Interesting premise. I wonder though, what is the difference between divorce and other sorts of loss that lead people to question church teaching? I know a man who left the church after his wife died of cancer, despite all of the "praying believing" and "claiming the victory" and laying on of hands. For myself, the brutality of combat in a chaotic country had something to do with the questions, as did various other encounters with gross injustice.

I have no doubt that the trauma of divorce is one of those touchstone moments in many lives, but it seems your documentary will need to either liken that trauma to others, or somehow serve to distinguish it.

While I do agree that Christians do treat people in the way you describe, it is usually something more that leads people to leave Christianity.

I received similar treatment from Christians, though not because of divorce. I was single at that time. I did leave the church, but it was 15 years before I left Christianity. I left when I began to really search for answers. I left when I decided that I needed to make a strong committment to it, because I found out, through my research, that it wasn't what I had been taught that it was. And I found out that it completely went against what I really believed, and who I was. I found out that it was full of contradictions, and that almost all of it had been borrowed from previous pagan beliefs.

No person or group of people could have ever made me leave it, no matter how they treated me. It was Christianity itself that got the job done.

chris

This is an interesting idea, and I'd happily volunteer if my divorce was happening at the same time as my deconversion, or was a cause for the latter. For me, the two were separate issues, and as it happens my divorce came after my deconversion. No reverse correllation, by the way. :)

Chris says: "No person or group of people could have ever made me leave it, no matter how they treated me. It was Christianity itself that got the job done.", and I have to agree.

But I also think that the traumas and the way people treat you make it more likely that you will ask the tough questions. The churches have contradictory stances against, for example, divorce, and if you aren't going through it you might not even pay those contradictions or the bible verses they are based on much mind. But once you get hit by a problem and are treated badly, all of a sudden the contradictions are something you have to face.

I deconverted for the same reasons Chris listed. My divorce followed closely behind.

I DO NOT think you should be considering a documentary on this subject as this is only the symptom of a much more serious underlying problem. What you should focus on is why you,and others like you, arrogantly assume that you have the right to enter into a committed relationship with another and MARRY someone for ALL the wrong REASONS and that you did not LOVE!! Let's put the horse before the buggy!

Please respond! I want to hear your cheap and lame excuses for this heinous act!

(yeah, yeah........ I have some issues!)

Noell

What most people assume when they are getting married is that things will be blissful. And even if they do see potential issues, they tend to think they can work through them. Hope is eternal on the wedding day.

So is stupidity...

I was 18 and had a knocked up girlfriend. My family (especially my thrice married religious father) insisted that the only thing to do was marry. No one ever told me I had options.

So I did - and it was a disaster.

Reality happens. Divorce happens. Good marriages also happen (I am in one now).

I say that she does the documentary and you stop being an a*hole :-)

M'kay?

My divorce set the ball in motion with my deconversion. Before the divorce, I dealt with god as a larger part of my church experience. God's deficiencies were easily masked by people I considered friends and family.

When they abandoned me, I was left with nothing but god - which is the same as being left with nothing but Canadian money in Mississippi...

Spoomonkey

Subjects that are personal and passionate to film makers frequently make for some of the most compelling documentaries.

I have to agree with Spoomonkey here; make the documentary and it will stand or fall on its own merits.

Good luck!

You will be as unbiased as possible?

I don't believe that for a minute.

And whats this crap about not even being in love with your husband, but marrying him for the wrong reasons?

What reasons.

You need to be more up front with people before they put themselves on the line for you.

You already sound like a piece of work.

Wow! Good idea!

While I didn't leave Christianity because of my treatment by "the church" during my divorce, it did start the ball rolling in my de-conversion process. Even though it was 1985, I remember clearly the many phone calls I got at home and at work from a couple of preachers from my ex-husband's church. They nagged me incessantly, to go back to my abusive, philandering, ex. Using that tired old argument titled "God hates divorce", they told me that I would be an adulterer and a fornicator if I ever had a relationship with any other man. I was 26 years old. I left my ex because he abused me and the kids, he also cheated on me at singles bars, took drugs, cheated on his taxes, stole money from his company, etc. But, of course, I WAS the SINNER for leaving him! How dare I take my kids away from their loving dad! When I pointed out those facts to the clergy, I was told that I should go back to him and just deal with it. The assumption was that he was the head of our little Christian home and I was to bow down to him and allow him to do whatever he wanted to me and the kids because we were his property.

When I look back on it now, I wonder why I didn't just walk away from the whole thing right then and there! I WISH I had! I didn't though. My faith was strong! But not strong enough to give my ex another shot at me! Eventually, my self education made me see how much I had been brainwashed and deceived by the church. It was not until I realized that I put my faith in fairy tales, that I was not only able to walk away with a clear conscience but with a healthy distrust of ALL organizations including the churches, government, corporations, the media, etc.

My de-conversion was an earth-shaking, epic event in my life. I had been studying ancient cultures and religions. A little VHS tape called "The Light of Egypt" by Jordan Maxwell changed my life! I will never forget the moment it all hit me! It was like I woke up from a COMA and didn't know who I was, but that didn't matter because I was so happy to have woken up! I don't even want to be that old person anymore! That old person was a slave to a prison religion! I am FREE! I am more creative now! I am also more honest with myself and everyone else, and I am WAY more compassionate and loving toward my fellow earth creatures! I became a vegetarian because I didn't want to be a part of the factory farming horrors, not because some church pushed me into it but because I care about other creatures. I appreciate my life more and stop to kiss my kids and tell them how much I love them (not how much their mythical, imaginary friend loves them!). Life is so much better now without the pressure of having to live up to someone else's archaic standards!

My kids are happy little atheists who love their pets and their garden and their family! My own regret is that I didn't wake up sooner!

Kids raised as athesits, eh?

Yep, you are still a fundie.

Steinmaster wrote: "Kids raised as athesits, eh? Yep, you are still a fundie."

WTF?

No one is born with a belief in a god. We are all born atheists and remain so until a belief (usually the parents') is imposed upon us.

Are you suggesting that parents who are atheists should raise their children to believe in something that the parents find false or else the parents are fundies?

Am I missing your point entirely? Or do you even have one?

Don't sweat it, Thackerie....this is just one more instance where a Christian cannot substantiate their beliefs, so in turn, they resort to trying to break down Atheism by equating it to the principles of Theism..i.e..Christianity is a faith, so "Atheism is a faith"; Christianity is a religion, so "Atheism is a religion"; Christians who brainwash their children are fundies, so of course, "any person who teaches their children to think for themselves is a fundie", as well.

In other words, if Atheism is presumably lacking because it is equally rested upon flimsy ideas such as "faith", and promoted by "fundies", at the end of the day, it does nothing to help Theism.

I think Stainmaster needs to work on a better argument, huh?

Spoomonkey

So you were 18 and you knocked up your girlfriend! Did you know that having sex causes babies? Were there contraceptives available at the time? Did your parent(s) teach you that this was wrong? Did your girlfriend know better? Don’t tell me, it wasn’t your fault.

