 |
 |
 |
encouraging ex-Christians
Rants and articles submitted by and for ex-Christians
By Dano
I find myself with this compulsion to try to use logic and reason to try to convince people they are wrong about a certain thing, but what I am beginning to understand is that when it comes down to religious beliefs at least, rational, critical thought takes back a seat to emotion every time.
Now don't get the idea that I think I am the first one to have figured this out. On the contrary, I have read about "Cognitive dissonance" in all of the best selling books, written by the biggest names in Christian Apostasy.
One best selling female author and Psychologist who is also an ex Christian fundamentalist even explained it to me this way: Some time the smartest and most gifted are the very ones who can come up with the most complex and imaginative ways to hold on to their emotional beliefs in supernatural things.
You have seen them, those brilliant graduates of theology schools, who have gone on to become pastors, and teachers and spent their lives studying every Christian Apologetic book ever written, and come here to "Ex-Christian" to witness to us.
They usually start out by attempting to impress us with their piety but quickly digress to trying to impress us with their knowledge of how all of the various phrases, bits of ancient history, and passages from a myriad of texts, collected over a period of 5000 years, got to be canonized into the k J. V.
In other words they quickly dance away from answering our questions, about HOW THEY KNOW, all about what God wants, and what God says, and quickly divert our attention to endless debate, about which Bronze age contributor to the Bible, said what, and where and when, and in the end they usually start making up their versions as they go along.
Wouldn't it be nice if one of them would just say?
Yes, it appears that I'm trapped in a self replicating mind cult, and can't get out. Please help me get out and try to face life with courage and hope, and honesty.
After living for 71 years, most of which my analytical mind has rejected all things magical and supernatural, I don't know what answer I would give them other than ask:
Do you really want to help perpetuate a mythical belief that has been responsible for so much evil down through 2000 years of mans history? Do you really want to be associated with a belief that was forced upon so many men and women by the Pope and succeeding religious tyrants of other sects of Christianity? Think about those poor souls who were given the choice of professing a belief in it before they were strangled or dismembered on the rack, or boiled in oil.
I suggest we can find a nicer gentler philosophy for living. HELP ME THINK! I'm sure it can be proven that all of the good done in then name of Christianity can and would be done anyway if we gave up the idea that the only way we can be a good person is to have faith in an imaginary dead man.
Christianity and it's sister cult Islam have a history of inflicting such unspeakable suffering on so many of our brothers and sisters, that they don't deserve to be replicated any more, and passed to another generation. They need to go away just like all the Pagan blood sacrifice religions that spawned them. They are central in great bloodletting conflicts today that threaten to end life as we know it. The God of Abraham needs to be replaced by a more sensible God. One called common sense.
To monitor comments posted to this topic, use
.
I find myself with this compulsion to try to use logic and reason to try to convince people they are wrong about a certain thing, but what I am beginning to understand is that when it comes down to religious beliefs at least, rational, critical thought takes back a seat to emotion every time.
Now don't get the idea that I think I am the first one to have figured this out. On the contrary, I have read about "Cognitive dissonance" in all of the best selling books, written by the biggest names in Christian Apostasy.
One best selling female author and Psychologist who is also an ex Christian fundamentalist even explained it to me this way: Some time the smartest and most gifted are the very ones who can come up with the most complex and imaginative ways to hold on to their emotional beliefs in supernatural things.
You have seen them, those brilliant graduates of theology schools, who have gone on to become pastors, and teachers and spent their lives studying every Christian Apologetic book ever written, and come here to "Ex-Christian" to witness to us.
They usually start out by attempting to impress us with their piety but quickly digress to trying to impress us with their knowledge of how all of the various phrases, bits of ancient history, and passages from a myriad of texts, collected over a period of 5000 years, got to be canonized into the k J. V.
In other words they quickly dance away from answering our questions, about HOW THEY KNOW, all about what God wants, and what God says, and quickly divert our attention to endless debate, about which Bronze age contributor to the Bible, said what, and where and when, and in the end they usually start making up their versions as they go along.
Wouldn't it be nice if one of them would just say?
Yes, it appears that I'm trapped in a self replicating mind cult, and can't get out. Please help me get out and try to face life with courage and hope, and honesty.
After living for 71 years, most of which my analytical mind has rejected all things magical and supernatural, I don't know what answer I would give them other than ask:
Do you really want to help perpetuate a mythical belief that has been responsible for so much evil down through 2000 years of mans history? Do you really want to be associated with a belief that was forced upon so many men and women by the Pope and succeeding religious tyrants of other sects of Christianity? Think about those poor souls who were given the choice of professing a belief in it before they were strangled or dismembered on the rack, or boiled in oil.
I suggest we can find a nicer gentler philosophy for living. HELP ME THINK! I'm sure it can be proven that all of the good done in then name of Christianity can and would be done anyway if we gave up the idea that the only way we can be a good person is to have faith in an imaginary dead man.
Christianity and it's sister cult Islam have a history of inflicting such unspeakable suffering on so many of our brothers and sisters, that they don't deserve to be replicated any more, and passed to another generation. They need to go away just like all the Pagan blood sacrifice religions that spawned them. They are central in great bloodletting conflicts today that threaten to end life as we know it. The God of Abraham needs to be replaced by a more sensible God. One called common sense.
To monitor comments posted to this topic, use
.
One can't help but get the feeling of marching in place.
What a joy, what a gift, what a blessing, what a miracle, from the creator the one that wrote the Bible?? And it's totally FREE...!!!!
This makes a Christian think in his/her mind that they are now special, they have been specially chosen and hand picked to receive this free ticket into paradise, by whom, but the sole creator of the entire universe, which we all know now only consists of the flat Earth, Moon and it's orbiting Sun.
This promise (gift)is worth more than any amount of reasoning and common sense that an infidel sinner (non-believer),
could conger up in his attempt to dis-Throne God and his wonder boy son Jesus.
To the xtain, there can be nothing more valuable on this Earth than the word of God and it's contents and what it has to offer, it offers eternal life, with a promise stamped by God's precious word and his son Jesus' shed Holy blood.
What more could anyone have asked for? A God willing to sacrifice his very own sons life and blood in order to save people's filthy rotten souls?? What God do you know of whom would have done that for us, to see that we all have a chance to be saved from a burning hell???
