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]

1. With the hope that my two cents' worth is actually worth a bit more: Formal Christianity, of whatever flavor, includes a lot of doctrinal packaging that serves to both preserve and obscure the essential message of Jesus Christ.

2. Jesus came at the end of an age (the Age of Aries, to be precise), shortly before the final paroxysm of an expiring culture centered on the worship of Yahweh/Jehovah at the temple in Jerusalem. (May it be rebuilt.)

3. Jesus Christ's basic message (his two fundamental commandments) both encapsulated and updated the general orientation of the Hebrew religion. His first commandment added LOVE to the first of the Mosaic Ten Commandments. His second commandment, seen in its proper context (including especially the parable of the Samaritan) universalized the old commandment, "Love your neighbor as yourself." Our fellow humans are our neighbors.

4. That's all, really, but it isn't hard to go on and on with details and footnotes and ramifications about the proper ordering of a society that aspires to get it right, measuring in terms of long-term survival.

5. It is easy for spiritually wounded atheists to tear apart the Bible (at least in their own minds) while totally missing the basic point of Christianity (see #3 above). Likewise, it is easy for "member-of-the-club" Christians to serve up soothing apologetic talking points that buttress their cultish mindset, while once again totally missing the point (see #3 above).

6. Of course this is a debating website, which often brings out competitive impulses and the urge to dominate, as opposed to trying out various points of view and seeing if effective rebuttals exist, in a spirit of adjusting one's perspective (as needed) and deepening one's understanding.

7. Some people around here seem to be present as (perhaps paid) partisans of an entrenched mentality, and it is probably a waste of time trying to get them to really engage with an opposing view. When the representative of such a mentality seeks to demean and dominate (as opposed to just maintain a presence), the forum gets poisoned.

8. I'm going to end by giving my reformulation of the essence of the message of Jesus Christ, as a contribution to whatever spiritual/religious paradigm is/will be emerging as we once again go through the end of an age (the Age of Pisces), with the dominant thinking in our culture becoming increasingly brittle and degenerate:

The purpose of religion is to cultivate the development of the individual's natural (but all too often blocked) potential to let divine/universal love shine through the individual and into the surrounding community/world. The basic message of Jesus Christ articulates this purpose. Both atheists and Christians who miss this point are barking up the wrong tree, and creating a lot of noise in the process.

[William]

John Human: Formal Christianity, of whatever flavor, includes a lot of doctrinal packaging that serves to both preserve and obscure the essential message of Jesus Christ.

William: This has been enclosed in a book called 'The [Holy] Bible', which itself refers to the things Jesus did (which would include things he taught) which were not then, and never have been, made public.
Largely 'the word of GOD' remains hidden in that, and the book itself has erroneously been granted the title.
The seeker of Truth will, of course, acknowledge this and find that which is hidden, outside the confines of religious dogma, realizing that what the bible says, points to this being a necessary part of that process.
Most Christians are content to suckle on the tit of religious instruction for the remainder of their mortal experience, proclaiming that this is all the truth they require.
Most non theists don't seem to understand this about Christians.
That is why the following;

Rikuoamero: However, when it comes to Christians, it often does seem like they refuse to learn or apply themselves.


William: The frustrations the non-theist member experiences are - for the most part - self inflicted, due to the unrealistic expectation that he believes he can actually change peoples minds through debating with folk who do not hide the fact that their faith-based beliefs are NOT negotiable.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 12 by William]

Most Christians are content to suckle on the tit of religious instruction for the remainder of their mortal experience, proclaiming that this is all the truth they require.
Most non theists don't seem to understand this about Christians.

Hey, if I as a Christian were able to learn to question and eventually discard that which is obviously not true, why not others?

The frustrations the non-theist member experiences are - for the most part - self inflicted, due to the unrealistic expectation that he believes he can actually change peoples minds through debating with folk who do not hide the fact that their faith-based beliefs are NOT negotiable.

I will admit that when I first came to this site, I had some sort of expectation of being a new Christopher Hitchens or a Matt Dillahunty. Both those people had effects on peoples's lives, received communications that because of what they did, some people did in fact start to question.
Over time, especially in the last say...year?...that has changed. Now I just ask rhetorical questions, all in the hope of getting the Christians to expose the hatefulness of their religion. You saw, I presume, what happened in the "Moral Question for Christians" thread - Christians saying they would not even try to prevent the torture and execution of who they say was an innocent man.

