I'm done

[rikuoamero]

Right, so this is it. I'm done. I'm leaving the site. I've been here just shy of a full four years and to be honest, it often feels like I'm just banging my head against the wall, for all the good it does.
This isn't to say I haven't gotten something out of this site. I have made some wonderful online friends, and learned a lot. However, when it comes to Christians, it often does seem like they refuse to learn or apply themselves.

My view of Christianity, as of me leaving this site, is that it is a hateful evil cult. The rhetoric it spews about humans is just abominable. To be told that humanity is wicked, evil, sinful, and that all this is because a proto-ancestor ate a magic apple...? I have debated the morality of following Christianity's God, of their claims of their messiah, and been told that by & large, Christians would not prevent Jesus's torture and execution, they stand to gain from it.
Christianity inverts what is good and evil. It makes a virtue out of torture and executions, and a sin out of a respect for life. It commends authoritarianism and denigrates democracy.

A few parting shots as I leave
1213 - You're an idiot. I've seen that from you since day one. Your arguments are childish and simplistic. You apply no real logic that I've seen, and basically just repeat "The Bible is good, and that's enough for me to believe it" (or variations of that)

Still small, EarthScienceGuy - You are not scientists in my eye. No-one who cites Statement-of-Faith YEC sites is, because SoFs preculde science, because SoFs demand that their followers promote a certain answer no matter what is said, no matter what evidence is gathered or not gathered. Nothing you say on the topic of science has any weight, as you have destroyed your own credibilities.

Liamconnor - You're not a historian. All you can argue and all you seem capable of arguing is that with my (and other atheist's) standards, we should discard Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar. Well guess what? I call your bluff. I'm willing to do just that. If it turns out that I absolutely, positively HAVE to discard what I think I know about Alex or Julie, then I'll do it.

Dio9 - as seen from my latest round with you, you are uninformed about your own religion. Seriously, God doesn't send plagues? Try reading a Bible for once in your life.

Jagella - Great guy in my opinion, but you need to think through your arguments just a little bit better. You seemed to be uninformed as to the lack of a future tense in the Ancient Hebrew language. Don't give the Christians this excuse to dismiss what you say.

I don't mind if mods ban me for this post. I'm already on a Final Warning, and this ought to be enough to tip me over the edge. I'll just finish by saying that this is the best website I've ever seen in terms of debating religion. The mods are fair and even-handed, and I quite literally have never seen any partisan-ship in terms of moderation - no Christian mods covering for Christian abuses, or vice versa.
However, it's come time to leave. I've said my piece and at this point, I'm just repeating myself. Sayonnara and farewell.

[Divine Insight]

What does that mean?? How can one "condone" something that happened 2000 years ago?

It doesn't matter when it happened. If you accept Christ's crucifixion to pay for your sins then you condone it on your behalf. When the actual crucifixion might have taken place is totally irrelevant.

[John Human]

[Replying to post 38 by John Human]

I suppose that type of thinking risks leading to hypocritical self-righteousness by people who don't care much about promoting the well-being of their fellow humans.

Whose thinking? Mine, which is the refusal to cash the cheque, or theirs, which is a willingness to cash it?

Neither one, actually. However, I was referring to the type of thinking, which you expressed, equating believing Christians with murderous bank robbers.

Together with Divine Insight's obsessive vilification of Christianity, you make a mockery of this website's pretension toward "civil, respectful, insightful and thought-provoking" debate.

I'm done. I'm leaving the site.

That is probably for the best.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 41 by John Human]

Neither one, actually. However, I was referring to the type of thinking, which you expressed, equating believing Christians with murderous bank robbers.

Not murderous bank robbers themselves...but accessories to and beneficiaries of murderous bank robbers.
Is a person who helps, or stands by with the ability to stop, a bank robbery and who then receives a benefit from said robbery, of dubious moral character?

Look especially at the last quote I quoted "I would not try to stop the crucifixion because my salvation depends on it"
That person apparently think it's good to receive a benefit from the torture and wrongful execution of an innocent man. Please try to convince me that this is of sound moral character.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 41 by John Human]

Neither one, actually. However, I was referring to the type of thinking, which you expressed, equating believing Christians with murderous bank robbers.

