
I am a pastor--of the Christian variety.
I personally know the ex-pastor who sexually assaulted the 16-year old girl. I was actually on the team of people that hired him. I worked with him for most of his tenure at his latest (and most likely last) church, until about these last six months, during which I have been serving at a different church in a different state.
And yes, this means that I also personally know his 16-year old victim.
Now, I know that I am not an "ex-Christian." Though it may be hard to believe, I actually do not need to be made aware of this fact. However, I'm posting on this forum anyways, based on several assumptions:
1. People claiming the title of "ex-Christian" presumably do so on the basis valuing of sound, authentic thinking and reasoning. You tasted Christianity for a time, found yourself to be utterly dissatisfied or disillusioned (whether it be experientially, idealistically, theologically, intellectually, philosophically, some other "ally", or all of the above), and reasoned to reject it and leave it behind.
2. Thus, thinking people like yourselves would value sound reasoning anywhere from anyone, regardless of what (if any) religious beliefs are in some way attached to it.
3. Therefore, you would not feel the need to point to the "ExChristian.Net" title of this forum and use it as an excuse to disregard my thoughts entirely.
In the same vein, but perhaps on the other side of the coin, in light of where I am posting, I understand that any and all persuasion toward Christianity or its theological beliefs and convictions--epsecially using its assumptions and terms--are entirely misplaced here. I will not waste your time with this already lengthy post on some sort of evangelistic effort.
All of that to say:
It is both a travesty and tragedy that we (and by "we" I mean us as a modern Western culture, us as people in these United States here and now, and even more specifically, Christians like myself) do not identify more with the victims of these crimes. If we were to put on a scale our empathy and concern for the victims of crimes like this, and weighed it against our sympathy toward the perpetrators with whom we are in relationship and with whom we worked alongside, more often then not the scale would tip in favor of the perpetrator. That is as unjust as the crime committed against the victim, and simply continues the cycle of abuse.
And just to be clear, this was a horrific, terrible, unbelievably selfish and ugly thing that this man did. This young woman will deal with this on some level, in a very real and present way, for the rest of her physical life. Someday soon this occurence will probably pass right out of all of your minds-- you who have used it so cavalierly for your own purposes on this forum. But it will never, ever pass out of hers, for as long as she lives here on this earth.
That being said, it is also much easier to label and lynch someone you don't know, and to canonize someone who you equally know nothing about. The mug shot on TV strikes you differently when you have a history with the person it pictures. Maybe some of you know that, but others of you are just plain ignorant of that.
Nevertheless, let us not be confused: let justice be done, let the punishment fit the crime, and let us fight to ensure it for those who can not fight for themselves. This you understand, and this you could with integrity find values to support.
By the way, the above paragraph, though certainly not solely Christian, is thoroughly Christian.
But what you may not be able to find the values to support is this: forgiveness for the convict, and redemption for the one broken. In the mind of the Christian (which is understandably a loaded term, and which perhaps has lost its meaning entirely in this forum... but humor me), the penalty for the crime--even the most heinous, like this one--has already been paid. I need not remind you how. The strength and healing necessary for the one broken by this crime has already been made available, in adequate supply, by the same unsaid means. Their two lives now become the stage on which these truths are played out. The rest of us who claim the title of Christian find ourselves on the same stage, and depending on the act, we find ourselves playing the role of either or both the perpetrator and victim.
I said that I wasn't going to try and evangelize. Forgive me if it has suddenly appeared otherwise. I just felt that if I was going to be pronounced guilty by association, I wanted to be clear on exactly how I am guilty, and how I am not.
How do young men get the idea that if they strap a bomb onto their body and fill their pockets full of rat poison and nails and get on a crowded bus and blow themselves up along with 30 or 40 innocent people, that they will go directly to heaven, and be met by 72 beautiful black eyed virgins, and then be able to invite 70 friends and relatives to heaven to be with them?
I will answer the above question myself. Religion!
How do little children get the idea that there is a powerful entity called Satan who is running around trying to make them do bad things, and they must believe a Pagan, blood sacrifice story, and other mythical tales from a hideous book written 2000 years ago, or they will be tossed into a lake of fire, where they will burn forever?