Answer me that??? Anyone???
To the xtian, there is nothing on this earth worth living for, except to look forward to the day that they die so that they can meet and be with Jesus for all eternity, for which and for whom this Earth and universe was created by God only for the sole purpose to see just how many people would in the end, believe in his son Jesus.
To the xtian, there is no greater knowledge that can be obtained outside of the Bible. The Bible holds all truths and wisdom that have ever existed and will exist in the future, past and present.
To the xtain, the Bible is their brain food, their life, their purpose, their existance is based primaraly and solely of those words written down by imbeciles over 2000 years ago.
No one outside of the Bible, no non-christian, will ever have the ability to persuade an xtian that any part of the Bible is untrue, because they have not been granted Biblical authority, only an xtain or pastor has the authority to question the Bible, but only under much heavy conviction and consternation and diligent prayer.
Hope you're feeling better Dano..:-)
But the funny thing is that xian prayer meetings and prayer chains tend to be full of people praying for health and long life, followed second by good jobs. So, I think your broad brush is broader than is justified. To the xian, if they believe what they say, the things of earth should be strangely dim, but alas. It's a load of hypocritical bullshit.
"Is there anything that could be shown to you that would convince you that your religion/god is not real?"
In every situation that I've asked that question and have had it answered I have always gotten something like :
"No, there is nothing you or anyone can say or show me that will destroy my faith"
To me this is about as clean an answer you are going to get from believers about how their "faith" really revolves around stubbornness. They simply refuse to accept anything that anyone has to say about their belief system.
On the other shoe; Were I given that question :
"Is there anything that could be shown to you that would convince you that religion/god is real?"
I would answer with a resounding YES - just show me some proof!
I have finally come to the realization that you cannot convince believers that they believe in a delusion. Just like each of us, they have to simply come to that conclusion on their own. This is why I hardily believe that religion should be challenged at every single step. Perhaps you will never convince the people you argue with, but the bystanders, especially the younger generation, will begin see the truth before being completely enveloped in the dogma. The facts, logic, and evidence simply cannot be denied forever.
Joe : I couldn't agree more. The most violent people are christians who believe they have god at their back supporting them in what they do. An excellent example of this is Nicole's story in "The price of Atheism" found on this site. Christian hypocrisy abounds.
A lot of this has to do with the current culture and economics, at least in the US. Most citizens in the US have a realistic prospect of earning a lot of money and living a long, healthy life. Praying for a short life and working towards building up treasures in heaven doesn't make much sense to them, so Christianity is reinvented to suite their needs - hence the popularity of the Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas and Joel Osteen Ministries.
Flashback a hundred years when the average US citizen wasn't doing so well, and you have a completely different story. Look at some of the old hymns written during those times and you see it's all about getting to heaven and how glorious heaven is.
Go forward a little bit, and you see a more militant God and Christianity, coincidentally around the same time as the world wars.
Give the world another catastrophe like the Great Depression, or another struggle like the world wars, and you'll see the message change from prosperity to something else again.
If Christianity didn't change with the times, it wouldn't survive. Funny, apparently God changes not, but his followers see that they have to change the way he looks to support their religion.
Like Dano, I am 71 years old (soon to be 72), but unlike him I'm like you and have given up on trying to argue with Xtians. I have a very good friend who is hung up on "faith." His argument is that no evidence at all is needed to have faith, and uses all kinds of convoluted arguments to prove his belief.
My position is that faith is possible if it is based on some rational or reasonable evidence (i.e., I have faith that you won't steal from me because you have proven to be an honest person in the past). But, faith based on no evidence at all is a surrender of one's mind and reason.
After showing him the many passages in the bible that show how god condones slavery, considers woman to be men's property, demands animal and human sacrifice, commands the slaughter of thousands of men, women and children, etc., etc., he still refuses to change his mind.
Because I have encountered this same type of resistance from so many others, I no longer try to convince anyone to believe the way I do. Now I have less frustration, something I don't need at my age, and that feels good. Just like it feels when you stop banging your head against a brick wall.
I'm still angry about the church does to people. It catches them hurt or ignorant and exploits that by substituting religious "education" for real education. That sets them up to believe lies, economical, theological and political. It sucks for them and for the rest of us.
So, while recognizing that it's pointless, I'm 30 years younger than you or Dano, and I'll still whack away at the malformed monolith for a while.
If nothing else it lets me vent my anger in the right direction. That way I can keep my love and creativity focused on the good stuff.
36 "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God's revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created "in the image of God".12
37 In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:
Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. the human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.13
38 This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God's revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also "about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error"
If I were younger, I'd keep up the good fight just like you, and for the same reasons. Now it's time to turn over the heavy stuff to a younger generation.
If I'm asked what I think, I don't hesitate to voice my opinion. But I don't voluntarily jump into the fray.
Anonymous,
"III. The Knowledge of God According to the Church"
Your whole post is a bunch of hogwash, not based on any verifiable evidence. To me, it's just an attempt by the church to rationalize it's position. There's no logical argument put forth in any of it.
Remember, we've all read the bible and, based on its contents, rejected the existence of the "Bible God."
Nice Try!!!!
But this doesn't mean that we should give up in trying to break through. Something you tell them today may become a critical part of thinking for them in the future. If other people are listening (or reading) then those are the people that I think are more receptive to a discussion. There are far more readers than talkers.
Lets face it, when you bring your beliefs and thoughts into the public spotlight you often get some hostile responses - from any side of a debate. A lot of people don't want to face that, but are still very interested in finding the truth. If we don't face down those that are outspoken then no counter knowledge is available to the unspoken masses.
I'm at the point now where I'm trying to decide how militant I want to be. Should I go after every religious comment uttered around me or simply respond only to those that directly engage me? Personally I'm not comfortable with being one of those people that jump on every uttered phrase and turn out to be boorish. However there are times when I feel I need to speak up, just to let people know that their way of thinking is NOT a default. It's a tricky balance that I still seek to find.
To the drive by preacher : That's kind of like telling a customer that your soup is the best in the world, but when they gag while trying it you inform them they need only train their mind and then it will be the best soup in the world!
The concept of your god would be amusing if it hadn't been left unchecked for so long and created so much damage in the world.
freedy
It isn't always easy for me to sort through the sort of gibberish like Anonymous wrote:
"III. The Knowledge of God According to the Church................." and make enough sense out of to know if it has any redeemable content.