Then, your three time divorced father, who is religious, tells you that you have to get married! Hmm, let’s see, an 18 year old who is having unprotected sex and who probably knows better is now going to start respecting his fathers insistence? You did not know you had options? Are you joking here?

Let’s recap,18 year old without moral direction, knocked up a girl without morals or parental influence, religious father.............an assumption that getting married, under these circumstances, will be blissful and issues can be worked through, eternal hope on the wedding day................ and this marriage ends in disaster? No way!

This is were a hard hitting documentary should be!

How many times did you get married after this first disaster and before the “good” one your in now?

Do you love your current wife? Would you still love her if she came home, announced that she is leaving you and that she never really loved you and that she married you for all the wrong reasons?

What most people assume when they find God and religion is that things will be blissful. And even if they do see potential issues, they tend to think they can work through them. Hope is eternal when worshiping the creator and following a religion blindly.

So is stupidity...

Reality happens. God and religion happens. Good people worship God.

I say that you leave Christians alone and you stop being an a*hole :-)

M'kay?

Noell wrote:

So you were 18 and you knocked up your girlfriend! Did you know that having sex causes babies? Were there contraceptives available at the time? Did your parent(s) teach you that this was wrong? Did your girlfriend know better? Don’t tell me, it wasn’t your fault.

I responded:

Of course I wouldn't say it wasn't my fault. Of course it was. My penis, my choice...

I am quite willing to admit and accept my MISTAKE. Yep - mistake.

They happen.

Are you suggesting that a person who makes a mistake should live with that mistake, even if there are options that are better for everyone involved?

If so, you are a moron.

Noell wrote:

Then, your three time divorced father, who is religious, tells you that you have to get married! Hmm, let’s see, an 18 year old who is having unprotected sex and who probably knows better is now going to start respecting his fathers insistence? You did not know you had options? Are you joking here?

I responded:

I thought one of the things Christians did was honor their parents. And I know - without a fraction of a doubt - that 18-year-old kids who are scared out of their fucking mind sometimes turn to their parents for guidance.

Are you saying that a person who makes one mistake can't possibly have the moral fortitude to listen to his father?

Who's kidding who here?

Noell further wrote:

Let’s recap,18 year old without moral direction, knocked up a girl without morals or parental influence, religious father.............an assumption that getting married, under these circumstances, will be blissful and issues can be worked through, eternal hope on the wedding day................ and this marriage ends in disaster? No way!

I respond:

In the spirit of recap...

An idiot who has no sense of what people do - or no ability to be honest about stressful situations, makes ridiculous an unfounded assumptions about a couple of 18-year-olds who do something that millions of 18-year-olds do all the time - have sex, in a fit of passion that they think might be love, but is undoubtedly hormonal rage.

She then questions the moral direction (I actually had quite a bit of moral influence - and as a former youth pastor in an SBC church am well aware of how incredibly valuable "Christian morals" can be in the life of teens... Your church teens are getting it on just as much as any other teen) and the parental influence (again, as a former youth pastor, I can tell you that most Christian parents, if they are involved - which they often aren't - are typically only interested in controlling their children's choices) of that young couple.

Nice set of judgments their, chick.

She then goes ahead and mocks the experience that many couples have, in the typical compassionate way that Christians have... Blissfully unaware that, based on Barna surveys, Protestant Christians have a higher divorce rate than atheists or agnostics...

And Christian marriages are in a mess? No way!

(Maybe it is because the church is full of such brilliant thinkers as Noell ;-)

Noell wrote:

This is were a hard hitting documentary should be!

I agree that a documentary about the church's failure in the area of marriage would make an excellent documentary! It has always fascinated me that people who claim to be the people of god - to actually have the creator of man indwelling - can't seem to do marriage better than the heathens...

I wonder why? It'd make a great documentary...

But - in the mean time, I think the documentary that has been proposed - about the church's inability to deal compassionately with people in their most difficult of times (an inability that you obviously portray so readily) - would be a great addition to the conversation.

Noell wrote:

How many times did you get married after this first disaster and before the “good” one your in now?

I responded:

Not that it is any of your business, but I am now married for the second time. That's right... Just twice...

And you should meet my wife - gorgeous, talented, open-minded, strong, courageous and she can tie a cherry stem in a knot with her tongue.

How about you? How is your track record? What is the cause of your issues? Why are you such a bitch about this?

Noell asked:

Do you love your current wife? Would you still love her if she came home, announced that she is leaving you and that she never really loved you and that she married you for all the wrong reasons?

I would be devastated. Of course, that is a rather stupid question, don't you think? I am not sure how it relates to the issue.

Divorce is painful - and when I was going through mine, no one was happy about it. But it happens - and it has worked out to be the best thing for everyone. But you wouldn't be able to see such a thing, would you?

Noell pontificates:

What most people assume when they find God and religion is that things will be blissful. And even if they do see potential issues, they tend to think they can work through them. Hope is eternal when worshiping the creator and following a religion blindly.

So is stupidity...

We certainly agree with the fact that stupidity is eternal in worship!

Good call there...

But you have no idea what people hope when they come to god... Based on the number of stupid things you have said above, I couldn't for a moment assume that you know what the hell you are talking about.

Noell further states, for no good reason:

Reality happens. God and religion happens. Good people worship God.

Spoomonkey says:

And stupidity is eternal... You said so yourself ;-)

Noell finishes:

I say that you leave Christians alone and you stop being an a*hole :-)

M'kay?

Spoomonkey responds, ignoring her inability to think of anything unique to say:

I've not bothered Christians. Not once. It is people like you who make Christians look like the hateful, unsympathetic a*holes that we have all come to know and love.

Spoomonkey

Actually, I think this documentary could be quite prophetic (sorry for the religious term, all). There is much hypocrisy in the church on this issue and the more exposure, the better.
I have a personal relationship with a number of folks whose spouses did all sorts of horrible things to them. They leave for safety reasons and a church blames the spouse who leaves and upholds the spouse who stays, even if that person is an abuser.
Also, I have seen people divorce their spouse for the wrong reason, the church tries to intervene, said person leaves, joins another church, and becomes a "leader." This stuff makes me want to throw up.
I am horrified by such mistreatment and think that it is about time that the churches face up to this sort of condoned hypocrisy.
I do want to add, to be fair, that there are some churches that reach out to divorced folks and give them much support.
I think sites such as this, along with folks like you who want to do a documentary, can throw light on such unjust situations.
By the way, my gem hunt went great. I found a 1 carat golden beryl and a boatload of aquamarines. These should just cover the cost of the weekend.
Dee

Hi Dee,

Straight up---are you a Christian? Please, just a simple "yes", or "no", will do.

boom'

Hi Boomslang
You are the first person who has asked me directly. Simply...yes. However, before categorizing me, please read my exchanges with Dave and others. In particular, read my response to Heathenslayer.

I am not here to convince anyone to be a Christian. Frankly, the majority of folks here are far more versed in the Bible, apologetics and church history than most Christians I know. What an indictment on my fellow followers, huh? What would I tell you that you don't already know?