Or that if their little brother, or their mother and father don't buy into this belief, and they do, they must live in heaven forever while their loved ones are roasting in hell.
Preachers like Billy Graham spend their whole lives telling people this shit.
Man is at a peculiar place in his evolutionary progress. He is able to keep totally unsubstantiated mythical beliefs in one part of his brain and the machinery for sending people to the moon and getting them home safely, in another part. He is capable of belief in magic, and hard cold logic, both at the same time.
We don't have to learn all of this wrong stuff to be good people, we just have to chuck religions into the trash and get busy get busy figuring out how to save mankind before religion destroys us.
Dano (God is truth)
Now if you are so gullible and naive to believe that the infallible word of a God can be passed down through humans without error, there's something askew in your thinking processes.
Now with grown adults having (that should know better themselves) and accepting this book to have been written down as pure fact and passing this belief on to children as pure fact and then using their priestly powers to over-come and subdue children, it would be better for a millstone to be put around their neck, so I've heard!
Now, how did the Bible get over to America?? Does any Christian know or even want to know??? answer: Christopher Columbus brought it over here with him, before that period of time, not a single Bible, nor church had been built on American soil.
The only reason and only reason that people believed that they had a soul is, because when they took the bodies out of town to Sheol (hell) everyday to burn them, they saw the smoke rising and said that they were ascending to Heaven, this is also how the term Hell was incorporated to scare people into religious submission.
What we have here is a book that is like Pandora's Box, once opened and believed and accepted as truth, it binds and shackles the mind, many people have died expecting to burst those pearly gates wide open only to find themselves into complete nothingness.
The counsel made a fallible mistake when they let this verse slip through, Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living know that they shall die; but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
The Bible is a book not written nor inspired by a god, but a book written by men that they thought a God would like for people(back then)to hear and adhere to.
To give them a feeling of false hope for something, for anything because they were so poor and ignorant that any thing they thought they would get later on was more that they ever had while living.
That's why they incorporated pearly gates, streets paved of gold, jewels and gems, the envy of every hopeless peasant, beggar and king.
Tell me: on what have societies anchored their laws throughout history? How have they determined what is "lawful" and "unlawful?" Would you have us believe that each societal law system has been developed by some sort of utterly unique and random process, respectively relative only to it's own social climate? Come now. Cultural expressions may be as numerous as the number of cultures themselves, but anyone with two eyes and a sound mind can see that there are timeless principles that transcend culture, on which cultures have developed their respective systems of laws. So, the system you have so estutely pointed out reflects the timeless principle that young people should not be preyed upon. Now, why 18 and not 17 or some other age? I don't know, and neither do you. But let's not be so bold as to assume that because there is cultural relativity in picking the age, that therefore the principle behind it is as equally relative.
To be sure, cultures are messed up because they are made up of messed up people, so their expressions of these principles are messed up as well... but nevertheless, they most often do their level best to ascribe to them. And from where have these principles come?
How do young men get the idea that if they strap a bomb onto their body and fill their pockets full of rat poison and nails and get on a crowded bus and blow themselves up along with 30 or 40 innocent people, that they will go directly to heaven, and be met by 72 beautiful black eyed virgins, and then be able to invite 70 friends and relatives to heaven to be with them?
No, the answer is not religion. The answer is Islam. Straw man arguments should not have a place in this forum.
When you compile a composition of ancient beliefs and superstitions that were wrote and handed down over 2000 years ago and written in multiple languages and translated thousands of times by a group of self-claimed holy spirit filled people that got together and agreed on what is the true inspired word of a God and what is not, you end up with a book comprised of human indorsed insanity.
A textual critic you are not. Please don't pretend like you know how the Bible has been translated when you very obviously do not. We have literally thousands of different manuscripts from several different text families across millenia, across cultures, across religious traditions within Christianity, and across geographic location. Some of these New Testament texts date back incredibly close to the time Jesus walked the earth. The notion that the biblical text tradition is tantamount to some "telephone" game is both absurd and irresponsible. Biblical text critics--of which many would not claim the title of "Christian"--agree on this fact. This is not to say that you have to believe what is in the Bible; this is only to say that you are bound to read it as a textually sound ancient text.