Descriptions like Frizz's "hogwash" and Rick's "soup" analogy, are like music to my ears.
Dan
Steven Bently wrote:
"Hope you're feeling better Dano..:-)"
Thanks Steven! I had a little mini stroke and then the doctors tried to kill me but I think I got away from them in time.
I did say one little prayer. I said "You made me God or what ever you like to be called. I trust that you know what you are doing. Que sera, que sera! "
I'm back exercising every part of my body, and they are all coming back to life.
Dan again.
Great to hear you're feeling better. I guess you said yourself what I was going to write after reading the article. Heck I'll say it anyway.
In my opinion the point is to keep our sanity. If we are going crazy trying to change people's minds, we are obsessed, and that's insanity.
That's exactly why I abstain from "preaching" to Christians, because I don't feel strong enough yet to do it without losing my mind. If the day ever comes when I feel ready, I will battle them, within the limits of sanity.
Great post. I'm going to try answering your question in a different way.
You said:
"I suggest we can find a nicer gentler philosophy for living. HELP ME THINK! I'm sure it can be proven that all of the good done in then name of Christianity can and would be done anyway if we gave up the idea that the only way we can be a good person is to have faith in an imaginary dead man."
I too have given up trying to preach to christians, since logic and reason are not part of their tool kit when it comes to faith. However, I do still find myself in discussions with them on a regular basis, and one of the big questions they ask is similar to what you are asking; namely, how can you still live a good life and have morals if you don't have god? They truly don't seem to see how this is possible.
I find with humans in general that you can't tell someone something if they are not asking for an answer. But since they are asking the question, then I find they are open to listening to me explain how I can love my wife and kids, neighbors, etc. without requiring the fear of hell to keep me in line.
The answer for me is self interest. Not selfishness, but self interest. I do what is in my long term best self interest. I don't cheat on my wife, not because some book tells me not to, but because I enjoy the relationship I have with my wife and know that cheating on her would totally screw that up. Intelligent self interest is how we forge a working society.
I try to explain to them that self interest and selfishness are not the same thing. That even the bible expects people to do things that are in their best self interest. And I agree with them that selfishness can get in the way of what is really good for ourselves.
Self interest for me means helping my neighbor when he needs it because he will then hopefully help me, and since I enjoy living in a society in which people help each other out. I don't mind paying taxes for public education since I think it is in my best self interest to live in an educated society. I don't steal, not just because it is in my best self interest to remain out of jail, but because I am not a thief and can sleep better at night if I am not hurting or oppressing others. I simply feel better about myself if I behave in a way that is mutually beneficial with my fellow humans.
This is all typical secular humanist stuff, but christians don't seem to get it.
Again, since I wait for them to ask, they are at least a little more willing to hear than normal. Shoving something down someone's throat seldom works.
I have never been able to convince a person that their faith is wrong, but I have had several people say something like, "OK, I get that." They don't agree with my non-religious stance, but I have had a few that admitted to being able to see how I could live a life of integrity without a fear of hell keeping me in line.
All they are left with is that this behavior won't get me into heaven, or keep me out of hell, but I'm OK with that.
Thanks again for the post.
Lance
You have evolved to be a spiritual creature. That is, you have the ability to derive strength from your imagination when hopelessness makes more sense.
When you apply evolutionary pressure, such as starvation, those who believe they can survive even when the situation is bleak would be more likely to do the things that would lead to survival. This is how we developed the ability to deceive ourselves and start talking to God.
The funny thing is that either we are really, really good at this self deception or God does actually exist. I say this because if you act like God exists for long enough, he starts to be pretty convincing.
But regardless of whether or not he exists, you are human. And you are spiritual, and you need spiritual fuel or you will live a more difficult life.
The feeling of hope of an afterlife is no different from the burst of ambition you might feel from hearing a poem, or listening to a song. It makes no sense for the song or the poem to change how you feel. If your life stinks and you feel you should kill yourself, then read a poem or hear a song and don't want to kill yourself, What has the song changed. Your life still stinks. Yet something was changed. Something unseen in you has been touched. And this is part of the human animal.
I once read a quote that said, "nothing is infinite except the human capacity for self deception." I used to beleive this was a human flaw. Now I realize this is our greatest asset.
This ability is taken for granted during times of prosperity because it becomes less necessary to survive. But if you live without acknowledging this need, you live a more difficult life.
Life is tough. If your stupid it's tougher. -John Wayne
The short is - you are right, anyone who claims to be able to prove God is full of it.
However, anyone who denies that human beings evolved to have spiritual needs is deceiving themself.
"The place where you all go wrong, both atheists and Christians alike, is that you forget you are human...
You have evolved to be a spiritual creature. That is, you have the ability to derive strength from your imagination when hopelessness makes more sense...
However, anyone who denies that human beings evolved to have spiritual needs is deceiving themself."
posted: May 21, 2007 EST
Truth!
I agree with you on almost everything you say except that most of us ex-Christian don't forget we are human, and I'm sure most of us don't deny that we have spiritual needs.
The only thing we refuse to believe is outdated religious mythology that has been proven to be wrong and goes against our proven modern teaching, which is backed upped by evidence.
I in fact, I "Glory" in the fact that I'm lucky enough to be sitting at the top of the food chain, with all the benefits that come with it, such as an ability for critical thought. I consider, my ability to separate the bullshit from what is real in my daily life, my greatest gift from the creator of all the universes.
That's all truth! We just don't want to have to believe obvious lies to be considered GOOD!
Dan
Nice post. I completely understand your frustration with this issue. I wanna respond to something you said. You said:
"In other words they quickly dance away from answering our questions, about HOW THEY KNOW, all about what God wants, and what God says, and quickly divert our attention to endless debate..."
My dad is one of the only Xians I know that doesn't try and pull that kind of crap with me. He has said numerous times, "I realize that the Christian religion really makes no sense at all."
The reason he believes is because he has had a "religious experience."
It's only when I try to bring up the fact that nearly EVERYBODY has had some sort of "spiritual" experience or, at least, thought they have, that my dad starts getting 'weird.' He'll say, "It's not my place to judge those people." *rolls eyes*
Anyway, just thought you might find his response interesting.