[Overcomer]

William wrote:

This has been enclosed in a book called 'The [Holy] Bible', which itself refers to the things Jesus did (which would include things he taught) which were not then, and never have been, made public.

I beg to differ. Jesus' ministry was entirely public. Crowds followed him everywhere. This is why, when people question the gospels, I always point out that they were written by people who witnessed his ministry first-hand or interviewed people who had witnessed his ministry first-hand. And I'm not just talking about the disciples. I'm talking about the hundreds of people who heard him preach (several thousand on the Mount at one time), were healed by him, saw him crucified, saw him raised from the dead, etc.

I took a degree in history at a secular institution and am, therefore, familiar with the process of recording history and the assessment of such recordings. I suggest that those interested in the assessment of the gospels read Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses and Craig Blomberg's The Reliability of the Gospels.

[Overcomer]

rikuoamero wrote:

Hey, if I as a Christian were able to learn to question and eventually discard that which is obviously not true, why not others?

You assume that you and you alone know the truth. But what if what you believe really isn't true at all, that you are mistaken? Why do you think that everyone should believe exactly what you believe? Do you honestly think yourself infallible?

I ask these questions because it works both ways. My faith is based on evidence. You can reject that evidence if you want to. That's your prerogative. But to assume that those of us who follow Jesus are wrong to do so because you are of the opinion that it is foolish smacks of the arrogance some Christians are accused of (and in some cases rightfully) by atheists.

I read what atheists write here because I want to understand where they're coming from. As frustrated as you get with Christians, we Christians get frustrated with atheists who seem blinded by their hatred of the very idea of God, who refuse to entertain reasonable arguments in result and who spew vitriol instead of offering intelligent, thoughtful discussion. Many of the posts by atheists here are tinged with sarcasm and mockery while many are out and out insults. Some people seem to enjoy demeaning others. To me, such attitudes stem from pain and bitterness, not a desire for true intellectual, meaningful discussion.

Bottom line: Christians put up with a lot of crap here. It can get tiresome which is why I take frequent breaks from this place. I return because I feel it's important to post a Christian perspective on topics discussed here and because it truly fills me with joy to talk about Jesus and his gift of salvation to all those who want and accept it.

And, by the way, welcome back! O.

[Divine Insight]

rikuoamero wrote:

Hey, if I as a Christian were able to learn to question and eventually discard that which is obviously not true, why not others?

You assume that you and you alone know the truth. But what if what you believe really isn't true at all, that you are mistaken? Why do you think that everyone should believe exactly what you believe? Do you honestly think yourself infallible?

For me, there is no doubt. Christian theology, as it is written, in the Christian doctrines of both the New and Old Testaments is clearly false. As far as I'm concerned this is as certain as the mathematical fact that there can be no rational number to serve as the square root of 2.

For me it was simply a matter of understanding this truth. Now that I understand it, there is no question of its validity. I don't disbelieve in Christianity as a matter of faith. Yet there is no question even among Christians that belief in Christianity is indeed a matter of faith and not verified truth.

So this question has been settled for me for many decades.

I ask these questions because it works both ways. My faith is based on evidence. You can reject that evidence if you want to. That's your prerogative. But to assume that those of us who follow Jesus are wrong to do so because you are of the opinion that it is foolish smacks of the arrogance some Christians are accused of (and in some cases rightfully) by atheists.

For me, this kind of argument is false when addressed to me.

To begin with, I would never say that anyone is foolish for wanting to "follow" Jesus. Wanting to follow the principles you might believe Jesus stood for is fine and dandy. In fact, I hold that if this is what you truly desire then you aren't interested "following" Jesus at all, but rather you simple agree with what you see as his moral values and give him your thumbs-up approval on moral issues.

I too agree with many of the moral values that have been attributed to Jesus in the NT. In fact, when reading through the Bible when we come to the character of Jesus what I can say is the following:

"Finally! A Biblical character who actually agrees with my moral values!"