It is I who has something to learn.I am frankly dismayed by the experiences of those who have written their testimonials and I have spent many long hours thinking, struggling, discussing, and, I'm afraid to say it, but, since you are all so transparent, I shall...yes, praying about what has been said. (Darn...run on sentence).

The anger, sadness and disgust many here feel is understandable. I have never heard these things expressed in this way before. Many who have these feelings just leave the churches and the church is not caring enough to find out why folks have left.I live in the South and "everyone" here is "Southern Baptist." If not, they just keep quiet about it.

Well, I, for one, want to understand. I am here to listen and just ask a few questions. I promise I am not here to prosyletize. I don't blame you if you don't believe me. I am the one who is intruding and wouldn't blame you at all if you refused to post my questions or decided to delete me off your site. I promise I wouldn't come back under an alias as I have noted other unwelcome folks have done. They are wrong to have done so.

I'm sure the majority of you think that I am, in the words of one on this site, a "dumbass." However, it has been my intention ( I know you think me naive) to be an educated and empathetic "dumbass."

Finally, I am not here to judge. Frankly, you all have the right to judge me. I am furious at the supposed Christians who post vile things and have termed them "Jerks for Jesus." I know most of you believe that we are one and the same but I hold out hope that, if you met me, you might even like me in spite of my obvious inadequacies and pain in the*** stubborn faith.

So, I will shut up if you wish but I will miss asking questions of some of the brightest people I have been able to have discussions with (shoot, I ended with a dangling paticiple).
Dee
(waving a white flag)

Thanks, Dee, for being forthright in your reply, even though I hardly see your "coming out" as any astonishing disclosure. = /

Personally, I like to get all the cards on table first, as opposed to pussy-foot around, because I feel it facilitates conversation and economizes everyone's time, mainly mine.

Okay, right to it---firstly, you say that you "want to understand".....right, right, this is a common theme in your posts. Okay, whAT IS it that you don't understand and/or need to understand about people who have objectively examined Christianity, and concluded it anything but objective/universal "†ruth™
"?

Secondly, I'd ask what denomination/sect you are, but intuition, in conjunction with the content of your posts tells me that, like many liberal Christians, you have your own "unique" interpretation of scripture that suits your own emotional needs(imagine that).

Notwithstanding, I wonder---do you believe Jesus' existance was limited to a mortal being?..or do you believe in the legendary miracle-working 100% mortal man/100% Divine ghost spiel?....y' know, the "whole enchilada"? If the latter, can you tell me where "Jesus" is right this second and what he's doing? Thanks in advance.

boom'

PS: Anyone's invited to comment.

Well as we all know, Jesus is currently turning water into wine, a huge demand in Heaven and performing miracles for entertainment.

Hi Boom
I really didn't mean to waste your time. Frankly, it was other "Christians" that caused me to be reticent. I hated what many had to say to the folks on this site. They never took the time to understand that most of you are former Christians and thinking ones, at that. Many seemed to think that somehow your IQs must be south of 80 whereas they were indicting their own IQs. Even some of the nicer ones seemed to be very simplistic in their approach and ran away when you all responded strongly. Frankly, the strong replies were warranted.

What did I want to understand? 1.Sometimes leaving a faith is purely intellectual. Other times it is emotional. I am learning that the reasons aren't always one and the same and just like people, complex.
2.As I have said in previous notes, I live in the South. Most folks claim to be Southern Baptists with a bit of Roman Catholic and Mormonism mixed in. I have observed that people leave the churches that I have been a member of and no one seems to know why. I actually called a few people I had known and asked why but they seemed reticent to say anything and gave me such answers as "Just moving on", out of town a lot", etc. I hear what the real reasons are on this site.

I bet you might be suprised to know that I am a Christian as defined by the Nicene Creed and love C.S.Lewis, Phillip Yancey,etc. Even though most folks in my city know of my persuasion, they seem to find me easy to get along with. I have just been asked to serve on a panel of a well known southern newspaper known to be liberal. I guess I am the token evangelical and conservative.

I am more than willing to discuss who I believe Jesus to be but I bet you would find it just the "same old, same old." I am not afraid to discuss my beliefs but am concerned that this site may not be the appropriate forum. The folks here are leaving the faith and many have been deeply hurt and demeaned by the churches and Christians they have known. What would you gain from such a discussion? You would probably get frustrated with me and others would think I am just another Christian trying out some new evangelistic tool.
So, what should I do?
1. Just shut up and listen?
2. Don't even listen?
3. Ask an occasional question?
4. Tell you all what I believe and get out of Dodge?

I would love to be able to ask an occasional question. But will not do so if you ask me not to. After spending much time reading on this site I respect all of you. A few of you I have even begun to like-you, Dave, tigerpaw, stronger now, and Jim Earl. However, I would understand if you don't like me or don't want me to post anymore.

Dee
(continuing to wave the white flag)

Well, back when I was a christian, I thought after his resurrection, Jesus was supposed to be interceding,(to himself?) on behalf of his followers for their sins as a (lawyer). Seems he's doing a piss poor job of it. Peace... Oh, by the way, Dee,feel free to tell us what your beliefs are and don't leave; I enjoy listening to everyone.

Dee, I didn't say you've wasted my time; my point was that it's usually a waste of time until one fully knows the other's position/world view. Many of the fundy-bots who stumble in here tilt their hand right from the get-go, by either puking up bible verses, which is ultimately dry-heaves, or by attempting to know our personal experiences with Christianity better than we, or both. Either way: bullshit. Then, Dee, there are others who poke and prod while keeping a "poker face", in an attempt to hang around longer, and when challenged, they equivocate and/or, are ambiguous. It was mainly the latter I was refering to about being a "waste of time".

Here we go....

You said: What did I want to understand? 1.Sometimes leaving a faith is purely intellectual. Other times it is emotional. I am learning that the reasons aren't always one and the same and just like people, complex.

Yes, "complex". While Christianity promotes a fairly simple "one-size-fits-all" enrollment plan, once a member, the "dues" create cognitive dissonance, guilt, fear, and shame---so naturally, since people react to those feelings uniquely, the reasons for leaving the "club" are unique to the individual. On the other hand, I bet most will agree that having to suspend logic for years on end in order to "just keep the faith!" is, yes, emotionally and intellectually draining. You see, Dee, the "surrender" isn't to a "biblegod"; the "surrender" is to give in to the fact that you cannot live a truly virtuous life in fear of punishment, or in hope of reward. To live virtuously, is to make the right choices because you're worth it. Conversely, Christianity, at fundamental level, teaches us that we're NOT worth it---that we need "external" validation..by a blood sacrifice, no less. No. I'm sorry, that spits in the face of what it means to be "me"; to be human.

2.As I have said in previous notes, I live in the South. Most folks claim to be Southern Baptists with a bit of Roman Catholic and Mormonism mixed in.

I was going to say that living in the "South" was not that relevant, but then I thought, hmmm, what if she lived in the "East"?...she might be Buddhist, or Hindu.