-Sarabhi
"Dano,.....
My dad is one of the only Xians I know that doesn't try and pull that kind of crap with me. He has said numerous times, "I realize that the Christian religion really makes no sense at all......"
Sarabhi,
Isn't the simple honesty of your Dad's opinion on the matter, beautiful. I quite often find that the simplest answer, is the most satisfying one.
Dan
dano:
You wrote:
"The only thing we refuse to believe is outdated religious mythology that has been proven to be wrong and goes against our proven modern teaching, which is backed upped by evidence."
I just had a very long and protracted discussion with boomslang in another post. The end of the discussion was this:
"I "just don't(f%cking) care"---final answer. And that is inclusive of the other two hypotheticals, BTW. If I wanted to talk philosophy about "epistemological solipsism"?... I'd JOIN such a thread, or start my own."
Are these the words of someone willing to examine "the TRUTH" I tried over several posts to simply point out that the very foundation of empiricism is comming under attack by philosphy today.
boomslang didn't even want to acknowledge that I was making any kind of point at all. Is that the sign of your openess to the "TRUTH"? My ultimate point is that people believe what they WANT to believe. The heart tells the mind what to believe. I'm sure you've expirenced this, you wanted to do something or not do something that you might have felt was wrong or questionable but somehow "talked yourself into it" or "out of it" depending on what it is.
Very few of us act upon the light of reason in all ways in every circumstance. The trick of life is knowing WHEN to use what method of knowledge. When do you listen primiarly to your head and when do you listen to your heart?
To clarify my position on this matter----firstly, you extracted said quote out of a thread titled "Does God exist?". And BTW, let the record show that your initial post in that particular thread was a steady stream of the standard apologetic jargon we're accustomed to seeing here daily. And all subtantiated with what?.....you guessed it, N-O-T-H-I-N-G. A big fat goose' egg.
Secondly, once again, you asked pointed questions, and I answered you with pointed honest answers, yet, in true apologetic form, you didn't quote said questions or anything leading up to it, did you?(rhetorical)
You see, Mike, I/we know exactly what you're doing, or attmpting to do---that is, since you have no evidence for your fantastic hypotheticals concerning the "supernatural", or "meta-physical..i.e..BEYOND physical, you are merely employing the strawman tactic of trying to make the "Truth" about naturalism/materialism seem equally "fantastic". That tactic won't work around here, Mike. Naturalism is the only "Truth" in a natural universe.
Notwithstanding, like I said, if you think that the "law of gravity", or the "theory of gravity", or "the science of gravity" or whatever-the-f%ck you'd like to call it, has no referent in "Truth"?...I re-invite you to try out the simple test that I provided, which would "falsify" gravity if it were not "Truth".
PS: If you should decide to try it out, please have a family member get it on video. Thanks.
"My ultimate point is that people believe what they WANT to believe. The heart tells the mind what to believe. I'm sure you've expirenced this, you wanted to do something or not do something that you might have felt was wrong or questionable but somehow "talked yourself into it" or "out of it" depending on what it is."
Your heart doesn't do anything but pump blood. Before people knew anything about anatomy they considered the heart the center of consciousness. But we now know that any arguments you may have with yourself are conducted in your mind, which is a by-product of chemical reactions in your brain.
I guess you could equate talking to yourself with praying. Both produce the same results.
I assure you that life over here in the natural world is ok. Most of us have tried to live in your word and found it confusing and unnecessarily fearful, not to mention dishonest, and a dead end, in this life, with nothing to look forward to except a promise of wonderfulness after death.
Well, most of us "Non believers in supernatural Mythology," are serene in the belief, that no matter what your hick preacher says, or the pope, or Billy Graham, or any one else who pretends to talk to God, says, our creator has the same plan for all of us. If he, she, it, didn't, we couldn't think that he, she, it was "good".
If we want to create a good God, then we have to design him, she, it in a way that he, she, it is good to all of us. It's only fair to babies, and the deformed, and the ragheads, and the Neanderthals, and the cows, and the chickens, and............
What I'm saying Mike is My God has to be big enough to have a plan for all of life, not just those who supernaturally credulous.
BIBLE GOD DOESN'T MEET THOSE SPECS, SO HE NEEDS TO BE THROWN IN THE SHIT CAN ALONG WITH HIS SON THAT HE CREATED AS A SACRIFICE TO HIMSELF, AND ALL THE OTHER PAGAN GODS.
MY GOD FINDS BIBLE GOD TO BE INADEQUATE!
DAN
Do me a favor since you believe in the "word of god" go pray in the name of jesus and heal amputees ok? and e-mail me back and let me know what happens
Why do you think so many xians homeschool? To control the knowledge.
Every hear of Philip Yancy's book called ''Disappointment with God'? It seems to cover just about everything mentioned in this post, and website.
Lorena:
Yeap! Read the book. I concluded that Yancey continues to be a Christian because his books sell well with that readership. Yancey has an atheist brother. I wouldn't be surprised if Yancey renounced his faith one of these days.
The world is changing, Just look at a few posts:
anonymous : "we probably couldn't get people to agree on what common sense actually means." (seems to be open to truth= relative)
truthseeker: "anyone who denies that human beings evolved to have spiritual needs is deceiving themself." (I have real trouble figuring out where he's comming from but I like his views; maybe truth = limited materialism)
boomslang: "Naturalism is the only "Truth" in a natural universe." (ie materialism = truth)
Frizz: "Your heart doesn't do anything but pump blood." (materialism = truth)
Dano: "I assure you that life over here in the natural world is ok." (confuses me a little because he also said:) "and I'm sure most of us don't deny that we have spiritual needs." (I'm not going to assume he's saying somthing contradictory I just can't reconcile it in my own head)
ryan scott said: "common sense requires common (in the sense of SHARED) knowledge. We aren't all sharing the same knowledge." seems to imply truth = relative? I seem to agree with him)
You all talk about how smart you all are and how wonderfully intelligent you all are, but even here on this post there are pretty divergent views. Actually some fundamentally divergent views. One side is proposing what truth is =materialism, another side is proposing that it's relative. No one even challenges this. But what's really interesting is that if a Christian post's here things turn ugly. It doesn't even matter what is said. "go try out gravity", "go heal an amputee", "Life over here is fine" what's over here? to truthseeker you were open to spirituality as long as it wasn't a christian who was saying it (at least it didn't seem like it to me I could be wrong)
People who seek truth are "supposed" to be seeking it where ever it may be.