And please do not conflate inspiration with textual validity. The Bible is textually valid due to the integrity of the process by which it has been preserved and transfered... an entirely scientific and temporal process. We believe it to be inspired based on different reasons--matters of faith, practice, and experience, and what we deem to be historical facts--reasons that I understand do not have a platform here in this forum.
Now if you are so gullible and naive to believe that the infallible word of a God can be passed down through humans without error, there's something askew in your thinking processes.
To be clear (and I am speaking for evangelical Christians now), we believe that the Bible is infallible in its original manuscripts. And yes, most of us know that we no longer have those at our disposal. However, due to the answer above, we believe that we have sufficient textual evidence to reproduce a text that is an acceptable copy of the original. And in the New Testament text, as someone who has done the difficult work of translation and text criticism, I can say this: of the text problems that are in the New Testament (and by text problems I mean to say that there are places where we are presented with two or three different options as to what the original could have said, based on the evidence), none are in passages concerning core Christian doctrines.
Now, how did the Bible get over to America?? Does any Christian know or even want to know??? answer: Christopher Columbus brought it over here with him, before that period of time, not a single Bible, nor church had been built on American soil.
Thank you for the history lesson. I think that unless you are Mormon and believe that Jesus somehow made the trek over the Atlantic to hang out with the First Nation folks, you would not be rocked by that piece of news.
The only reason and only reason that people believed that they had a soul is, because when they took the bodies out of town to Sheol (hell) everyday to burn them, they saw the smoke rising and said that they were ascending to Heaven, this is also how the term Hell was incorporated to scare people into religious submission.
I'm pretty sure that the concept of the immortal soul was not limited to the Hebrew system, and I'm also pretty sure that the conjecture concerning the concept of the immortal soul being tied specifically and utterly to smoke is pretty much a flowery guess. Playing fast and loose with history should not have a place on this forum.
The counsel made a fallible mistake when they let this verse slip through, Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living know that they shall die; but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
And now we come to one of the most commonly committed exegetical fallacies--a.k.a., interpretive mistakes. Quite honestly, the fallacy is committed by more Christians than non, but in this case the fallacy was committed by a non-Christian. The fallacy is this: the different books of the Bible need to be read according to their respective literary genres. thus, Eccelsiasties needs to be read according to the tenets of its literary genre: Jewish Wisdom literature. If one is seeking a faithful reading of the text, then that same one will find different literary methods employed in the genre that lend to a correct interpretation of the text.
The faith community who produced and preserved this text certainly did not "let this verse slip." In context, and according to its literary genre, the verse is saying something completely different than you think it appears to be saying. We would all do well to quit imposing our own cultural baggage and convictions on ancient texts.
I could go on... but sooner or later, like everyone, I've gotta get some work done!
The ancient texts in question, specifically those that claim to be "Divinely inspired", are convictions. Furthermore, it's ironic that "cultural relativity" was mentioned. Good job. Both the "Holy Q'ran" and the "Holy Bible" clearly condone, and even encourage, the killing of non-believers in their respective books of "Truth" and "Wisdom". However, to this day, one "culture" sees fit to still engage in such activity, and another does not.
We can all agree that no deity, no person, or no "culture" has ever "amended" either one of these books. The language exists to this day, and it is concise. There are no "translation errors", nor is the language "metaphorical", or "parable". But yet, what do we see? What we see, is one "culture" has figured out that killing people for having opposing religious views is "wrong".
Now, would we call this society more civilized?....more educated?....more humane?....more socially evolved to meet the needs of it's people? OR... would we call one "Holy" book "better" than the other? Think about it.
"How do young men get the idea that if they strap a bomb onto their body and fill their pockets full of rat poison and nails and get on a crowded bus and blow themselves up along with 30 or 40 innocent people, that they will go directly to heaven, and be met by 72 beautiful black eyed virgins, and then be able to invite 70 friends and relatives to heaven to be with them?
