The best way I have of knowing who our visitors are is either when people tell me they visit, when the board stats tell me, or when people post.

I know a few are exChristians. A few of you who have signed up and posted are Christians. But what kind of Christian are you and what is your motive for visiting? Marti, you posted for a bit. For about a month you visited every day and made the occasional post. Then you and I had a somewhat intense discussion just so that things were beginning to get a bit interesting. Then you disappeared and I haven't seen you since. In case you're reading this, I'm puzzled what it is you wanted here. Did you think you could convert the atheist?

All I wanted to do was have an interesting conversation and find out what you believe, why you believe it, and how you account for the inconsistencies in your beliefs. When Christians disappear at the very point where inconsistencies come up it seems as if they can't face Truth. That raises the very important issue of why would spend your best life energies on something other than Truth? There may very well be a good answer to that question but I don't know it and would be interested in hearing about it.

Oakman, you posted a question in the Stories section about the purpose of these forums. Since it didn't belong there, I deleted it from there and reposted it inside my post here on Dec. 19. I also posted my answer to it in the same post. You sounded really defensive. I assume you think I'm out to get you. If you read my answer to your post you will see that I have no interest in killing people. It is really strange, but statistically, Christians make up by far the largest world religion yet they think they are a persecuted minority. In North America, nonreligious people make up about ten percent of the population, and Christians make up about 80 percent. Yet Christians think the atheists are taking over the world??? That seems twisted somehow, unrealistic, paranoid even.

So far as I can see, Marti and Oakman, the two of you represent two broad streams of Christianity and its approaches to "the enemy." One is the liberal who "goes native" to win over or evangelize, and the other is the fundamentalist who takes the more militant approach. Either method works. The first gets rid of the enemy by turning the enemy into a friend. The second gets rid of the enemy by killing the enemy. I suspect neither of you see that it is the power of fundamentalist religion I am targeting more than the religion itself, albeit, at this point in history one can hardly target the power without also targeting the religion that holds the power.

If you don't know what I mean by the power of fundamentalist religion, just look at who is president of the most powerful country of the world, and who his most powerful supporters are. If that isn't power, then tell me, what is power? In either case you (theoretically) end up with no enemies. If you want people like me to back off, one thing you can do is back off yourself.

• Stop evangelizing.
• Stop organizing the vote through churches and the workplace.
• Stop blowing up abortion clinics.
• Stop campaigning for the right to post the Ten Commandments on the Court Steps.
• Stop pushing for prayer in schools and accept the teaching of science in public schools.
• Allow science to proceed at top speed.
• Trust the goodness and morality of human nature.

You are afraid of moral decay? Your Sacred Text says: Perfect love casts out fear. One of your hymns says: Trust and obey. All religions and humanists say: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Practice what you preach and you will be okay.

But what kind of Christian are you and what is your motive for visiting?

I don’t label myself, RSM., other than to say that I am Christian. My motive? Interest at first, in why someone has arrived at a place in his/her life where they feel so strongly about a religious group (in this case Fundamentalists) that they would take the trouble to set this forum up, and use the word ‘fight’ in its title.


Then you disappeared and I haven't seen you since. In case you're reading this, I'm puzzled what it is you wanted here. Did you think you could convert the atheist?

I ‘disappeared’ for two reasons, RSM.
1 After my last post here I was away – two conferences, one in Geneva and one in Edinburgh.
2 When I next looked in I found something to the effect that I should be a man and have the courage to answer your questions. I’m afraid that I don’t respond well to this sort of baiting. So I withdrew.

I have no desire to ‘convert’ anyone, RSM. Nor could I, even if I did want to do so..


All I wanted to do was have an interesting conversation and find out what you believe, why you believe it, and how you account for the inconsistencies in your beliefs.

Then I suggest that you become slightly less strident in ‘tone’.


When Christians disappear at the very point where inconsistencies come up it seems as if they can't face Truth.

It may seem like that if one’s mind is geared to that possibility. The truth, however, is as I’ve explained above.


That raises the very important issue of why would spend your best life energies on something other than Truth?