Dee, I have a really hard time with the notion that geographical location is a matter of "life" and "death"; that Yahweh had a perfect plan to drown each and every person, but such a half-assed plan to "save" each and every person. Again, the cognitive dissonance---yet, I have no doubt that you can explain it "satisfactorily", just like I used to be able to.

Dee: I bet you might be suprised to know that I am a Christian as defined by the Nicene Creed and love C.S.Lewis, Phillip Yancey,etc. Even though most folks in my city know of my persuasion, they seem to find me easy to get along with.

Yes, I'm sure that you are persuasive to your peers. Yet, I must say that anyone who "defines" themself by another human being is self-sacrificing(as I mentioned a view paragraphs up). I find it sad; I also find it odd that the supposed "Word of God" needs companion booklets to facilitate it's intended end.

Dee: I am more than willing to discuss who I believe Jesus to be but I bet you would find it just the "same old, same old." I am not afraid to discuss my beliefs but am concerned that this site may not be the appropriate forum.

Discuss "beliefs"? How utterly useless. Speaking for myself, "revelation" will not phase me in the least; anecdotal evidence: ditto. I want empirical, tangible, evidence, Dee. Your "Jesus" was making guest appearances like Ronald McDonald is today, only a few dozen generations ago--to the "500"? to the "Twelve"?--it didn't "hurt their faith", did it? Furthermore, "Jesus" is allegedly close by, right? What's the big deal?

Dee: So, what should I do?
1. Just shut up and listen?
2. Don't even listen?
3. Ask an occasional question?
4. Tell you all what I believe and get out of Dodge?

Let's not equivocate. Ultimately, 1, 2, 3, 4 aside---as believer, you either believe that "Christ" is ultimately at fault for where we're at, or WE are, correct? It's implicit that it's the latter, Dee, so that is at least one potential problem with you being here. Another, is that the very book that solidifies your "faith", explicitly condones the killing of non-believers. Telling us what you "believe" is only to attempt to rationalize the above mentioned, is it not?

Dee: The folks here are leaving the faith and many have been deeply hurt and demeaned by the churches and Christians they have known.

Please, don't play that card, Dee---sob stories about "the church" and the "people" in the church won't get your BELIEF, itself, off the hook.

I suppose, chew on that a while--take all the time you need.

boom'

Dee, I have a question.

Question: If God and Truth are synonymous, then one who suggests they know God, in fact, suggests they know Truth; what is Truth?

Dee, or not,

Perhaps my honesty was too brutal, nonetheless, I stand by every key point I made, which, a condensed review would be:

1) A belief, is a belief, is a belief, add nauseum. If one proclaims the Christian "belief" as "Truth", then fine, but to hang around and "discuss" why one believes, yet, without proffering objective/Universal evidence to support said belief, is pointless, especially if the believer fails to understand what the "burden of proof" means. Additionally, this is an EX-christian website, so let's be honest, unless one is considering deconversion, the only other viable reason for a Christian to chime in here is to tell us we're "wrong", whether it be explicitly, or implicitly. That said, the risk of even the most diplomatic of believers coming across patronizing and/or condescending, is high. 'Sorry folks, but that's just the way it works out.

2) To sacrifice one's self for any religious belief, person, or deity is to jab a knife into the heart of what it means to be human. We are perfectly imperfect natural beings. "Nature", by law, is imperfect, so to try and impose a permanent sense of "Divinity" or perfection on one's self is sheer insanity. Not to mention that the Christian biblegod, as described in the bible, doesn't come close to anything resembling "perfection".

3) True virtuous living cannot be obtained with hope of reward, or fear of punishment.

Dee,
You don't have to worry about hurting anyone's feeling here. In the several years that I have been reading and posting on this site, I don't think I have ever seen one ex-Christian, say to one of the Christians who come here to witness to us :"You're just being mean. I'm leaving," but I have seen a lot of them (The Christians), from the intellectually challenged, to geniuses roll up their tents, and disappear after getting frustrated with trying to get us to give up logic, and reasonableness, and skepticism, for circular reasoning, and blind faith.

Their last post usually sounds something like this. "You will never persuade me to give up my religion. My relationship with Jesus is precious to me, I don't know what you all are so angry about. Maybe you should try Jesus. I will be praying for you. Goodby!"

... And that's usually after they have proven beyond any doubt that they know very little about their religion, and have never read anything that Challenges it.

You see Dee, we don't have anything to prove. We just say that we don't believe in magic. Case closed!

When someone shows us some magic that is verifiable, repeatable, testable, and accepted by the scientific community as real magic, then most of us will reevaluate our positions.
Dan, Agnostic

Hi Boom and Dave 8

I have been dealing with trying to get rebates on my cell phones. I have discovered the location of hell-the Alltell rebate center.
Boom, I do not feel you were too harsh. In fact I find your thoughts quite refreshing. If you all have been watching the presidential debates, you will see a whole group of folks who say what they don't mean in order to manipulate the masses to vote for them. Do you remember Mad magazine? I loved the Shadows cartoons. The person was saying and doing one thing-his shadow was doing what he really meant to say or do.

I agree with you in the first posting that I should not play the emotional card as I look at reasons why people leave the faith. You are correct. It boils down, finally, to belief or unbelief. However, sometimes the path is long to reach the end point. I understand the start of the path and the end but I find the middle part is often skipped. CS Lewis discussed his life in Suprised by Joy. His path was quite long. I found the stuff in the middle fascinating. That is what I am learning here.

You say that I shouldn't hang around and discuss things without proferring objective evidence for my beliefs. You say that I have only two options for being here-deconversion or to tell you all that you are wrong.However, I see a third option.That is to learn exactly what you think, the language you use to describe your thoughts, etc. For example, in your last post you bring up two terms I had never seen before."perfect imperfect natural beings" and the word "biblegod". One helps me to understand what you might think about the character of man. The other is a term , I suppose, to distinguish between the god of the Bible and other gods of other faiths. Actually, I found that term quite descriptive and intend to use it.

I do feel bad that you think that I might be patronizing. This is the problem with such a forum. I wish you could hear me speak and see my face. You might not think that of me then. Or, then again, you might. I would have to change my way of communicating, in any case.

Dave 8 brought up the issue of God being truth. If I understand correctly, he says that if I claim I know God, I then would know truth according to my belief system. I do believe in truth and something that is true means that it is true for all persons in that exact same circumstance. I love the ocean. One can smell the salt in the air. So, I would say the ocean smells salty. But...someone who is without a sense of smell wouldn't smell it. Also, it isn't the ocean that smells salty, it is the wind that carries the scent from the ocean to my nose. Truth is very hard to define. There is truth out there that we have yet to discover. Hmmm-that sounded rather X Files like.
To add to the burden, there is a question of what does it mean to know God. This is the stuff of many books, theologians, philosophers, etc. However, for this forum, God does not exist so he cannot be known.