Not murderous bank robbers themselves...but accessories to and beneficiaries of murderous bank robbers.
Is a person who helps, or stands by with the ability to stop, a bank robbery and who then receives a benefit from said robbery, of dubious moral character?

Look especially at the last quote I quoted "I would not try to stop the crucifixion because my salvation depends on it"
That person apparently think it's good to receive a benefit from the torture and wrongful execution of an innocent man. Please try to convince me that this is of sound moral character.

Unfortunately, your valid questions are being ignored it seems.
It is easier to whine and pretend to be a victim than actually address hard questions posed, though. Sad that this seems to be the case going on.

For example: "They stand there screaming, "Crucify him! Crucify him! Crucify him!"
And for this they are rewarded eternal life in the Kingdom of God.
How is that not a vile religion to its very core?"

The response you got which didn't even attept to address your point: "You give the impression of someone who is full of hatred and beyond reason".


Post 36: "In that instance, if I cash the cheque and put the money into my account, I am morally no different to someone who robs a bank and shoots a bunch of people. I will have enriched myself at the cost of the pain and death of innocent people".

The response: "I was referring to the type of thinking, which you expressed, equating believing Christians with murderous bank robbers".
Notice how the question was dodged and false victimhood is attempted to be established in place of actually addressing the point brough up.

You brought up other good points as well that I for one would sure have liked to seen a response to. Too bad...

[John Human]

[Replying to post 41 by John Human]

Neither one, actually. However, I was referring to the type of thinking, which you expressed, equating believing Christians with murderous bank robbers.

Not murderous bank robbers themselves...but accessories to and beneficiaries of murderous bank robbers.
Is a person who helps, or stands by with the ability to stop, a bank robbery and who then receives a benefit from said robbery, of dubious moral character?

Look especially at the last quote I quoted "I would not try to stop the crucifixion because my salvation depends on it"
That person apparently think it's good to receive a benefit from the torture and wrongful execution of an innocent man. Please try to convince me that this is of sound moral character.

Unfortunately, your valid questions are being ignored it seems.
It is easier to whine and pretend to be a victim than actually address hard questions posed, though. Sad that this seems to be the case going on.

For example: "They stand there screaming, "Crucify him! Crucify him! Crucify him!"
And for this they are rewarded eternal life in the Kingdom of God.
How is that not a vile religion to its very core?"

The response you got which didn't even attept to address your point: "You give the impression of someone who is full of hatred and beyond reason".

Clownboat, it is sad to see you buying into Divine Insight's obsessive vilification of Christianity, which makes a mockery of this website's pretension to be "civil" and "respectful." The way I see things, equating believing Christians with murderous bank robbers is, to borrow a word, vile, not to mention absurd on its face. Perhaps you would be willing and able to have a rational discussion of the pros and cons of that assessment. Divine Insight appears to be manifestly unable to do so, so I chose to sidestep a quagmire. Once again, the question is worth discussing or debating if I could find an interlocutor besides Divine Insight.

Notice how the question was dodged and false victimhood is attempted to be established in place of actually addressing the point brough up.

Perhaps you could explain "false victimhood"?? The fact that you would say such a thing suggest that you missed the boat somewhere, or maybe you're just being a clown

[John Human]

[Replying to post 41 by John Human]

Neither one, actually. However, I was referring to the type of thinking, which you expressed, equating believing Christians with murderous bank robbers.

Not murderous bank robbers themselves...but accessories to and beneficiaries of murderous bank robbers.
Is a person who helps, or stands by with the ability to stop, a bank robbery and who then receives a benefit from said robbery, of dubious moral character?

Look especially at the last quote I quoted "I would not try to stop the crucifixion because my salvation depends on it"
That person apparently think it's good to receive a benefit from the torture and wrongful execution of an innocent man. Please try to convince me that this is of sound moral character.

The way I see things, there is no way to try to convince anybody that that statement comes from somebody of sound moral character.

However, that statement could be an inept attempt to fend off an attack on the writer's faith, with the motivation being nothing more than to show oneself unashamed to be a professing Christian. Perhaps you are being far too quick to be harshly judgmental.

[Divine Insight]

Divine Insight's obsessive vilification of Christianity, which makes a mockery of this website's pretension to be "civil" and "respectful."

It seems awfully strange to me that when I do nothing more than point out the obvious truths of Christian theology you refer to that as a "Vilification of Christianity".