You’ll have to explain what you mean by this. My ‘life energies’ are spent on my family, friends, my work and my faith.. I can assure you that I find Truth in all its fullness in these important areas of my life.


One is the liberal who "goes native" to win over or evangelize, and the other is the fundamentalist who takes the more militant approach.

Which label am I to be honored with, RSM?

BTW - I do not regard the atheist as ‘the enemy’. This kind of language is, in my opinion, childish and silly.


Stop evangelizing.
Stop organizing the vote through churches and the workplace.
Stop blowing up abortion clinics.
Stop campaigning for the right to post the Ten Commandments on the Court Steps.
Stop pushing for prayer in schools and accept the teaching of science in public schools.
Allow science to proceed at top speed.
Trust the goodness and morality of human nature.
You are afraid of moral decay? Your Sacred Text says: Perfect love casts out fear. One of your hymns says: Trust and obey. All religions and humanists say: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Practice what you preach and you will be okay.

Are you addressing the above directives to me?
I ask because I fail to see how they apply. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

Marti

I am unsure how to continue this conversation. There are too many inconsistencies. I will address the issues.



1. I explain on the homepage of the website, and in Purpose of this Project in the Announcements section, why I feel as I do and why I set up the forums. If you needed more information than was available on the forums and website, it seems you would have asked. Since you have not asked, I have reason to be suspicious of your stated motive; it is inconsistent with your observable behaviour.

2. Given that there are presently more than thirty thousand variations of Christianity existing on this planet, and that a third of the human population identifies as Christian, the statement that you are Christian and that you don't label yourself is pretty much a blank cheque. You state repeatedly that you are not a fundamentalist, yet you have a problem with a set-up that opposes fundamentalist religion. Something is not right but I'm unsure what the problem is.



That's a pretty lame excuse not to answer an important question. I take it as evidence that you can't answer it. You were given plenty of opportunity to answer it before you left for those conferences and you just made some preposterous claims that no logical person can be expected to accept. I still want an answer to that question if there is one that holds together logically.



As you have confessed, it is barely half the truth. You returned, took offense, and disappeared. You misjudge me re my motives.


So you make preposterous claims. I ask you to back up the claims and you don't. Then you disappear. I feel deeply hurt that my serious questions are so lightly dismissed and challenge you for not being man enough to support your claims, like most Christians aren't. You use that for an excuse not to answer. I apologize. It wasn't meant as bait. I have had lifelong experience with Christians (most of this while I was a Christian seeking reasons to keep on believing) who disappear when my questions would get difficult. You were no exception. I was deeply hurt that you treated me the same. I still want answers to that question if you will be kind enough to go back and provide them. Christians in general make so many hateful statements about atheists. It starts with Paul's writings in the NT and it hasn't stopped yet. And we're supposed to put up with it all without so much as a single word of protest. We are, after all, human. Christians have all my life made preposterous claims that they can't back up. You seemed to do that same. Until I see that you are different I have no reason to think otherwise.



Since you have not yet enlightened me regarding that question about your understanding of the Bible I am left to my own understanding of what you meant. That seems somewhat unfortunate but unpreventable at this point. Perhaps you will yet enlighten me. However, that is all I have at the moment, and must use that for my explanation that you request here. Here goes:

You claim that the inconsistencies of the Bible prove its reliability or truthfulness or whatever. I forget the precise wording. So far as I am concerned, inconsistencies prove the opposite of Truth. And, as you know, I considered people who disappear when the questions get difficult to be people who cannot face Truth. Yet you give your best life energies to faith that is based on an inconsistent Bible rather than Truth. That, to me, is wasted energy.



So! The man who cannot find the courage to respond to a challenge to "be a man" and respond to a difficult question dares call me childish and silly for concluding that said man is behaving as though the atheist is an enemy? That's exactly part of the "going native" strategy. First you convince the atheist that he/she is not your enemy. You build rapport, gain their trust. Then wham them with your "good news." Not the old fashioned hard-core evangelical method, perhaps, but just as sure-fire determined. Given the huge number of inconsistencies in your self-presentation and they stuff you're hiding, I can come to no other conclusion.