Finally, you define virtuous living as one that is lived without the fear of punishment or the expectation of reward. I have a question similar to Dave's. What is virtue? Can it be defined in a way that all can agree at least in a broad perspective.? I have neither the fear nor the expectation but this is not really about me. Can I ask a question? How do we train our children to do right? Don't we have rewards and punishments? At some point do the lessons sink in and we become altruistic? How do we define virtuous living? Who would you say is virtuous man? Don't we have rewards and punishments in society to encourage virtuous behavior? For example, the IRS lets us take deductions for charitable endeavors. Would you say that I was not virtuous if I spent an inordinate amount of time caring and supporting young teenagers who are at risk and then deducted the school supplies I give them in the course of our relationship? You see, I do work with said kids as a volunteer. I do it because I love the kids. It's nice to write off the supplies, but I would still give them said supplies even without the deduction. Should I refuse to write off these supplies to be more virtuous? Please don't misunderstand. I am not tooting my horn. I am trying to understand what you mean by virtuous.

In the end, I am grateful that you are still willing to communicate with me even thought I have been "outed." I enjoy these conversations enormously and have learned much. Thank you.
Dee

I guarranty that you'll believe it someday Dano. Aren't you in your golden years? If so, you'll believe it soon enough.

It's sad to have to speak so bluntly about something as beautiful as God's love but the fact remains, that you're all rejecting it. He'll even take you back on your death beds, if you're so blessed to go that slowly.

Our family will continue to pray for such apostasies.

Well, and in chimes another hell-breathing brother or sister of Dee's.

Sorry Dee, you can't say all of them aren't "True Christians™" and therefore your eternal bedmates.

Imagine, if you will, that all the leaders of Christianity were ordered together today, to unify Christianity. Which version do you think would be proclaimed "Orthodox?" If the decision was to be made in the same way it was made in the fourth century, it'd be by majority vote. How do you like the title "Heretic," Dee?

Did you hear that, Dee?...a Christian confrere of yours is confident enough in his/her "belief" that they "guarranty" that we'll "believe soon enough". Of course, that means "HELL", right?..... Right Dee? Hell?....burn in THE LAKE OF FIRE, right? No, Dee, not the All-tell rebate center "hell", but the infamous literal place called "hell", as promised by your ALL-loving biblegod. 'Ring any bells? DiNg DoNg?

You said: You are correct. It boils down, finally, to belief or unbelief.

No, that's NOT what I said. See? Even with the anonymous f%cktard aside, we're off to a bad start. I said, "a belief, is a belief, is a belief". I did NOT say anything about "belief" vs "non-belief"; I did NOT compare the two. Our non-belief in Allah, meaning, yours and mine, is essentially default; it's the same lack of credible evidence that makes us non-believers in Allah, and a bazillion other deities, while we're at it. We don't need to prove the "belief" in those other gods false, do we? No. Again, default. So no, Dee, "Truth" doesn't "boil down" to proving that "non-belief" is "true"; it boils down to presenting evidence that the positive "belief" means "Truth". Of course, you haven't scratch the surface yet; we're just discussing, and you know that.

You continue: However, sometimes the path is long to reach the end point. I understand the start of the path and the end but I find the middle part is often skipped. CS Lewis discussed his life in Suprised by Joy. His path was quite long. I found the stuff in the middle fascinating. That is what I am learning here.

Splendid. Shall I find you a companion book that supports Buddhism? There's gaggles of them, I'm sure of it. Will it make a bit of difference, Dee? I told you; I unequivocately do NOT accept "revelation" on the matter of life's greatest questions. Sure, I might just run out and buy a "how to" manual to determine if I need new shocks, and I if so, I accept the "revelation" unconditionally, as it is presented to me unconditionally. If I accept it and it's wrong? I'm out some bucks. Wow. 'You readin' me on this?

As for the "middle" of the journey? What? What's to be fascinated by? We got tired of mumbling to our ceiling fans. You find that fascinating? We got tired of trying to reconcile that our alleged creator would destroy us for being skeptical of his existance, yet, we are taught to be skeptical of all "false gods". Those are the ones that don't answer us back, right? Those "other" silly invisible ones?

Dee: You say that I shouldn't hang around and discuss things without proferring objective evidence for my beliefs. You say that I have only two options for being here-deconversion or to tell you all that you are wrong. However, I see a third option. That is to learn exactly what you think, the language you use to describe your thoughts, etc. For example, in your last post you bring up two terms I had never seen before."perfect imperfect natural beings" and the word "biblegod". One helps me to understand what you might think about the character of man. The other is a term , I suppose, to distinguish between the god of the Bible and other gods of other faiths. Actually, I found that term quite descriptive and intend to use it.

"Options" sounds like I'm giving ultimatums. I said "reasons". But yes, "perfectly" imperfect. Nature is imperfect. To strive for perfection, or for that matter, to even think that "perfect" is "good", seems contradictory. BTW, I stand by my statement that your biblegod, as portrayed in "His Word", is lightyears from "perfection".

And you like the term "biblegod", eh? I use it to be concise, but at the same time, deliberately vague; that might not work to your advantage when fellowshipping.

Dee: I do feel bad that you think that I might be patronizing. This is the problem with such a forum.

Implicitly patronizing. After all, you're "enlightened" to Truth; I am not, right? I mean, you won't deny that, will you? And what do you mean by "such a forum"? You mean, a Christian hangin' out on an EX-christian "forum"? Um, duh?

You continue: Dave 8 brought up the issue of God being truth. If I understand correctly, he says that if I claim I know God, I then would know truth according to my belief system. I do believe in truth and something that is true means that it is true for all persons in that exact same circumstance. I love the ocean. One can smell the salt in the air. So, I would say the ocean smells salty. But...someone who is without a sense of smell wouldn't smell it. Also, it isn't the ocean that smells salty, it is the wind that carries the scent from the ocean to my nose.

I hope you'll forgive me for not being impressed with your "ocean" analogy. If one cannot "smell" the ocean, they can see it; they can touch it; they can hear it, and they can taste it. So yes, in the exact same circumstance..i.e..being near the ocean, the "Truth" of it can be experienced by "all persons". You'll have to do better.

Dee: Truth is very hard to define.

Not really. Not unless we're talking beyond nature, or metaphysical. "Truth" has some kind of referent in reality.

Dee What is virtue? Can it be defined in a way that all can agree at least in a broad perspective.?

No, I don't think we can define it in a way that's mutually satisfactory, because religious people believe virtue comes from their respective gods. Doing what is right because you are worth it, independent of what external sources say, is how I define it.

Dee: I have neither the fear nor the expectation but this is not really about me.

Lol. Of course you don't have the "fear"; you accept biblegod as your "savior"; you do what you *think* is required of you, as a Christian. What's amusing, is that Shirley Phelps would tell you that you're bound for hell.

Dee: Can I ask a question? How do we train our children to do right? Don't we have rewards and punishments?

No rational adult I know expects a child to live a "virtuous" childhood. Sometimes scolding is necessary to set limits, yet, normally, the scolding matches the "offense". Sometimes rewards are given, yes, like maybe a gold star, put it's generally done to encourage self-worth--in other words, to do what's right because they're worth it.

Now, let my ask you a question: How/why do you "train" a "soul", if said "thing" is presumably eternal, and exists independently of a physical brain?? The "soul" is the self, right? Does the "soul" of a 4 yr-old child who passes, spend eternity as a " 4 yr-old child"? Can you put it in terms that make logical sense?