Why in the world would I need to follow someone who apparently agrees with me on moral issues. I feel deeply sorry for anyone who actually feels that they need to follow Jesus moral values. I would hope that they have moral values at least that good on their own. Not only this, but Jesus' moral values aren't all that abnormal. Many human philosophers have expressed similar moral values throughout all of history including times far more ancient than the times of Jesus. In fact, the India Buddha expressed moral values so directly in harmony with those of Jesus that many religious scholars have suggested that Jesus may very well have gotten his moral ideas from Buddha. After all the Buddha was some 500 years before Jesus.

So Jesus is certainly nothing special in terms of moral character. There are plenty of examples of other mortal men who hold the same values both before and after Jesus.

Wanting to "follow" Jesus is meaningless when discussing Christian theology, IMHO.

Wanting to follow Jesus doesn't loan credence to the theological claim that Jesus was the virgin-born Son of Yahweh, or that Yahweh had designed a plan to have humans brutally crucify Jesus for the purpose of offering undeserved amnesty to anyone willing to believe that he was the Son of Yahweh.

Wanting to follow Jesus and debating the validity of this theology are two entirely separate and even unrelated issues.

I read what atheists write here because I want to understand where they're coming from.

To even classify them as "atheists" has already placed them into a box where you have concluded they are some sort of specific species.

In fact, this creates a false dichotomy entirely because it causes you to lose sight of the fact that even those people who claim to belong to the tribe called "theists" are in grave disagreement with each other on many issues, not the least of which are on the issues of what it even means to "Follow Jesus" which you have just cited as one of the most important issues of all.

Back when I was a Christians my greatest antagonists were not atheists, but other Christians who had created a "Jesus" far different from the "Jesus" I had created in my mind.

In fact, the very topic that any two Christians actually support or follow the same "Jesus" is a serious theological issue. We see it on these forums daily. Christians have extremely different ideas on what their own personal Jesus stands for. So apparently they are all creating their own personal Jesuses (If I'm permitted to pluralize the name Jesus to make my point here)

I see Christians arguing with each other over what moral values Jesus would stand for or against constantly. This is a non-stop controversy in Christendom.

As frustrated as you get with Christians, we Christians get frustrated with atheists who seem blinded by their hatred of the very idea of God, who refuse to entertain reasonable arguments in result and who spew vitriol instead of offering intelligent, thoughtful discussion. Many of the posts by atheists here are tinged with sarcasm and mockery while many are out and out insults. Some people seem to enjoy demeaning others. To me, such attitudes stem from pain and bitterness, not a desire for true intellectual, meaningful discussion.

There's clearly a lot of frustration on both sides. And it's extremely easy to see the other side's comments as being intentionally demeaning, when what all the person on the other side was trying to emphasize is the absurdity of the concept in question. And this applies to both sides of the debate.

Bottom line: Christians put up with a lot of crap here. It can get tiresome which is why I take frequent breaks from this place.

It's no easier for the ex-Christians, and non-believers. They too are constantly being accused of refusing to accept a loving God, rejecting "truth", and often time of even being just-fully blinded by God because they don't "desire" to know the truth yet and would rather wallow in their sins. Those are nasty hateful accusations, unfortunately taught by the Bible itself, mainly by Paul.

So the pain is felt on both sides.

I return because I feel it's important to post a Christian perspective on topics discussed here and because it truly fills me with joy to talk about Jesus and his gift of salvation to all those who want and accept it.

I can sympathize with your "joy". I truly can. You have a religious belief of a Jesus that you would love for the whole world to embrace. That's fine.

But you shouldn't become frustrated when other people don't accept your views.

For me there would be absolutely no joy at all in a world where humans were so disgusting that their only hope for "salvation" would be to have God send his Son to earth to be brutally crucified by nasty evil religious fanatics so that I could be offered undeserved amnesty for being a disgusting human who actually deserves to be damned.

For me, even if that scenario were true, there would be no joy in it at all.

So what you see as a joyful situation, I see as an extremely depressing situation that I would hope to never find myself in ever, in this life or another.

Apparently one man's joy is another man's misery.

The Christian thesis is not an attractive theists to me. It's an extremely depressing thesis.

So your idea of joy is not mine.

[William]

William: Most Christians are content to suckle on the tit of religious instruction for the remainder of their mortal experience, proclaiming that this is all the truth they require.
Most non theists don't seem to understand this about Christians.