Then tinkster says:
"No, the answer is not religion. The answer is Islam. Straw man arguments should not have a place in this forum.....," and. "To be clear (and I am speaking for evangelical Christians now), we believe that the Bible is infallible in its original manuscripts"
DAN CHECKS WIKIPEDIA:
Islam is a monotheistic religion based upon the teachings of Muhammad. It is the second-largest religion in the world today, with an estimated 1.4 billion adherents, known as Muslims.
Muslims believe that God (Arabic: Allah) revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad and that Muhammad is God's final prophet (see: Prophets of Islam). Muslims consider the Qur'an and the traditions of Muhammad in the Sunnah to be the basic sources of Islam] Like Judaism and Christianity, Islam is an Abrahamic religion Today, Muslims may be found throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia. About 20 percent of Muslims originate from Arab countries Islam is the second largest religion in many European countries, such as France, which has the largest Muslim population in Western Europe, and the United Kingdom.
Thank you very much tinkster, and since you are a self professed evangelical Christian, I would suggest that you are not part of the solution as what to do about the problem of two great religions, going head to head, and killing each other over their unique ideologies.
YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM!!!!!!!
Dano (Convert to rationalism)
Function: noun
1 : reliance on reason as the basis for establishment of religious truth
2 a : a theory that reason is in itself a source of knowledge superior to and independent of sense perceptions b : a view that reason and experience rather than the nonrational are the fundamental criteria in the solution of problems
“…most of us know that we no longer have those (the original manuscripts) at our disposal. However, we believe that we have sufficient textual evidence to reproduce a text that is an acceptable copy of the original. And in the New Testament text, as someone who has done the difficult work of translation and text criticism, I can say this: of the text problems that are in the New Testament (and by text problems I mean to say that there are places where we are presented with two or three different options as to what the original could have said, based on the evidence), none are in passages concerning core Christian doctrines.”
So we don’t have the original manuscripts, but we CAN trust what is in the bible. Based on what then? Textual evidence? That is proof that it is inerrant? How is it determined to be acceptable? Does god enlighten those making that decision? Also, Tinkster said he had two or three different options as to what the original COULD HAVE SAID, to choose from for New Testament texts. So these passages could have said something entirely different. Tinkster doesn’t really know, yet this guesswork is in the bible as the inerrant word of god.
And finally, Tinkster wrote: “The fallacy is this: the different books of the Bible need to be read according to their respective literary genres."
Pray tell, where does the bible state that in order to understand god’s word, the reader needs to understand all the different literary genres in order to comprehend what they are reading? This is what god wanted when he supposedly inspired this book?
Frankly, if that is true, I’m not impressed with this god.
Thanks for the laughs tinkerbell, you're a hoot!
Anonymous, I think Pastor Ryan has taught you another lesson that seems to be missed, and that is, keep Mr. Winkey out of underage receptacles and these problems won’t arise.
Somehow I get the impression my flammatory comments caused much of this debate.
Instead of reciting lengthy verses, I'll keep my viewpoits simple. The U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to religion. It also protects the rest of us from the religious fanatics.
If you want a safe religious experience, just stay within your bounds. When you religious wingnuts get aggressive into politics, belittling and threatening anyone who is not Republican, promote right-wing extremist theocratic fascism, and trample on our basic rights, then we fight back.
That is what you are experiencing.
Good choice of words.
Unintended pun. Thanks!
All veiled sarcasm aside, Warnepiece, thank you for actually responding to what I wrote, and not employing the good ol' strawman technique like your fellow blogger, Bentley:
I love it when I see the christian twist, warp, contort scripture and leap over the pews and swing on the chandeliers to make their Bible look to appear true.
Chandeliers and pews? Twisting, warping, and contorting scripture? I didn't even use any scripture!! It takes work and discipline to respond intelligently, and in a manner that remains true to the arguments of the person you are challenging. Take some lessons from your counterparts in here, and then if you do have something to say about what I actually wrote, by all means, I'd love to hear it.