Dee: Would you say that I was not virtuous if I spent an inordinate amount of time caring and supporting young teenagers who are at risk and then deducted the school supplies I give them in the course of our relationship? You see, I do work with said kids as a volunteer. I do it because I love the kids.

Right, right, then you don't need "God"......'something I've been saying for quite a while---that most religious people would conduct themselves just the same without their holy handbooks.

Dee: Please don't misunderstand. I am not tooting my horn. I am trying to understand what you mean by virtuous.

See above. You figured it out yourself, or so I thought.

I enjoy these conversations enormously and have learned much. Thank you

Right, learned true virtue---doing what feels good and right, without "God". You're welcome.....'glad to help.

Dee: "Dave 8 brought up the issue of God being truth. If I understand correctly, he says that if I claim I know God, I then would know truth according to my belief system. I do believe in truth and something that is true means that it is true for all persons in that exact same circumstance."

Actually, the non-direct answers you provide, appear like an attempt to indemnify your position...

The standards for "Truth", to me at least, aren't dependent on "all" people, nor their circumstance(s). The "Truth", stands alone, regardless of people, or their circumstance. What can be said to be "True", is that which represents Absolute Reality (Bacon)/Existence (Aristotle).

Dee: "I love the ocean. One can smell the salt in the air. So, I would say the ocean smells salty. But...someone who is without a sense of smell wouldn't smell it."

Regardless, without the acceptance of an Absolute Reality/Existence as an Objectified Truth, there is no reliable backdrop by which to examine "life". To examine life, requires a common "standard of evaluation", by which one can build a belief system. The fact that one person can smell and another can't, doesn't remove the "True" state of Reality, but obviously the "standard of evaluation" must be more universal than the sense of smell to be communicated.

Dee: "Also, it isn't the ocean that smells salty, it is the wind that carries the scent from the ocean to my nose."

While it may not be possible to have the same exact experience, physically, there is the potential to have a common understanding, based on knowledge, which we pull from to describe our experiences.

How unfortunate, that I accept God as a mental concept, and not a real physical being sitting in a secondary Universe somewhere. It seems that I really can't increase my knowledge base by talking to those who have failed to build concepts on valid statements. Valid, meaning, what is said, can be assigned to a particular entity/form/object/thing.

More disconcerting, is that children are developmentally incapable of rational thought, much of their life, they live almost by mental auto-pilot, with a limited radar screen. Thus, even if there were a common base of knoweldge to be shared, there are biological limitations that prevent humanity as a whole to grow.

However, I hold out that if the more rational can ever get a common consilience of knowledge, that consequential actions, can flow through the more "bio-physical" channel, by behavior, action and example. A child, may not be able to "know", the particulars for many years, but, they'll adapt to the social standard presented them, if the conditions are right.

In time, if behavior aligns with knowledge, without conflict, a child can be said to be well-adjusted and in harmony with their understanding of Reality/environment. How unfortunate, as well, that many children are taught information, that conflicts with observed reality.

It is the equivalent of smelling the ocean breeze, and feeling guilty, because of an accepted concept associated with someone trusted. A person shouldn't feel guilty, because of Reality, the smell of the ocean is great, the ocean breeze doesn't speak of guilt to its admirer.

Obviously, the concept of "guilt", requires a closer inspection, which calls into question the "concept" of guilt, and the "source" of information one trusted.

The reason I bring this up Dee, is that you hit upon virtue a few times now, and yet, have yet to proffer a Truth. Without understanding Truth, you have no backdrop by which to place a moral habit (virtue) for inspection. Nor, do you have the ability to examine a concept, that may, or may not be illogical/irrational.

Dee: "Truth is very hard to define. There is truth out there that we have yet to discover. Hmmm-that sounded rather X Files like."

Discovery... is that possible if there is Truth? I read an article recently, that suggests humans have the ability to create "art", and conceptualize, but it's like your ocean example; some don't have the ability to "extract" the essential elements that embody a concept, so that it can be brought as an instance in material form.

I see, logic and mathematics (to some degree), as being the result of an "artists" labor, along with paintings, sculptures, etc., where the artist's conception is embodied in an instance of their work/masterpiece. I can't seem to accept the magic piece of any of it, I just see patterns and essential elements in that which I perceive.

Wonder if it's possible to extract out the essence of Reality, or, that which seems pervasive of Existence, in order to assign it as the Truth, that embodies all else? Perhaps, its something you can ponder for a while.

Dee: "To add to the burden, there is a question of what does it mean to know God. This is the stuff of many books, theologians, philosophers, etc. However, for this forum, God does not exist so he cannot be known."

Thus, for this forum, you lean towards Truth as evident, yet, not defined; and God as a separable object for this discussion.

What an intriguing way to continue to discuss virtue, morality, Truth, without having to support one's position.

Dee, let's suggest I have no idea of what I am talking about, and that I am totally irrational, if you or any other religious person is equally irrational... what does that do for the sum gain or loss in your life?

You have poked at the perimeter of Truth, from a few different angles, but to receive a single answer on any of your questions, will not likely do much to create a whole-sum (wholesome) philosophy.

Ayn Rand: "A philosophic system is an integrated view of existence. As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation -- or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self-doubt, like a ball and chain in the place where your mind's wings should have grown." [Philosophy: Who Needs It]

It appears you have a lot of flying to do, if you have not yet found something in your life by which to evaluate or measure all else. For me, the concept of God was never a key that allowed me to unlock the door of discovery; it was the lock, and no-one seemed to have teh key. By your post, Dee, I'll have to assume, that you don't have the key either.

Thanks for at least attempting to answer the question about Truth.

Anonymous wrote:
"I guarranty that you'll believe it someday Dano. Aren't you in your golden years? If so, you'll believe it soon enough.
It's sad to have to speak so bluntly about something as beautiful as God's love but the fact remains, that you're all rejecting it. He'll even take you back on your death beds, if you're so blessed to go that slowly.
Our family will continue to pray for such apostasies."

Dano replies:
Dear air head Anonymous poster who is too stupid to know how to do the screen name thing.

My God is a lot bigger, smarter, wiser, more perfect, more omniscient, more omnipotent, and more omnibenevolent than Bible God and doesn't require the worship of creatures that are still 981/2% like Chimpanzees.

He has informed me that he is a little peeved, that you are wasting the perfectly good life that he gave you by wallowing around in a religious cult, parroting a bunch of meaningless crap, and being bigoted towards people who don't think like yourself.

He also said that he wishes people would quit describing him as some fool who goes around committing genocide, and requiring sacrifices, and our constant attention.

He isn't watching you having sex, and couldn't care less whether you do it in the missionary position, or doggy style.

...And talking about sex, he wants you to know that he doesn't do it with the young, virgin, fiancee's of his own human children.

If he wanted another child other than the 6 billion he already has on Earth, he would just make one out of dirt or something!

He is perfect, and resembles in no way the idiot God described in the Bible.