All I do is point to the fact that Christian theology demands that Christians must condone and accept the brutal crucifixion of Christ to pay for their sins.

You seem to be the one who thinks that this "vilifies" Christianity.

But this is what Christian theology demands. In Christian theology there is no way to the Kingdom of God save for condoning the brutal crucifixion of Jesus for you sake.

If you consider that to be a "vilified theology", why blame that on me? I didn't create this theology, I merely point out the truth of what it demands.

I've said it before, I would chose hell over crucifying Christ.

What's villainous about that?

As Clownboat poins out, instead of addressing this extreme problem with Christian theology all you have done is try to blame the villainous nature of Christianity onto me.

It's none of my doing that Christianity theology is so utterly immoral and disgusting. I can't help that. Don't try to pin the incivility of Christian theology onto me.

In fact, you have totally evaded the entire issue entirely. All in favor of making personal accusations toward me of incivility. Accusations that are totally empty and devoid of any truth.

I reject having anyone crucified on my behalf. How does that equate to being uncivil?

I reject the crucifixion of Jesus, and for that you try your best to condemn me on grounds of incivility.

How is that supposed to work?

[John Human]

Divine Insight's obsessive vilification of Christianity, which makes a mockery of this website's pretension to be "civil" and "respectful."

It seems awfully strange to me that when I do nothing more than point out the obvious truths of Christian theology you refer to that as a "Vilification of Christianity".

All I do is point to the fact that Christian theology demands that Christians must condone and accept the brutal crucifixion of Christ to pay for their sins.

You seem to be the one who thinks that this "vilifies" Christianity.

But this is what Christian theology demands. In Christian theology there is no way to the Kingdom of God save for condoning the brutal crucifixion of Jesus for you sake.

If you consider that to be a "vilified theology", why blame that on me? I didn't create this theology, I merely point out the truth of what it demands.

I've said it before, I would chose hell over crucifying Christ.

What's villainous about that?

As Clownboat poins out, instead of addressing this extreme problem with Christian theology all you have done is try to blame the villainous nature of Christianity onto me.

It's none of my doing that Christianity theology is so utterly immoral and disgusting. I can't help that. Don't try to pin the incivility of Christian theology onto me.

In fact, you have totally evaded the entire issue entirely. All in favor of making personal accusations toward me of incivility. Accusations that are totally empty and devoid of any truth.

I reject having anyone crucified on my behalf. How does that equate to being uncivil?

I reject the crucifixion of Jesus, and for that you try your best to condemn me on grounds of incivility.

How is that supposed to work?

"Villify" means to represent as being vile. "Vile" seems to be your favorite word for describing Christian doctrine. This is manifestly incivil and disrespectful, serving to create a hostile atmosphere for any Christians who may be inclined to post on this forum. Beyond that, your arrogant "I'm right, I'm right!" attitude is a clear signal that civil debate with you is impossible.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 47 by John Human]

"Vile" seems to be your favorite word for describing Christian doctrine. This is manifestly incivil and disrespectful,

Let me Godwin for a moment. Should I not call Nazism (the doctrine) vile, because of a concern that doing so may create a "hostile atmosphere" for any Nazis who may wish to post?

If you want to criticise those who are uncivil, why is it you don't criticise Christianity itself? After all, doesn't Christianity say some rather uncivil things (to say the least) about all of humanity?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 45 by John Human]

The way I see things, there is no way to try to convince anybody that that statement comes from somebody of sound moral character.

Silly me. And here's me thinking that receiving benefits from the torture and death of innocent people was a bad thing that doesn't really have to be explained, that it's common knowledge.
Please explain how my statement doesn't come from someone of sound moral character. I wouldn't have wanted Jesus to be nailed to a pole, I would have done whatever I could to prevent it.

However, that statement could be an inept attempt to fend off an attack on the writer's faith, with the motivation being nothing more than to show oneself unashamed to be a professing Christian. Perhaps you are being far too quick to be harshly judgmental.

What is the difference between saying
I would not try to stop the crucifixion because my salvation depends on it

and

I would not try to stop the bank robbery because my bank account depends on it

All I'm seeing is a declaration of an unwillingness to stop a violent act towards another person because one stands to gain from it.