And now, Warnepiece, back to your statement:
So we don’t have the original manuscripts, but we CAN trust what is in the bible. Based on what then? Textual evidence? That is proof that it is inerrant? How is it determined to be acceptable? Does god enlighten those making that decision?
The question centers on the relationship of (on the one hand) inerrancy and (on the other hand) the principles of textual criticism. Just so we're clear, we're talking about inerrancy here, and not infallibility or inspiration. I am (with no condescension intended) assuming that you readily know the respective differences. We can with integrity discuss inerrancy here, because it really does not have to involve matters of religious conviction. If it did, (and I'm assuming you would agree with this), then there would be no point in discussing it--you have already looked at the evidence of religious conviction and judged it to be wanting.
Along those lines, I will not "take the bait" concerning your last question of "does God enlighten those making the decision?" If you are simply wanting to know if I think that, then yes, I do happen to think that. BUT, that is certainly not the ONLY thing on which I base my opinion of faithfulness to the original. It would make my position much more vulnerable, especially concerning the values driving this forum, but as I said:
And please do not conflate inspiration with textual validity. The Bible is textually valid due to the integrity of the process by which it has been preserved and transfered... an entirely scientific and temporal process. We believe it to be inspired based on different reasons--matters of faith, practice, and experience, and what we deem to be historical facts--reasons that I understand do not have a platform here in this forum.
So, I look at the principles of textual criticism, like the ones I named in my post (amount of copies, copies close to the time of Christ, copies across different religious traditions within Christianity, and copies from different textual families in different geographical locations), and am able to conclude that yes, we are able to produce a copy today from the textual evidence that we have that is faithful to the original.
Now, lest you point me once again back to the fact (and yes, I said fact) that there are places where it really is anybody's guess as to what the original said--in other words, that there texts in our copy that could be read two or three different ways, let me say a few things (some of which I have already said):
1. Simply because there are two or three different valid options does not mean that "nothing about the original can be known." That is not true. We know that it was one of those three options. Not knowing which one exactly does not allow us to conclude that there are an "infinite" amount of options and therefore we "have no idea."
2. Where there are two or three different options, those options do not lead to the integrity of the entire document being compromised, giving us the right to throw the copy out entirely on the basis of its "impurity." For example: presuming we did not have the original constitution of the United States, it would be like saying that we have "no idea what the consitution actually says" and therefore no responsibility to treat it as a historical document because one copy said "We the people of the United States," one said "We the people of these United States," and the other said "We the many people of these United States." I hope that you can see the implications of this example as it pertains to your view as I am understanding it.
3. Therefore, the jump from the copy we have reproduced to inerrancy is not a uncrossable chasm, but simply the next step.
And once again simply to be clear, what I am saying in this forum is that we can trust what is said in the Bible in the sense that we can trust that what it says now is what it said then, when it was originally written. I fully understand that an argument for trusting in any other sense is misplaced in this forum. You may have plenty of other reasons not to trust the Bible religiously, but one of them can not be a lack of textual soundness.
Finally, for Boom--with sincerity, thank you for your post. It also addressed what I actually wrote, and I take it seriously enough to think more about that before I post.
I even think the more modern stories of Moroni, magic glasses and gold plates in Mormonism are made up too.
In fact, when it comes to invisible, magical men, fiery, flying chariots, talking snakes, dragons, satyrs, people rising from graves only to fade away later, angels, demons, floating axes, etc., well, I'm just pretty darn sure that it's all pretend.
I mean, I love the Harry Potter stories, but... it's pretend.
People love stories. They're fun. But they're not reality.
What is real, however, is that people who claim to be transformed by the magical Holy Ghost, and who believe they were called by the Almighty ruler of Eternity to lead the gentle sheep of God, who are dead in Christ, and yet live, and yet not them living, but Christ living in them, commit crimes like this pastor, f***ing some poor father's little girl.
Then, the Christian comes here upset, claiming we should be understanding, and forgive this MAN OF GOD, and upset because these cruel infidels would criticize a man who has claimed on numerous occasions to have the Everlasting Son of God living in his heart while at the same time he is unabashedly boning someone's child?
I'm sorry, it's not only all pretend, it's sick.