My frustration here is not that you won't accept my position but that it's not even worthy for discussion because it was posited by a Christian.
I honestly want to discuss with you all, not berate not take pot shots at you but actually discuss, dialogue. All you have proven is that Athiests are as closed minded as christians.
First let me apologize for my sharp retorts to your comments. My first reaction to most posts by Christians is to see the same old arguments that I've encountered time and time again. And that sets me off.
After rereading your comments, I do see some honest questions and discussion points interspersed with the standard Christian rhetoric.
Most of us non-theists or skeptics are dealing with or have dealt with some very painful spiritual and emotional traumas inflicted by the Christian religion. In some cases the wounds are still raw and our first instinct is to lash out at anyone who appears to be trying preach to us.
Most of us have not arrived at our disbelief easily. We have studied, reasoned, prayed, and agonized for a long time before deciding that we no longer believe the Bible concept of God.
So, if you want to have some honest discussions with people in this community and avoid getting our hackles up, please leave out the standard Christian Apologia. Just present your questions and discussion points clearly and without appearing to be preaching.
I have many Christian friends, acquaintances and relatives, and bear no malice toward any. We don't agree on a lot of things (politics, religion, sports, etc.), but we get along. It's only when someone, anyone, tries to force their opinions on me, especially with nonsensical reasoning, that I react harshly. And, I think you will find that most of the members of this community (not all) feel the same.
So, again, I apologize for being so harsh. Stick around, but tone down the rhetoric.
Through out my undergrad at UofArizona I encountered dozens of fundamentalist types. I let them have a go at me for a good two years. I opened myself to any idea they through at my. I went to their churches, I prayed their prayers. What I found was that they were missing something.
What they were missing was faith. They all wanted to prove they were right. They were determined to prove the existence of God. The more people agreed with them the closer they felt they were to being right.
The issue is if God can be proven, then everybody would choose God.
We have been given free will. Part of the game however is that you need to take a leap of faith.
That's really the whole game.
Many of these folks in this forum have faith. They have faith that there is something out their worth searching for.
If God is real, the faithful will find him.
But one thing I've learned is that no one human being, can show anyone else the face of God. Only God gets to do that.
Even Christ didn't convert everyone.
"So, again, I apologize for being so harsh. Stick around, but tone down the rhetoric."
No problem. I've done some apologetics but it's been a couple of years. I've been studying, off to war, leaving the ministry, joining the church, it's been a long time since I actually tried talking with anyone on line so I tend to get a little excited myself. As to toning down the rhetoric I guess I'm not too sure what you mean by rhetoric...? can you help me figure that one out?
Truthseeker, your words are cyptic but they ring true. I'll be honest I'd love to see some come to christ. But I don't think strong arm tactics work are consistant with Christ. To be honest I'm just open for dialogue with people who are NOT like me. As to fundies... I'm not a fundy. My parents are, most of my family is. But as I sought my own way with Christ things began to open up. Your absolutely right about fundies being obsessed with the Truth. I understand it but I don't always agree with it.
I am very flexible when it comes to the scriptures and understanding christianity. My view however, is primairly historic. I love history, love it, and my love of it has not taken away from Christ it's only deepened it. That's not a sermon just telling you all where I'm at. Truthseeker you seem..... centered that interests me....
mike
Not all the posters on this site are atheists. Just because someone leaves Christianity, it doesn't necessarily mean the person is an atheist.
In fact, this website receives well over 2,000 visits every day. The ONLY implied agreement among all the regulars here is the Christianity is bullshit.
Now, if you want to discuss philosophy, well that's acceptable. If, however, you are only here to evangelize for your religion, you should expect some strong sounding rhetoric.
Peace.
I suppose that fair enough. But as stated before Im here for discussion.
I'm getting ready for bed and I was just in the showering, (You all should know the impact you're having upon me. {insert smile here}) and I was thinking about your posts. Many of you seemed somewhat dismayed that it appeared christianity was not going any where. I was confused by that because honestly I am afraid of the exact opposit. But then it hit me... why do I know about rorty, and Foucault, and Kant, and Kuhn? I'll tell you why because my MDiv program is discussing them, that's why. My undergradute school (a christian university) was talking about post modernism nearly fifteen years ago. That's why some of these arguments about "the truth is ..." or "naturalism that..." seem so strange to me. We live in a post modern world I took it for granted that modernism was on its way out.
Now not everyone fits this catagory i've seen some post modernist comments here and there but they've been much more shy than the obnixious moderns. I'll also say I've seen a lot of modernist Christians as well so don't think I bashing here.
But my point is this: In my christian school's and graduate education we are preparing for the post modern world, we're actaully about 25 years behind the times but we're gradually changing. Eventually, I feel we'll adjust to the post modern world and the christian message will morph once again. This will allow us to survive and continue on. Richard Dawkins book on the God delusion is a perfect example. He proposes to proove that God does not exist. What is his methodlogy? materialism. He's a pure hard core materialist. I didn't have a chance to read his work but I have read other stuff by him and he's pretty materialistic. Does any one know if he even touched upon philosophical developments concerning empiricism and science? I don't know but my guess it not. If that is the case I would propose to you that this is one reason why the church is poised to make the jump to the next millinium. We are learning, adjusting and morphing, the comments that i've seen here have not shown that development to me.
Caviat: I'm not making an absolute claim here only offering an observation please feel free to shoot me down.
mike
Dialogue requires listening, too. And before you go there---I've tried to answer every question you've asked, Mike Brown---EVERY one of them.
To review---in another thread you asked me, specifically, what "empirical evidence" I would "accept" in order to reconsider my Atheism. So I provide 3 detailed examples, just like you asked. But then what happened?.....you started frothing at the mouth because my answers were "empirical".
Then to top it off, you quoted my answers to your last "batch" of questions from another thread in this thread(which, too, I answered honestly, BTW), but you didn't post the questions or what lead up to said questions in the first place..i.e.."out of context".