WHAT IS IT ABOUT PERFECT THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!

Dan, Agnostic

Hi all and Anonymous
Well, as usual, you all have challenged me out the wahzoo! I am heading to the beach for a short weekend and will think more about what you all have said.
As for Anonymous, I would like to challenge you to think more deeply about what he is saying. Darn it Anon! You say you will pray for these folks but I don't see any kindness at all in your posting. I assume you go to church and that it is not a "Phelps" type of church. Show what you are writing to your pastor. Perhaps he can tell you how you come across. Also, stand the courage of your convictions. Tell folks you name. Anonymous is a chicken way to do this.
As to everyone else, yes I know he is one of my crowd. I have no excuse and yes, we come off poorly.
As always, thank you for your thoughtful answers and questions.
Dee

Dee,
You can be nice all you want, but I choose to love these people enough to tell them the truth.

The stark, in your face reality of this truth is that...In the end, you, them & I, will be in Heaven or Hell, forever. Period.

Do you think that being nice to people that have as good, if not better "knowledge" of God's word is going to touch their hardened hearts? Do you think that you do them a favor by holding their hand and saying "There, there, you had a good go at it but Satan was just a little too shrewd in your neighborhood."! No, I tell you, I'd rather love them much more than you Dee.

There a time and a place for diplomacy and a Web site dedicated to a completely apostasy, deserves to hear the stark truth.

God loves them so much, His heart cries out to all them with every beat! But, despite the immesurable love He has for all of us, so many reject Him until their last breadth. This is the sad truth and it deserves to be reciprocated with the stark reality of their choice.

btw, I don't have a pastor, I have a priest. Find your way to "www.fathercorapi.com" if you ever want to hear someone speak of God with complete honesty.

In Christ,
Fred

And that, Dee, is the problem with Christianity: there is absolutely no agreement on how or what constitutes proper Christian doctrine, beliefs, or behavior. Your religion, Dee, is terribly divided, and it always has been. Only by order of a Pagan Roman Emperor, trying desperately to unite his people so they would be able to fight for a dying Rome, was Christianity even temporarily united. And as I've written elsewhere, that unity was at the expense of labeling those who saw things a bit differently as heretics. The arguing during that not so nice Nicene conclave was violent. And the persecution of the losers following the little "meeting" was horrific.

That, Dee, is Christianity, and the company you'll be keeping in eternity (assuming you actually have the correct version of Christianity in your head; those who have the wrong version in their heads will fry) are people just like Fred. Have fun.

If you pay close attention, you'll see that I've said nothing but the truth. Nothing of what I wrote would be contrary to any Christian's belief.

Every Christian would agree that:
- In the end, everyone, will be in Heaven or Hell, forever.
- God loves us all immesurably.

These are the only two dotrinal points that I made in my post. I guess the problem with the webmaster and even Dee is that I didn't present it properly.

I don't recall Jesus saying be sensitive and coddle all those that reject my teachings. No, He said love them as you love yourself. For me, that's telling you the truth without watering it down into fluffy mushy feely emotions. In my opinion, that's true love.

I leave the mushy feely emotions for the others that I love, that love me in return and that also love Christ's teachings.

My wife and I commute to work and I didn't quite realize how odd it might appear to others that she get's out of the car to give me a hug each morning. Until a co-worker witnessed it from a distance and commented later that day. I'm no doubt tremendously blessed to be able to love and be loved the way I am. I wouldn't have any of these gifts if it wasn't for the grace of God. Undeserving creature that I am, He continues to love me and bless me.

I hope that all of you return to a state of grace someday, it's all that matters...

Fred

Fred blathered: "Every Christian would agree that:
- In the end, everyone, will be in Heaven or Hell, forever.
- God loves us all immesurably."

This is the love of Biblegod as expressed by Fred: "Love me or I'll torture you forever. The choice is yours, but if you spurn or ignore my immeasurable affections, I will make you regret it forever and ever and ever, you filthy scum."

Fred, if you can even attempt to think like a human instead of a religio-bot, answer the following questions. Please try to answer honestly. What terrible crimes have you committed that you believe justice would demand an eternity of horrific torture? When is torture of any kind an appropriate punishment? How can someone who loves us "immeasurably" ever deign to torture those whom HE loves, especially forever?

Think about it Fred. Your statement that God loves us, but threatens everlasting, sadistic, retributive horror, without parole or reform, is a terribly primitive view of justice. If Biblegod exists, then His ways could be reasonably supposed to not our ways. But you'd have to think that His ways would at least be a bit better and more advanced than our ways, wouldn't you?

I sincerely hope you return to a place of rational thought, ruled by reason, instead of crippled by Bronze Age myth and fable.

Oh, and one more thing, Fred. Christians don't hold the patent on married love. If you really think you're a worthless piece of shit, undeserving of a measure of "love," then I genuinely pity you. Your youth and growing up experience must have been a bitch.

See Dee? That's Christianity.

Eeegad!...you really have your work cut out for you, don't you Dee? lol. In this instance, I anxiously await your reactions to the "stark truth" that your biblegod, whose "love" for us, according to yet another one of your thoughtful confreres, is "immeasurable", but yet, biblegod banishes those who don't reciprocate that "love" to eternal hellfire. Hmmmm. Well, I don't know about you, Dee, but in my neighborhood, whether "Satan" loiters there or not, I've always understood the word "immeasurable" to mean without limits. Biblegod's "love" clearly has limits, Dee.

'Time for Christians to update their adjectives for their biblegod, so that they coincide with "His" actions.

Dee, see what honesty does. I have a few words, and hopefully you consider them with honesty.

Fred: "I'm no doubt tremendously blessed to be able to love and be loved the way I am. I wouldn't have any of these gifts if it wasn't for the grace of God. Undeserving creature that I am, He continues to love me and bless me."

Fred, believes that his love for his wife, is only possible because of his "God's" grace. In other words, he believes he has no "capacity" for compassion of love, without the help of the word "God".

Also, regarding his "undeserving creature" comment, and how a philosophy unchecked can be self-damaging, as well as damaging to society. The term "creature" is demeaning, and all that is good in his life is credited to some-other object - it's called transference.

Transference: "3. Psychoanalysis. a. the shift of emotions, esp. those experienced in childhood, from one person or object to another, esp. the transfer of feelings about a parent to an analyst. b. displacement (def. 7)."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transference

Fred is emotionally-displaced from reality. That, speaks volumes to his current life-style. When one is displaced, all their acts are not of "their" doing, it's the doing of someone/something else and they are merely a conduit... in short, Dee, Fred's love is not his to give.

Where does such a philosophic notion come from... "Original Sin".

Original sin, according to some philosophers is self-destructive. Life, if good for most people, it is something to be valued. Therefore, that which allows a person to live a good life, is one that is also moral.

Original sin claims that Fred's life is something he, and everyone else, must be "ashamed" about. That his life, and all human "life", is not the standard of "good", but the standard of "evil".

When a person with this worldview tries to live, they perceive themselves as "evil". To the degree such a person destroys their life, they are praised for doing good.

