Down to the Rapture

I'll acknowledge the atheist-bashing Christians have done has not been using the best approach, in regards to my previous question.

 

So yeah, I won't give the excuse non-Christians use for bashing Christians, but I will tell you the excuse Christians give: "He hit me back first!"

 

Some Christians like to pretend they are persecuted.

 

That is not what a Christian (Christ follower) is to do. The Christian's job is to deliver the Good Word (Gospel) and or set an example by mimicking what Jesus did. Some are better at it than others.

If I ever try to "win you over" please call me on it.

 

And atheist like to pretend they have been victimized.

 

If you're trying to mimic Jesus, if I remember this Jesus feller correctly, he said something or other about turning the other cheek, and mentioned something about "judge not lest ye be judged", and may have talked about "let ye without sin cast the first stone."

But in your last line, I see you're not trying to "show us the light", you're just bashing non-Christians for the sake of bashing non-Christians. I understand now; carry on!

 

How in the world did you get that last line as a bash?

 

You're not trying to "win me over", so what other possible motive do you have for insulting us?

 

I will admit to liking the internal questioning and resultant search for
understanding that reading a discussion like this creates to for me.
While I do some intense thinking, I rarely post about my thoughts
because it seems almost inevitable that the discussion becomes harshly
polarized... two camps, atheists and religionists, holed up in their
beliefs, unmoving and to a large extent unthinking, just regurgitating
historic rhetoric... in a downward spiral ending in personal attacks

:fencing:

Although there is much to be considered in the middle ground between
the widely separated camps, only a fool would venture there. They
would/will suffer from attacks from both extremes. Foolishly then, that
is where I intend to go.

:yield:

To my mind it is unproductive to consider questions like, "Does God
exist?" wholly on the basis of a single religion. Like wise, issues about
any and all religions are wholly separate from questions about the
nature of and the relationship of God to Creation. Religion and God are
two separate things.

Try as I might, I can not shake the notion that there might be a God.
For me, thinking on this matter boils down to if there is a God, how
does He/She/It react to creation. Creation would have been an
intentional act, but why the apparent inability or apparent failure in
allowing for things like the existance of evil and even catasrophic
natural calamities. I find the explanations given by historical Christian
thinkers to be lacking.

Enter the thinking of PhD physicist and ordained Anglican minister
John Polkinghorne.

There is of course Wikipedia, FWIW; [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne]John Polkinghorne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


I can't pretend to understand Polkinghorne's process of resoning, and can
in no way defend them. But I do find his writings thought provoking and
a source for continued intellectual stimulation, research and consideration.

eep:

 

On "winning them over", I don't expect that to happen to the principal players on threads like this one.

I have different objectives.

One is providing another perspective to the lurkers - the other is pointing out that Daniel and similar viewpoints are often more personal and less rational than they would like to believe.

On the departing from rational to personal, it undermines any arguement from the proponents themselves.

Many posts on threads like this look a lot more like [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misotheism"]misotheism[/ame] than true atheism...simply too much time and emotional content for it to be a person confident there is no God.

In person, I've been friends with people that are not religious to varying degrees and our conversations/lunches have been a lot more pleasant than some of these threads.

 

Good points Chuck. As to the last, in general when people are "in person" they tend to be more reserved. The internet allows them to let it all hang out so to speak.

 

Unless and until the concept of Freedom of Religion includes Freedom *From* Religion, atheists will be a persecuted minority. Religion is a pervasive, insidious influence, from "In God We Trust" printed on the currency, to people knocking at the door offering to 'save' me, to "I've got a book for you to read."

Wow. What is so difficult about the concept of disbelief? Hatred is something else entirely.

 

Wow, is that phrase printed on the loonie too?

The fact is this country has a Judeo-Christian heritage and if some feel "persecuted" by that, well that is unfortunate.

 

Since many early century laws were solely based on religious beliefs, forced on to the general public, everyone in this country has been victimized by religion. Even now, non-religious people are victimized, churches are becoming more and more political, yet they are tax exempt, with some of the most valuable property in the country, cities, towns, and states losing revenue.

Our money has been victimized by religion, people's rights, medical research, being able to purchase many products, all infringed by religious beliefs, even being able to marry, all infringed by religion. So don't tell me its a pretend situation, which is another way religion tries to claim innocence for a guilty situation.

 

Allow me to clarify some of my recent posts.

I said many - NOT ALL of the posts coming from the non-religious members come off as misotheistic instead of atheistic. Also said I had pleasant lunches and other conversations with friends that are not religious. For added emphasis, I was not and still not declaring all non-theistic posts a form of venting or hate speech.

It's mostly Daniel's posts - one of which was deleted yesterday for language, which he responded with a leave-of-absence thread. I can recall in 2006 or 2007, Windstrings took a lot more from Daniel over six months and is still a PC member. (The probable reason I can't find those threads is they are likely in Fred's Political House of Pancakes - read: intense) I may be pointing out personal remarks, but I'm going to avoid doing that and don't condone anyone doing it.

I'll ask the question again: How are some of the vitriolic posts (usually from Daniel) the most effective evangelism to get me to give up my religion?

 

I wonder how many people felt this way when the phrase was adopted? Looks like the first petition came up in 1861. Were you around then?

 

Thankfully, no. But the larger issue - aside from slogans on currency - is hardly restricted to one country.

That's good to hear. I try to be careful to speak with respect for the person, at least, but ideas, concepts, opinions, and viewpoints are fair game. I too have had many long and mostly pleasant conversations with people who do not share my views, and have remained on good terms. There's a big difference between learning, figuring out what's right for you, and evangelizing.

Well, then, you'll have to take it up with Daniel. I won't pretend to speak for him - he's more than capable of speaking for himself quite clearly and plainly. Maybe too much so, for some.

 

Yes Tom, call me Pat, most do.
I believe we don't know how the universe started to expand but it apparently is expanding. I see no reason to believe it was created by a magician. I also know magicians are tricky buggers that are actually ilusionists. That silver dollar was in existance all along, even before the magician walked on stage.

 

It's a pity then that TJ didn't live in the same country as you do.

no it isn't, it's truth.

It's called a social conscience, every government should have one.

 

You can blame it all on "Free Will." I like this partial explanation, from a church I goto too infrequently and it might lead to another avenue of research for you . . .

Seventh-day Adventists Believe... The Great Controversy: 27-08.htm

All humanity is now involved in a great controversy between Christ and Satan regarding the character of God, His law, and His sovereignty over the universe. This conflict originated in heaven when a created being, endowed with freedom of choice, in self-exaltation became Satan, God's adversary, and led into rebellion a portion of the angels. He introduced the spirit of rebellion into this world when he led Adam and Eve into sin. This human sin resulted in the distortion of the image of God in humanity, the disordering of the created world, and its eventual devastation at the time of the worldwide flood. Observed by the whole creation, this world became the arena of the universal conflict, out of which the God of love will ultimately be vindicated.

It still boggles my mind that God, omniscient knowing the beginning from the end, was willing to go through all of this so that we may exist and exist with 'free will'.