Straight up---since you are a Christian; since you know(hopefully) that you're on an EX-Christian website, and thus, hopefully read some of the anti-testimonies, then you should know that the common denominator between site members is that we think Christanity is false..e.g..BuNk. If you weren't aware???...well, that's what we think, Mike....it's bullshit.... yes, because at some point- somewhere along the line, it requires a "leap of faith" because of the cognative dissonance it creates when viewed with a rational mind.
Furthermore, I think you know, as well as the rest of us, that you lack the "empirical" evidence that it would require for anyone here to "reconvert", because if you didn't know that, you'd have provided us with said evidence waaaay before now. But to give benefit of the doubt?....one last chance---do you, Mike Brown, have evidence that is objective, testable, and falsifiable, that a super-natural "being" exists, biblegod, or otherwise?
That's what I thought---so then, from what I gather, you now want to attack "materialism/naturalism", as if it is somehow as equally "flawed" and "unreliable" as your "faith".
Okay, Mike Brown...attack away.
Am I the only one that finds this ironic when taken into the context of "God's eternal word"?
The longer you stay over here on a web site full of people, who think anyone like you, who is hopelessly trapped in "any" version of "any" religious cult is intellectually inadequate, and that you are not doing any favors for your cult.
You are only demonstrating the damage that they do, and how once they get control of your mind, the built in escape proof apparatus takes over, and another mind is lost.
Every time I read one of your posts I say "But for the grace of my creator there go I"
Dan
"But to give benefit of the doubt?....one last chance---do you, Mike Brown, have evidence that is objective, testable, and falsifiable, that a super-natural "being" exists, biblegod, or otherwise? "
ok, I'll play your game and assume that the only way you can know thing is by empirical evidence. Pure empirical evidence. I find this distasteful but here's goes, Nope can't do it... As I was typing up responses I discovered that most of my arguments were logical inferences from data, they were interpretations of data and logic. Pure empiricism, nope can't do it. I would have to ask you... using pure empiricism prove that George Washington existed. Not using inferences or reason, but pure empiricism. According to my little dictionary: Empirical= "verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic"
Apparentely, my little post on taking pot shots at each other made no impact what so ever. Talk about closed minded, At least Frizz was willing to talk, you guys are amazing.
Rick:
"Am I the only one that finds this ironic when taken into the context of "God's eternal word"?"
How about instead of talking about me you ask "what do you mean?" Or "I'm confused mike, how is that possible with God's word being eternal"
I guess I shouldn't have written my last post... I thought I was getting somewhere.
mike
Mike. This is a website which since 2002 has been inviting those who have left or are leaving Christianity to rant, rave, discuss, meet, etc., with other ex-Christians.
The Internet, being what it is, means there are always Christians who can't resist jumping in to evangelize.
There are many ex: -ministers, -divinity school graduates, -laymen, -missionaries, and -die-hard-fundamentalist-true-believers who comprise the regular participants on the site. In other words, we've heard all the evangelical rhetoric many times before, and many of us have even used much of that rhetoric in attempting to convert others during our years of religious delusion.
It is only natural that when someone new (like you) shows up on the site with some of the same tired old arguments, a "here we go again..." attitude rises quickly to the surface.
As the saying goes, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." -- Harry Truman.
You are fond of the term "close-minded." I wonder, Mike, what sort of evidence would you accept that would convince you that your religion is the fabrication of men, and that nothing supernatural exists? If you are thinking "none," then hopefully you understand the irony here.
Many of us have been longterm, devoted, and dedicated believers. After many years -- for some, decades -- we have left Christianity, understanding that it is just a man-made religion like any other. We challenged our beliefs and eventually changed our minds. It wasn't an easy process for most. It didn't come in a day, or a week, or a month. For me, it took six years to completely de-convert. It was no fun. When a Christian waltzes in and makes quick, ignorant judgments about EVERYONE who posts on this site, well, what do expect as a response? Kisses?
And, let me ask, why do you presuppose that we should not aggressively challenge your ideas? Surely if your ideas are grounded on reality, it will be fairly easy to defend them, regardless of the language and tone used to frame the challenges.
Mike, speaking for myself, a few years ago I finally honestly asked myself the hard questions (some of which you are being asked now on this site), and instead of just "believing no matter what anyone said," I scrutinized my religious beliefs the way I'd scrutinize any other part of my life. I allowed myself to think outside the Christian box, and dared to challenge my own dogmatic beliefs about reality.
When you are finally willing to challenge your magical mindset, you at least won't be so offended when someone else challenges you.
I am not the slightest bit offended or challenged by you or any other Christian evangelist that pokes their head in our door. I am frequently annoyed, I admit, because many like to say (as you have said) they are just here to learn, or discuss, or exchange ideas, or... But, I usually find that claim to be disingenuous. There are hundreds of testimonials on the site, hundreds of articles, some podcasts, ect., and they are all searchable using Google. But, typically, Christians who come here read one or two things, get their nickers in a twist, and start applying the latest witnessing technique they've picked up somewhere. Then they get mad when that technique doesn't work. A person sincerely interested in understanding the ex-Christian perspective would do a bit more reading before jumping in to argue and revealing annoyingly ignorant pre-suppositions.
Peace.
Most of the Jesus freaks who think they are so special, that they can come here and try and convince us that black is white, and day is night, go out in a tizzy fit, so you are just proving that there is nothing special about you!
Also most of you brilliant ones, react to my hard cold logic by ignoring me, so that makes you just average also!
Around here we call it "The fingers in the ears, screaming, I don't hear you syndrome"
Dan
As always you said it a lot better than I.
Dan
Not better, just differently.
First, I didn't talk about you. I pointed out an obvious irony in your comments. I didn't require any explanation from you because what you said was already obvious to me. In this instance you do have the answer Mike, but you are so close minded that you won't even listen to yourself.
But if you want a question, then here is one for you. Why is it that god needs people like you to explain what or who he/she/it is? If god has a message/plan/path to find him/her/it then it seems to me that they would get that message across pretty clearly to a true seeker on their own without all the different interpretations presented by other people.
And please don't insult us with the "you didn't try hard enough" answer.
Here we go.....
Mike Brown: ok, I'll play your game and assume that the only way you can know (any-)thing is by empirical evidence. Pure empirical evidence. I find this distasteful but...
