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.

[John Human]

[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?

Your example is absurd on its face. Christianity is rooted in the message of Jesus Christ, with its imperative to act for the well-being of our fellow humans, especially the most vulnerable among us. Naziism, on the other hand, is rooted in racial Darwinism ("survival of the fittest") and quack-scientific Eugenics ("Before Hitler there was Harvard") -- with the imperative to exterminate the "unfit" and the lower orders so that falsely-presumed "scarce resources" can be allocated to the master race.

Furthermore, your example disregards the fact that Christians (as opposed to Nazis) are welcome on this debating forum, so it is important to strive to maintain an atmosphere of civility and mutual respect among Christians and non-Christians of various persuasions, and your perverse equation of Christianity with Naziism has no place around here.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 50 by John Human]

Your example is absurd on its face. Christianity is rooted in the message of Jesus Christ, with its imperative to act for the well-being of our fellow humans,

Except for their saviour. He can go die on a pole for all they care.

Furthermore, your example disregards the fact that Christians (as opposed to Nazis) are welcome on this debating forum

Are Nazis not welcome?

so it is important to strive to maintain an atmosphere of civility and mutual respect among Christians and non-Christians of various persuasions

Which I will extend to Christians when they stop following the ideology that condemns ALL HUMANS.
Whatever you may think is wrong with me, Christianity, the doctrine, is doing far far worse.
I don't point to people and say "Because you were born human, you deserve this awful fate meted out by my god!"

and your perverse equation of Christianity with Naziism has no place around here.

In the example I gave there, I wasn't equating Christianity with Nazism. I was asking why doctrines (not people, doctrines) were somehow off the table in terms of critique, all out of a concern on your part that the people following the doctrines would think there was a "hostile atmosphere". The reason I Godwined is that of course people critique Nazism (the doctrine), no-one says we can't critique Nazism lest it make the Nazis uncomfortable.

[John Human]

The reason I Godwined is that of course people critique Nazism (the doctrine), no-one says we can't critique Nazism lest it make the Nazis uncomfortable.

It shouldn't be necessary to point out that "critique" is different from "vilify." Divine Insight has been vilifying.

[Divine Insight]

"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.

Condoning having an innocent person brutally crucified on my behalf is indeed a vile proposition. That does not make me uncivil or disrespectful, just truthful.

Beyond that, your arrogant "I'm right, I'm right!" attitude is a clear signal that civil debate with you is impossible.

Show me I'm wrong. You can't. Christianity is entirely founded on the centerfold of Christ being crucified to pay for our sins.

If you could show me I'm wrong you would also need to reject 99% of Orthodox Christianity including many claims made by the authors of the Gospels.

As far as I can see the only reason you are lashing out at me is precisely because you know that Christian Theology is indefensible. So since you can't address the topic, you lash out at your debate opponent. A clear sign that you cannot address the issues.

[John Human]

Beyond that, your arrogant "I'm right, I'm right!" attitude is a clear signal that civil debate with you is impossible.

Show me I'm wrong. You can't. Christianity is entirely founded on the centerfold of Christ being crucified to pay for our sins.

That is an arguable supposition. I would be pleased to discuss/debate it with anyone except you.

[Clownboat]

The reason I Godwined is that of course people critique Nazism (the doctrine), no-one says we can't critique Nazism lest it make the Nazis uncomfortable.

It shouldn't be necessary to point out that "critique" is different from "vilify." Divine Insight has been vilifying.

Please, please, please stop pretending to be a victim in place of offering a rebuttal.

(As has been pointed out to you already)
In Christian theology there is no way to the Kingdom of God save for condoning the brutal crucifixion of Jesus for your own sake. This is a fact of that religion and is not vilifying. That it makes you feel uncomfortable should be telling IMO.

Now, instead of addressing this extreme problem with Christian theology, all you have done is try to blame the villainous nature of Christianity onto others.