Rikuoamero: Hey, if I as a Christian were able to learn to question and eventually discard that which is obviously not true, why not others?


William: Have you discovered those 'others' in all the four years you have been a member of this board?
Isn't that the whole point of your vent in the thread OP?
The most accurate answer I could probably give you is that - unlike the Christians on this board, your Christian faith was negotiable. Ideally if your mission is to convert Christians into non-theists, you need to at least be looking for those who display negotiable faith-based beliefs.

Rikuoamero: I will admit that when I first came to this site, I had some sort of expectation of being a new Christopher Hitchens or a Matt Dillahunty. Both those people had effects on peoples's lives, received communications that because of what they did, some people did in fact start to question.
Over time, especially in the last say...year?...that has changed. Now I just ask rhetorical questions, all in the hope of getting the Christians to expose the hatefulness of their religion. You saw, I presume, what happened in the "Moral Question for Christians" thread - Christians saying they would not even try to prevent the torture and execution of who they say was an innocent man.


William: Effectively what you state is a clear example of why Jesus (and no doubt other teaches) advise one does not 'cast their pearls among swine'.
But no - I did not read the thread you refer to. It does not surprise me if what you say is true, and for that matter - why would it surprise anyone?
You are trying to interact by and large with folk who have no problem worshiping an image of GOD who promises them that people not like them are going to suffer forever in hellish torment.

For Gods sake man, what else could one expect from such, BUT they would not even try to prevent the torture and execution of who they say was an innocent man!

Of course, I am replying on the suspicion that there is more to the story than what you are telling me, so am taking that with a grain of salt.

[William]

John Human: Formal Christianity, of whatever flavor, includes a lot of doctrinal packaging that serves to both preserve and obscure the essential message of Jesus Christ.

William: This has been enclosed in a book called 'The [Holy] Bible', which itself refers to the things Jesus did (which would include things he taught) which were not then, and never have been, made public.

Overcomer: I beg to differ. Jesus' ministry was entirely public. Crowds followed him everywhere. This is why, when people question the gospels, I always point out that they were written by people who witnessed his ministry first-hand or interviewed people who had witnessed his ministry first-hand. And I'm not just talking about the disciples. I'm talking about the hundreds of people who heard him preach (several thousand on the Mount at one time), were healed by him, saw him crucified, saw him raised from the dead, etc.

William: What in my statement argues contrary to this, apart from your claim that Jesus' ministry was 'entirely public' that you feel the need to 'beg to differ'?
Perhaps you did not read clearly what it is that I wrote? Apparently you have not even read where the bible itself states such...MOST of Jesus' teaching and other activity was done out of the public arena.

Overcomer: I took a degree in history at a secular institution and am, therefore, familiar with the process of recording history and the assessment of such recordings. I suggest that those interested in the assessment of the gospels read Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses and Craig Blomberg's The Reliability of the Gospels.

William: You definitely got the wrong end of the stick with my statement.
Perhaps if I reword it, you might use that scholarly mind of yours to better understand what it was I actually argued...

The Bible doctrinal packaging that serves to both preserve and obscure the essential message of Jesus Christ itself states that the stories to do with what Jesus did, are mostly NOT even contained in the Bible, have never been made public, and (in the assumption that Jesus is indeed the 'Word of GOD') the bulk of The Word of GOD (re his actions) remains hidden from the unweaned.
The seeker of Truth will, of course, acknowledge this and find that which is hidden, outside the confines of religious dogma, realizing that what the bible says, points to this being a necessary part of that Truth-seeking process.
Most Christians are content to suckle on the tit of religious instruction for the remainder of their mortal experience, proclaiming that this is all the truth they require.

If you still beg to differ with the context of the above proclamation, feel free to point out for the reader, exactly why that is...

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 15 by Overcomer]

You assume that you and you alone know the truth.

I am in fact aware of the existence of other people who question the same religion I was once a part of. I took my queues from the likes of the previously mentioned Hitchens and Dillahunty, among others.