I find the propagation of base-less superstitious "beliefs" as universal "truth" equally "distasteful". Especially, the "conditions" set forth for NOT believing.....which, ironically, that seems more like a "game" to me. Nonetheless, I guess we're even as far as opinions go.
Speaking of---is the fact that you find "naturalism" less then "tasteful" a great and valid reason to disbelieve it's limitations?
Okay then, here ya go---I find the "idea" EXTREMELY "distasteful" that some of my family and friends will die in my lifetime. Yup, I find the "idea" that I'll never see them again very unsettling.
SO???? Then, what?....does that mean that just because those "ideas" don't "sit well" with me, that I should accept the revelation of 2000 yr-old Bronze-aged book that says(provided they "believed" a certain way) that upon physical death their respective "personalities" will magically float out of their bodies into the clouds somewhere?...and it's in this magical mystical "supernatural" abode in the sky that they'll be waiting for me when I die? Really?... I should believe such a thing?....even though it contradicts science; even though there's not one single shred of evidence that the physical body survives death? I should believe it, Mike Brown?.... because it's more "tasteful"? I should believe it because a book says, "you'd better believe it!...or ELSE!" ??? Please elaborate for my benefit.
Mike Brown continues: ...here's goes, Nope can't do it... As I was typing up responses I discovered that most of my arguments were logical inferences from data, they were interpretations of data and logic. Pure empiricism, nope can't do it.
Thanks, finally, for your honesty. At least now we can examine the alternatives you have, if any.
Mike Brown: I would have to ask you... using pure empiricism prove that George Washington existed. Not using inferences or reason, but pure empiricism. According to my little dictionary: Empirical= "verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic"
Nope, 'can't do it. But here are some interesting facts as to why I think your analogy---one that Christians have employed here a bazillion times, BTW---fails:
First, to the best of my knowledge, there are no websites that are currently disputing the existance of "George Washington". Why? Could it be because the evidence that we do have is convincing enough to be widely accepted as "fact"? I think so.
Secondly, the evidence that we do have for George Washinton's existance isn't being offered conditionally. You are free to dismiss it, with zero repercussions. Incidentally, Mike Brown---do you believe George Washington threw a silver dollar across the mile-wide Potomac river?....or do your think that that was an embellishment to exaggerate his physical strength? If you doubt that he did such a "nature-defying" thing, then on what grounds?(again, for my benefit)
Thirdly, you can go down to your local library and find a plethora of information on the life of George Washington(again, not offered conditionally), which, this is inclusive of biographical literature written by people IN HIS LIFE-TIME. There is even some auto-biographical literature available...i.e..written by the man, himself.
Web' Dave said: Surely if your ideas are grounded on reality, it will be fairly easy to defend them, regardless of the language and tone used to frame the challenges.
Straight up.
In your comments you mention that you love history and philosophy. To be honest,I'm a no-frills, cut-to-the-chase type of person who isn't really interested in engaging in philosophical discussions, arguments over semantics (what do modernism, post-modernism, naturalism, materialism, etc. really mean), or arguments over what hidden meaning may be in a Bible verse. But, if that's your bag, go for it. It's not a problem to me.
Since Christians make the claim that the Bible is the Word of God, and base their "faith" on their interpretations of his Word, to me any faith on my part would have to hinge on my acceptance of this premise.
A thorough reading of the Bible by any objective, reasonable and rational person, in my opinion, has to lead to the conclusion that any intelligence capable of creating such a vast and complex universe as we live in could not possibly be the the barbaric, bloodthirsty, tyrannical "God" that the Bible portrays.
The fact that the God of the Bible condones slavery; views women as property and OKs their use as sex slaves; commands the slaughter of thousands of innocent men, women and children; and demands animal and human sacrifice to appease his anger (Yes, human sacrifice: wasn't Jesus thoroughly human?); to name just a few of the barbaric displays of inhumanity portrayed in the Bible, has led me to reject Christianity. And I won't even go into my experiences or the atrocities perpetrated by the Christian church down through the ages.
Since I am who I am, I have no interest in philosophical discussions about what, if any, god exists. To me, it's sufficient that I don't believe the Bible god exists, and I intend to live what's left of my life by using enlightened self-interest (not selfishness) as a guide to determining what is good and moral.
Of course I think you're wrong, but just as I have the right to think as I do, you also have the right to think as you do.
I know that when you're passionate about something it's hard to reign in your enthusiasm, and this can come across sometimes as being pushy. Just consider what the webmaster said in his previous comment. This may help you to understand how people in this community feel and make it easier for you to get people to engage you in discussion.
Peace.
I wrote this in a testimonial but I don't think I did it right so it didn't get published. I'm in seminary studying, ect. In school we are dealing with difficult things post modernism is one of those things. The church is going to have to figgure out how to address this new philosophy because the united states is becomming more and more post modern.
It's difficult to know as things change and shift what is true christianity and what is false christianity or not false but rather contextually dependent christianity. Much of the faith in america is really AMERICAN christianity rather than american CHRISTIANITY. If you know what I mean. Trying to figgure out what changes and what doesn't is difficult.
Well I was just curious how people other than people like me were handling this paradigm shift. I was curious: How are athiests handeling the idea that objective truth no long exists as a functional reality. (I know some here are not athiest some people just think christianity is bulls#$(t.) Well the overwhelming majority of people I've spoken with here are not just people who have rejected christianity but actaully proposing materialism as objectively true.
To be honest I wasn't prepared for this, when I began challengening the "objective reality" of materialism I expected SOME of you to jump in and at least defend that idea. To my complete and utter amazement I've discovered an overwhelming number of you actally are clinging to the notion that objective reality is not only knowable but that reason will acquire it for you.
What I've been trying to do... is allow the conversations to develop naturally, but instead of discussing these idea, which do not prove or disprove christianity, you have all demanded that I prove God exists in some kind of ultimate way. The complete inability of others to do this to your satisfaction shouldn't come as a surprise to you. This actually displays the point: truth isn't accessed with reason alone.
What is really interesting is that as "intelligent" and "reasonable" people not only havn't you accepted that I'm not defending or trying to prove God, you've, refused to even examine the evidence I have put forward or other who have come before me. Boomslang have you even googled Wittgenstein, or Foucault, Rorty, Kuhn, any of you? I'm tired of trying to "defend God" He doens't need my defense.