Just pretend for a moment that a fellow Christian has noticed this aspect of the theology and ask yourself how you would respond. Hopefully you would do better then pretending to be a victim? Such a thing would probably put off your fellow Christian.

[rikuoamero]

The reason I Godwined is that of course people critique Nazism (the doctrine), no-one says we can't critique Nazism lest it make the Nazis uncomfortable.

It shouldn't be necessary to point out that "critique" is different from "vilify." Divine Insight has been vilifying.

From yourself
" Naziism, on the other hand, is rooted in racial Darwinism ("survival of the fittest") and quack-scientific Eugenics ("Before Hitler there was Harvard") -- with the imperative to exterminate the "unfit" and the lower orders so that falsely-presumed "scarce resources" can be allocated to the master race. "
That sounds a lot more like a vilification of Nazism than just a purely neutral critique. Why...it sounds emotionally similar to what I've been saying about Christianity. You're describing Nazism in emotional terms, expressing how you view it, rather than giving a dry, clinical description of it.

Just like I did (and DI) with Christianity. Why is it you can do that with Nazism but I can't do the same towards Christianity?

[John Human]

The reason I Godwined is that of course people critique Nazism (the doctrine), no-one says we can't critique Nazism lest it make the Nazis uncomfortable.

It shouldn't be necessary to point out that "critique" is different from "vilify." Divine Insight has been vilifying.

Please, please, please stop pretending to be a victim in place of offering a rebuttal.

Please don't pretend that I am pretending to be a victim. Please explain why you are pretending that I am doing so.

Jesus "Christ" (the "anointed one"), of a male-line descent from King David, was the anointed King of the Jews (and this is where the nickname "Christ" comes from, an oblique reference to his coronation anointing). Jesus was charged and found guilty of being the "King of the Jews," with the charge nailed to the cross above Jesus, flanked by two freedom fighters ("bandits") on their own crosses. In other words, in the eyes of the Roman occupation authorities, Jesus was the figurehead of a burning insurrection that had wrested Galilee from the control of Roman and subordinate Jewish authority. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ was a political execution in the midst of endemic guerrilla warfare in the heartland of Jesus's preaching activity. To pretend that Jesus was "innocent" seems to be beyond reason.

Beyond that, as portrayed in the Bible, Jesus was portrayed as accepting his fate and telling his apostles, who just didn't "get it." Jesus knew what he was about and its consequences; he acted with intention. Once again, his becoming the "Christ" ("King of the Jews") was a revolutionary act, leading naturally to a heavy-handed reprisal.

[Clownboat]

The reason I Godwined is that of course people critique Nazism (the doctrine), no-one says we can't critique Nazism lest it make the Nazis uncomfortable.

It shouldn't be necessary to point out that "critique" is different from "vilify." Divine Insight has been vilifying.

Please, please, please stop pretending to be a victim in place of offering a rebuttal.

Please don't pretend that I am pretending to be a victim. Please explain why you are pretending that I am doing so.

Jesus "Christ" (the "anointed one"), of a male-line descent from King David, was the anointed King of the Jews (and this is where the nickname "Christ" comes from, an oblique reference to his coronation anointing). Jesus was charged and found guilty of being the "King of the Jews," with the charge nailed to the cross above Jesus, flanked by two freedom fighters ("bandits") on their own crosses. In other words, in the eyes of the Roman occupation authorities, Jesus was the figurehead of a burning insurrection that had wrested Galilee from the control of Roman and subordinate Jewish authority. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ was a political execution in the midst of endemic guerrilla warfare in the heartland of Jesus's preaching activity. To pretend that Jesus was "innocent" seems to be beyond reason.

Beyond that, as portrayed in the Bible, Jesus was portrayed as accepting his fate and telling his apostles, who just didn't "get it." Jesus knew what he was about and its consequences; he acted with intention. Once again, his becoming the "Christ" ("King of the Jews") was a revolutionary act, leading naturally to a heavy-handed reprisal.