Dee, if such a belief as original sin is accepted, it causes "unearned" guilt, throughout life. A moment of pleasure, such as holding one's wife/husband in a parking lot, or making love, is ridden with "guilt", as one considers all "personal" actions to be "evil", unless God is present and working through them to condone the pleasure/happiness...

Dee, for those who can't "define" the Truth/God, "everything" done, is an act of "evil". There is "no" pleasure in life, the pleasure is in it's destruction, and the reward "death". Morality, therefore, is defined by those habits/virtues, one engages in, that supports the belief of "Original Sin".

Question: If God and Truth are synonymous, then one who suggests they know God, in fact, suggests they know Truth; what is Truth?

Fred, I believe you don't have an answer to this question that is rational, therefore, you can never truly know if your actions are "righteous" or not, thus... we'll have to consider your life one of emotional and phsyical torment.

Fred,
What do you make of the "Our Lady of Fatima" visions.

I would sincerely, like to get your take on this event.
Dan, Agnostic

Dano, I smell him too.

dano asked fred:

"What do you make of the "Our Lady of Fatima" visions"
-------
Dano,

Sorry to interject here on your 'Fred' request, but I just can't resist doing so.

There seems to be quite a bit of controversy over this Fatima apparition that three children say they saw. This article on the subject sites some of the controversy..... http://www.portcult.com/FAT.03.VISIONS.02.htm

Here are some snippets of the article that I found quite interesting:

"Jacinta declares that Our Lady's dress goes down only to her knees. Our Lady can only appear dressed, obviously, in the most decent and modest way. The dress would have to come down to her feet. Any other way constitutes the most serious obstacle to the supernaturalism of the apparition and makes us think that it is a mystification prepared by the Spirit of Darkness"

So here we have a CHILD's vision of this lady and the child isn't concerned about how modest her vision lady would have been dressed.

For those that believed her dress was too short, they believed this:

"Obviously a Virgin Mary dressed in such a scandalous way could not have been the Mother of God but possibly a vision sent by Satan himself. The image of the Virgin had to be cleaned up to go along with orthodoxy."

Whether this child Jacinta believed the apparition was real or whether she felt the urge to fabricate such a supernatural sighting, it's obvious Jacinta couldn't foresee that adults would have a problem with this special lady wearing a "too short dress". After all, in those days it wasn't wrong for young girls to wear short dresses, so to this naive child, why would there be a problem with a 'lady' also wearing such a short dress.


The article then informs us of the later fate of these three children:

"Today few people know about this detail, just as few know how Lúcia was practically kidnapped at the age of 14 by the Church hierarchy and held incommunicado in convents for the rest of her life, or that Francisco and Jacinta tortured themselves in the name of religion before they finally died."

Regardless of whether one wishes to believe that the church was trying to protect Lucia by locking her away, or if one believes the church thought Satan was playing a cruel trick on this child's young mind, one is left with an obvious question.
If one desires to believe that these children were in direct contact with this special biblical lady, then this lady must have seen these children as special to her cause.
Can someone then explain to me why she then failed to "look after" these children's futures?

Isn't it obvious here that this supernatural sighting is no different than all the rest we hear about, even these days, which are either products of mental delusion or purposeful fabricated lies.

Another similar supernatural story by children, is the old popular story of the Cottingley Fairies ....http://www.randi.org/library/cottingley/index.html

Once again this story is about CHILDREN who claimed to have unearthly visits, but this time from Fairies.

While their story was believed my many for many decades, we now know these children fabricated these fairy visits by using cut-out pictures of fairies and taking pictures of them 'flying around'. In this case, the children very well knew they were lying but loved the attention they received by the "too eager to believe" (aka the gullable).

Why is it that all such miracle sightings never continue on long enough for skeptics to ascertain their validity?

If god allows his supernatural companions to reveal themselves in such a manner to people like these children, then we must suppose god doesn't have a problem with humans being in direct contact with such god-companions, at various times.
The problem here is that he doesn't allow these companions to hang around long enough to offer solid proof to humankind that such events aren't just products of delusion or outright lies.
If god will go this far to show us a piece of his world, then why stop far short of letting the world know for certain that such events are indeed from god's will.
If one is to assume such events are real, then we are faced once AGAIN with a god who loves to play the children's game of HIDE&SEEK with his human creation.

If one instead assumes this apparition was a trick by Satan, then tell me, why is even this Satan so reluctant to give us more positive proof of his existence?
He does exactly like god does, playing this game of Hide&Seek, giving us just a 'taste' of his reality, but never enough to know with any certainty he really does exists.


Kinda reminds me of how all those supposed aliens, who also enjoy playing this Hide&Seek game with us to.
Perhaps when we evolve to something greater than mere human adults, we also will enjoy playing this child's game of Hide&Seek with those who are 'less' than us.

So dano, I'm pretty sure Mister Fred will site his strong faith in such supernatural god matters, and push aside any problems with the logistics surrounding such a strange, ummm, fairy tale (no pun intended).


AtheistToothFairy

ATF, I think dano smells a fundie troll. A well known one at that, who also goes by many names. One that is catholic and has an affinity for the fatima thing.

Am I right Dano?

stronger now said...
ATF, I think dano smells a fundie troll.
---
Stronger,

Other than the (catholic) fred here, I don't understand why you are informing me of a fundie troll presence.
Did I miss something obvious here?

Frankly, I really would expect fundies to be reading our thoughts and if they choose to play the troll part, so be it.

What I write sure isn't meant to convert some fundie troll playing a mind game, but is meant for all.


Confused,
AtheistToothFairy

Fred said: "I choose to love these people enough to tell them the truth."

I am of the opinion that you honestly think that you are telling "the truth" but that "the truth" exists only in your imagination.

I am also of the opinion that your religion is a manipulative, barbaric lie, and that the god of the Bible is not worthy of love or respect. The very existence of Hell in your mythology is, IMO, adequate reason to reject Christianity.

"God loves them so much, His heart cries out to all them with every beat!"

From the evidence presented thus far, Fred, your god has no heart. Neither does it have a body. Or a mind. Imaginary beings are funny that way.

It can prove me wrong any time now by showing up and actually doing something spectacularly god-like in the real world. Something physical, not a nebulous and subjective "religious experience". The human brain can create those without any help from gods.

ATF, sorry. I think I confuse people a lot. Not sure how to explain my intent other than saying that sometimes I'm not all there. ;)

AtheistToothFairy wrote:
"Jacinta declares that Our Lady's dress goes down only to her knees. Our Lady can only appear dressed, obviously, in the most decent and modest way. The dress would have to come down to her feet. Any other way constitutes the most serious obstacle to the supernaturalism of the apparition and makes us think that it is a mystification prepared by the Spirit of Darkness"

Dano:....
Interesting!
I never knew that The Virgin wearing a sexy dress was the best evidence for refuting the story, but it makes sense.

God really was an asshole to do what he did to another mans betrothed.

Maybe Mary took her clues on morality, and dressing for apparitions, from her rapist! The "jerk" who got her pregnant!

Dan, Agnostic