But what if what you believe really isn't true at all, that you are mistaken? Do you honestly think yourself infallible

If I had this attitude you accuse me of, I would still be a Christian, since after all, for it to be true, I wouldn't have questioned what it was I originally believed.
Please ask yourself why it is you accused me of this notion that I think myself infallible, that I can't be wrong on what it is I believe - how does it make the slightest bit of sense to say it to someone who has gone on the public record as questioning the religion he grew up in?

My faith is based on evidence. You can reject that evidence if you want to.

I reject the claim that it is indeed evidence, yes

But to assume that those of us who follow Jesus are wrong to do so because you are of the opinion that it is foolish smacks of the arrogance some Christians are accused of (and in some cases rightfully) by atheists.

As I said before, what happened in the Moral Question for Christians thread really opened my eyes. It was Christians there who said no, they would not try to save an innocent man from torture and execution.

I read what atheists write here because I want to understand where they're coming from.

I asked you before, what if I refuse to take part in the execution of the innocent Son of God. How then, is it that I am evil, wicked, sinful, whatever pejorative you care to use? I remember well our previous discussions on this topic.

we Christians get frustrated with atheists who seem blinded by their hatred of the very idea of God

Rather, the idea of the Christian God character, who is described in your own sacred holy texts as being of a petty nature, able to, willing to, and supposedly having once flooded the entire planet because people were quote unquote wicked.

I'm not against the idea of a generic god concept. I'm against the more or less specific God character that your religion promotes. That fellow? I think he's a [insert negative pejorative here], in much the same way I think Emperor Palpatine or Lord Voldemort are.

who refuse to entertain reasonable arguments in result and who spew vitriol instead of offering intelligent, thoughtful discussion.

Remind me again which of the two of us was calling the other, or others of his group, evil/wicked/sinful, for not allowing an innocent man to be tortured and executed?

Many of the posts by atheists here are tinged with sarcasm and mockery while many are out and out insults.

But those of the Christians flinging around cries of "Sinful!", they're just rosy, I suppose /sarcmarc?
I don't deny what it is you say here, but please, do not act like atheists are alone in doing so, or that they do not have justification. Many are like me, and have left a religion that demeaned them. I hope you're not ignorant as to what it is Paul, one of the most influential authors from the New Testament, wrote about atheists.

To me, such attitudes stem from pain and bitterness

The Christian religion did no harm to me, it's not like I am one of the victims of the RCC altar boy sex grooming gangs. So no, I'm not a part of this obvious group you think I'm a part of, someone who was hurt by the church and is lashing out.
No, my critiques are literally borne out of a rejection of the claims of the religion.

Christians put up with a lot of crap here.

Does the following not smack of 'crap'?

think how offended God is by your sin. The only way you can end your offense to him is accept that cross. And how offensive is it to Christ that you reject what he did for you? It's like he pulled you out of the Atlantic Ocean where you would surely have drowned, and you're shoving him aside, spitting in his face, telling him he's an idiot for saving you and you don't need him or what he offers you -- your very life.

And from an article you yourself linked to and promoted

The message of Christ crucified says you’re an absolute failure in relation to what’s most important.

Please do not pretend that you are blameless, that you are being persecuted etc. That you do not and have not said some pretty horrible things yourself.

And, by the way, welcome back! O.

Thank you.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 16 by Divine Insight]

In fact, I hold that if this is what you truly desire then you aren't interested "following" Jesus at all, but rather you simple agree with what you see as his moral values and give him your thumbs-up approval on moral issues.

Exactly. I invite Overcomer and others to take a look at my signature, those things that are below every comment I post to the website. There's an image of a statue and some quotes that I like.
The sentiments of those quotes are what I believe, and agree with, but here's the thing: it matters not one whit who said them. "Your life is your own, rise up and live it" could have been written by Terry Goodkind, Stepen King, Theresa May, heck, even Adolf Hitler, and it wouldn't change what I perceive as the truth of it.
The problem that I see in Christian theology is that so much of the dogma is wrapped up in their messiah being who he said he is. "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no-one comes to the Father except through me". If true, then this requires that it be Jesus Christ be the begotten Son of God, and not anyone else. It becomes a game of identity, in that self professed followers of Jesus are following him not because his ideas actually make sense in and of themselves, but because Jesus Christ just so happens to be the one correct person.
Would any of the sites professed Christians be willing to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ if they happened to have come from someone else? A Siddartha Gautama, for example?