This will now be the 3rd time that this has been asked of you.
You pretending to be a victim as an attempt to dodge the question should be obvious to anyone reading here.

So once again, if you are up for actually debating on this debate site:

In Christian theology there is no way to the Kingdom of God save for condoning the brutal crucifixion of Jesus for your own sake. This is a fact of that religion and is not vilifying. That it makes you feel uncomfortable should be telling IMO.

Now, instead of addressing this extreme problem with Christian theology, all you have done is try to blame the villainous nature of Christianity onto others.

Just pretend for a moment that a fellow Christian has noticed this aspect of the theology and ask yourself how you would respond. Hopefully you would do better then pretending to be a victim? Such a thing would probably put off your fellow Christian.

[John Human]

The reason I Godwined is that of course people critique Nazism (the doctrine), no-one says we can't critique Nazism lest it make the Nazis uncomfortable.

It shouldn't be necessary to point out that "critique" is different from "vilify." Divine Insight has been vilifying.

Please, please, please stop pretending to be a victim in place of offering a rebuttal.

Please don't pretend that I am pretending to be a victim. Please explain why you are pretending that I am doing so.

Jesus "Christ" (the "anointed one"), of a male-line descent from King David, was the anointed King of the Jews (and this is where the nickname "Christ" comes from, an oblique reference to his coronation anointing). Jesus was charged and found guilty of being the "King of the Jews," with the charge nailed to the cross above Jesus, flanked by two freedom fighters ("bandits") on their own crosses. In other words, in the eyes of the Roman occupation authorities, Jesus was the figurehead of a burning insurrection that had wrested Galilee from the control of Roman and subordinate Jewish authority. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ was a political execution in the midst of endemic guerrilla warfare in the heartland of Jesus's preaching activity. To pretend that Jesus was "innocent" seems to be beyond reason.

Beyond that, as portrayed in the Bible, Jesus was portrayed as accepting his fate and telling his apostles, who just didn't "get it." Jesus knew what he was about and its consequences; he acted with intention. Once again, his becoming the "Christ" ("King of the Jews") was a revolutionary act, leading naturally to a heavy-handed reprisal.

This will now be the 3rd time that this has been asked of you.
You pretending to be a victim as an attempt to dodge the question should be obvious to anyone reading here.

Only if they've been smoking crack, or dropping a couple tabs of LSD. Or maybe you're just playing Tweedledum to rikuoamero's Tweedledee. Perhaps, just for giggles, you could actually quote something that I said that correlates with your hallucination that I was "pretending to be a victim." I suppose that won't be too difficult, especially if you pack another bowl first.

So once again, if you are up for actually debating on this debate site:

In Christian theology there is no way to the Kingdom of God save for condoning the brutal crucifixion of Jesus for your own sake. This is a fact of that religion and is not vilifying. That it makes you feel uncomfortable should be telling IMO.

How does one rebut someone who appears to be hallucinating? Not to mention brutalizing the English language with your "Tweedledum" misuse of the word "condone." Or maybe you're doing a Humpty Dumpty: "Words mean whatever I decide they mean." Not much good for a debate.

Now, instead of addressing this extreme problem with Christian theology, all you have done is try to blame the villainous nature of Christianity onto others.

Pack another bowl... and then you'll have an excuse to "blame onto" for the trouble you're having with communicating clearly. I rebutted Rikuoamero's "innocent Jesus" schtick, and you actually quote my rebuttal and then taunt me for being unwilling to debate -- on a topic where I have little interest because of the inherent absurdity of the supposition that is being put forth.

Just pretend for a moment that a fellow Christian has noticed this aspect of the theology and ask yourself how you would respond. Hopefully you would do better then pretending to be a victim? Such a thing would probably put off your fellow Christian.

I suspect that most Christians wouldn't accept me as a fellow. How would YOU feel if a fellow clown told you that your routine around here is getting old and stale?