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]

I must say, I'm a little confused that John Human is going after you for your supposed rudeness

There was no rudeness in my post to even go after. All I did was address the fact of what Christian theology demands. And apparently John Human somehow twisted that into a perception of incivility.

I recognize that this is an extreme problem when discussing a religious theology that is, at its very core, the epitome of an uncivil accusation toward humans.

After all, if any individual were to make the same accusations toward us that Christian theology makes, we would most certainly consider those accusations to be both unfounded and uncivil. Yet that's what Christianity does as its central theme. It makes extremely uncivil and unwarranted accusations toward every single individual human. It's no wonder that when discussing this theology debates naturally take on this underlying innate incivility.

The very accusation that someone is a sinner and needs to have an innocent person crucified on their behave is itself the most uncivil accusation that can possibly be made toward anyone. Yet this is the heart and core of Christian theology. And Christian theology makes this vile uncivil accusation toward every individual on planet earth. And they act like we shouldn't be offended by it.

To even suggest that I should consider accepting Christian theology is an insult, IMHO. The religion is itself the epitome of incivility and insult.

[John Human]

But what about the Christians?

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?

You give the impression of someone who is full of hatred and beyond reason.

[rikuoamero]

But what about the Christians?

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?

You give the impression of someone who is full of hatred and beyond reason.

So the person who would NOT crucify an innocent, who would try to save him if possible...is the one who is full of hatred...?

[John Human]

But what about the Christians?

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?

You give the impression of someone who is full of hatred and beyond reason.

So the person who would NOT crucify an innocent, who would try to save him if possible...is the one who is full of hatred...?

I haven't seen the discussion that you're referring to, so I have to consider the possibility that nuances got lost or misinterpreted. However, I'll venture to guess that one or more believing Christian(s) imagined the impropriety of interfering in what Jesus (as portrayed in the Bible) freely decided to do as a willing sacrifice for the benefit of all (according to Christian doctrine).

I see no reason whatsoever to tar such a perspective as "full of hatred," although obviously I can't speak for the general demeanor of whoever said whatever. However, if somebody repeatedly and obsessively uses the word "vile" in relation to Christianity, that suggests a personal emotional problem that could be treated with compassion somewhere else but probably not in public on this debating forum.

[Divine Insight]

But what about the Christians?

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?

You give the impression of someone who is full of hatred and beyond reason.

So the person who would NOT crucify an innocent, who would try to save him if possible...is the one who is full of hatred...?

I haven't seen the discussion that you're referring to,...

You posted the post that contains that discussion but deleted that part of it.

Apparently you only see what you want to see and you create a false image of what the other person is saying and use that to call them hateful.

I do not condone the crucifixion of Christ for my sake.

Do you condone crucifying Christ for your sake?

That's the question you are evading while you are falsely accusing me of being filled with hatred.

[John Human]

But what about the Christians?

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?

That blatant misrepresentation seems to be full of hatred and beyond reason.

So the person who would NOT crucify an innocent, who would try to save him if possible...is the one who is full of hatred...?

I haven't seen the discussion that you're referring to,...

You posted the post that contains that discussion but deleted that part of it.

Apparently you only see what you want to see and you create a false image of what the other person is saying and use that to call them hateful.

I saw a reference to a discussion on another thread, which I haven't seen.

I do not condone the crucifixion of Christ for my sake.

Do you condone crucifying Christ for your sake?

What does that mean?? How can one "condone" something that happened 2000 years ago? I don't know how the earlier discussion went, but it sounded like somebody was implying that morally correct people should try to intervene to stop a public execution by a squad of soldiers.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 35 by John Human]

but it sounded like somebody was implying that morally correct people should try to intervene to stop a public execution by a squad of soldiers.

That was not the only point to my thread. Another point I raised later on was about the metaphorical cheque they receive as a result of this torture and execution. They believe they now obtain eternal life.
I would not cash a cheque from the estate of a man who was executed, if I believed and or knew that he was innocent. I would be a party to his suffering and death, as much as if I had pushed the switch on the electric chair myself. 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.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 35 by John Human]

That blatant misrepresentation seems to be full of hatred and beyond reason.

That is the picture I got. From the thread in question, here are some choice quotes

We all nailed Jesus to the cross - it's our sins that put him there.

Of course if you were a Jew who had followed this crazy guy and believed abd then were watching him die of course you would have jeered.

think how offended God is by your sin. The only way you can end your offense to him is accept that cross.

If God simply forgave our sins without requiring a blood sacrifice he would be condoning our sins and thus share our guilt. His nature won't allow him to do that.

Regarding the questions you asked in the OP, I would not try to stop the crucifixion because my salvation depends on it, but I would not help to carry it out because those who did crucify him were committing a horrible sin.

These people are apparently of the mind that Jesus HAS to die. He HAS to be nailed to the cross. Indeed the last person wouldn't stop it because he benefits from it. Is that any different to not stopping a bank robber from shooting a bunch of people in a bank because you'll receive a portion of the money?

[John Human]

[Replying to post 35 by John Human]

but it sounded like somebody was implying that morally correct people should try to intervene to stop a public execution by a squad of soldiers.

That was not the only point to my thread. Another point I raised later on was about the metaphorical cheque they receive as a result of this torture and execution. They believe they now obtain eternal life.
I would not cash a cheque from the estate of a man who was executed, if I believed and or knew that he was innocent. I would be a party to his suffering and death, as much as if I had pushed the switch on the electric chair myself. 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.

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.

Beyond that, it seems to me that preoccupation with "salvation" ("Please, Jesus, take me to heaven") reflects a self-centered egoism that is inconsistent with the two basic commandments of Jesus Christ, which brings up the question of how realistic those two commandments are. My inclination is to think that presenting them as a goal to grow toward, if done without a lot of guilt-trip pressure, helps with the formation of healthy moral principles.

[rikuoamero]

[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?

Beyond that, it seems to me that preoccupation with "salvation" ("Please, Jesus, take me to heaven") reflects a self-centered egoism that is inconsistent with the two basic commandments of Jesus Christ,

A command to love a specific person (God in this case) would also fall under the heading of self centered egosim, would it not? Especially if, as per the Trinitarians, Jesus IS God?

My inclination is to think that presenting them as a goal to grow toward, if done without a lot of guilt-trip pressure, helps with the formation of healthy moral principles.

Now this I agree with. Where I disagree with it is when one makes (what is in my eyes) the mistake of thinking the God creature they strive so hard for is real. Take a look at my signature, a look at the first quote. That is uttered by a fictional character in a fictional setting in a book. That character has many abilities and traits I aspire towards...but I don't make the mistake of thinking he's real. If I fail to live up to the traits, I don't believe for an instant that Richard Rahl is going to smack me over the head and punish me for it.