What I really wanted to do was see how your handling this paradigm shift. This you have shown me with glaring success. You're not handeling it at all. Now I'm sure there are those on this site who HAVE struggled with this new perspective (that is not a christian perspective by the way).
If any of you had really understood this new paradigm... you have have turned my own arguments against me... because they could be... and by "intelligent" people they ARE being used against us... and the church is struggling to find a way through it.
As I posted earlier, all of you are just burying your heads in the sand pretending that this shift is not happening. Well at the beginning of this post Dano complained that reason is taking a back seat... he's right because the shift is real. This is why christianity is going to live on, we are struggling with this shift in understanding and you all don't understanding that it's happening. Good luck living past 2020.
There are plenty of comments there. You might want to shift to that thread.
CLICK HERE
If Christians can't find their way ahead, or the theologians in higher education, why should anyone care here? I mean, are we now considering the possibility of creating a custom built Christianity that caters to the whims of society by popular vote? If so, where does that line get drawn, obviously if the majority suggested that Jesus as a character should be voted out of the bible as a real divine being, then it would no longer be Christianity, per se.
As well, you appear to be searching to see what others have for belief systems that perhaps may offer what Christianity doesn't. The materialism argument and there being no objective truth, only challenges in order to see how a person comes to their belief.
All belief(s) are based on "knowledge", it's just a matter of "how" one uses or validates the knowledge they hold to make certain statements of belief.
You challenge that very foundation, and are trying to use objectivity as the standard to parse out differences. Since all beliefs are based on knowledge, its a matter of assigning that knowledge to its source, if held personally, it's a subjectively held belief/truth.
However, a more objective belief, would be one in which the mentally held belief, is validated with the external reality, or the materialistic reality in which we live. Now, if one wants to get involved in quantum mechanics, etc., in order to suggest that there are those things we can't know; then Wittgenstein has a great quote, "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus: Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"
And, so, if a theist can not, or any other belief system in my "personal" opinion, can not speak intelligently about their beliefs, and at least how they arrived at the knowledge they hold in order to suggest a belief, they should just be humbly silent on the topic.
If you want to discuss post modernism, I want "you" to give a few thoughts on the topic, and specifically hone in on a part of the philosophy, it's major followers, and the areas you "find" to be more cogent than lets, say materialism. I for one, truly understand my position, based on knowledge acquisition, belief building, and the cognitive processes in between the stages of a persons' "normal" development.
If you don't want to do the homework and see what others have to say about your conclusions, then... I for one, refuse to do your homework for you. If you have done your homework, then, my apologies, ask direct and specific questions, that are in a context that can be understood without semantic fallacy.
Before going too far, do you believe there is "more" than one reality? Do you define objectivity to be the relation of one's mentally held knowledge and how that knowledge approaches the Truth of the external environment?
How many who have been reading "Mike Brown" believe that he reads very much of what anybody else says?
How many believe that he just totally ignores most of what anybody else says and then continues on with his totally irrelevant "Post modernism" crap, just to piss us off?
How many have seen this same behavior from every self styled Christian who ever hung around here for any length of time?
Dan
Understandable. Presenting tired arguments can make one tired. On the second part, if you "know" what "God", or any other being, "needs", or does not "need", then by implication, you are claiming that you've somehow aquired "knowledge" about said "being" on a personal level...i.e..."materially". Yet, since your arrival here, you've been chompin' at the bit to throw materialism under the bus, suggesting that it is unreliable/unreasonable for obtaining "truth".
Here is just one such statement alluding to that:
Mike Brown: Well the overwhelming majority of people I've spoken with here are not just people who have rejected christianity but actaully proposing materialism as objectively true. [bold added]
Mike Brown continues on with the following statements:
truth isn't accessed with reason alone.
and...
all of you are just burying your heads in the sand pretending that this shift is not happening.
and...
This is why christianity is going to live on, we are struggling with this shift in understanding and you all don't understanding that it's happening
Dave 8 covered most everything in his post(great post, as always, BTW), yet, even so, I'll try to ask one more time.
Mike Brown, y'there?.... once and for all, please answer the following:
1) Do you KNOW that God exists, empirically/materially?
(If "yes", present your evidence at this time. If "no", go to question "2")
2) Then do you even know if God exists at all?
(If "yes", tell us how you've aquired this "knowledge"; *how you "know" it is reliable, and how this philosophy/methodology for aquiring knowledge only makes Christianity a "truth", and not any other religion a truth. If you answer "no", and you believe purely on "faith"?...have a nice day)
* Please notice that when I asked how you know that your specific methodology/philosophy is reliable, that I DID NOT ask how materialism/naturalism is "NOT reliable". Am I clear on this? In other words, please don't come back and bombard us with your "paradigm shifts"; your "postmodernism" speeches; your anti-materialism rants, or anything else that doesn't pertain to question "2". Thanks.
I vote that he is reading a large majority of them...:)
"with his totally irrelevant "Post modernism" crap, just to piss us off?"
Ok dano let me try and make this as simple as you can get it... This "perspective" is being proposed by many people not just me. If you contend that materialism is true... than you should be dealing with ALL of reality not just the parts that your specific methodology allows you to deal with successfully. your rants and raves about church this, christ that, bible this, bible that are frustrating because you will only speak with those who agree with you, (in methodology) That's like saying I'll only play with you if you play the game I want to play, for an older guys isn't that a little child like?
Boomslang.....
"Yet, since your arrival here, you've been chompin' at the bit to throw materialism under the bus, suggesting that it is unreliable/unreasonable for obtaining "truth"."
and yet you have repeatedly failed to acknowledge that I'm even asking anything significant. How can you agree with Dave8 if what we are talking about isn't significant? If you want you could think of me as an opposite of you... You wont' acknowledge I'm even saying anything significant so why should I grace you with a response? As has been so often pointed out this isn't a site for materialist but for those who are fed up with christianity.
Dave8: Interesting post you obviously know what you talking about i'll dedicate a whole one to you.
Just to take the politics out of this, because two people agree on a topic doesn't need to make it "significant" to secondary, tertiary, etc., parties. BoomSLANG referred the comment towards me (thanks boomSLANG, and I enjoyed you post as well :-)
Now, can we get responses to our questions, and focus on the matters at hand, that seem to be where the significance resides.
"If Christians can't find thei