Given your connections with Geneva, headquarters of World Council of Churches (I think), my guess is you're an active part of the world-wide ecumenical movement.

Marti, I am finding it extremely difficult to communicate with you because you keep saying: I'm not this, I'm not that, I disagree with this, I disagree with that. A positive statement about who you are and what you believe, though not required, would perhaps be helpful. I will leave the rest of your post for now.

Given that there are presently more than thirty thousand variations of Christianity existing on this planet, and that a third of the human population identifies as Christian, the statement that you are Christian and that you don't label yourself is pretty much a blank cheque. You state repeatedly that you are not a fundamentalist, yet you have a problem with a set-up that opposes fundamentalist religion. Something is not right but I'm unsure what the problem is.

RSM, I am as opposed to fundamentalist religion (any religion) as you are. (If you remember, It was the word ‘fight’ which I queried). But, it does seem to me, from what I have read here, that it is actually Christians en masse whom you ‘oppose’. Now I may be wrong in this, and if so I apologise, but this is most certainly the impression I’m getting (although I must admit that I haven’t read every post on this board, by any means)
That's a pretty lame excuse not to answer an important question. I take it as evidence that you can't answer it. You were given plenty of opportunity to answer it before you left for those conferences and you just made some preposterous claims that no logical person can be expected to accept. I still want an answer to that question if there is one that holds together logically.

RSM, I have a life to lead. These conferences were to do with my work, which I do not consider ‘a lame excuse’, and which certainly takes precedence over posting on an internet forum.

I also want to pick up something you said previously which rankled slightly:
“It is good to know you enjoy what you are doing and that you get paid for it. I wish all of us were that lucky”. There is no ‘luck’ involved, RSM, I can assure you. Just 6 years of solid study and hard work and burning the midnight oil.

As you have confessed, it is barely half the truth. You returned, took offense, and disappeared.

I am speaking the truth, and I did not take offense – I simply have no time to waste on interaction of the kind you were presenting (“Be a man – answer my questions”)

So you make preposterous claims.

‘Preposterous’? As far as I recall, I said that the inconsistencies in the 66 books which make up what we call the Bible do not, for me, detract from the truth which I find in there. And that is because I am not a literalist, I do not believe that the Bible is infallible and because I would be concerned were there no inconsistencies. Men wrote the various books in the Bible. Men are fallible.
I know many people who feel the same way, so to say that I am making ‘preposterous claims’ is gross exaggeration, imho.

I ask you to back up the claims and you don't.
And I have explained why – see above.

Then you disappear.
I have explained why I ‘disappeared’. We’re going round in circles here!

I feel deeply hurt that my serious questions are so lightly dismissed and challenge you for not being man enough to support your claims, like most Christians aren't. You use that for an excuse not to answer.
Not an excuse – a reason.

I apologize. It wasn't meant as bait. Thank you. I accept your apology.

I have had lifelong experience with Christians (most of this while I was a Christian seeking reasons to keep on believing) who disappear when my questions
would get difficult. You were no exception. I was deeply hurt that you treated me the same.
I am very sorry that you’ve been hurt so badly, and I’m sorry that my unavoidable absence has triggered these memories.

I still want answers to that question if you will be kind enough to go back and provide them
See above.

Christians in general make so many hateful statements about atheists
If you find this then you must move in a different social circle from me. We each have our own experiences, and if this is yours, I’m sorry. Even when I myself was an atheist, I wasn’t aware of hateful comments.

You claim that the inconsistencies of the Bible prove its reliability or truthfulness or whatever. I forget the precise wording.
See above.

So far as I am concerned, inconsistencies prove the opposite of Truth. And, as you know, I considered people who disappear when the questions get difficult to be people who cannot face Truth.
See above.

Yet you give your best life energies to faith that is based on an inconsistent Bible rather than Truth. That, to me, is wasted energy.
There are consistencies and inconsistencies in the various books contained within the Bible. How could it not be so? Jesus said “I am the Truth”. For me, Christ is the Word, the Logos - He is the Truth I find in the Bible. He is the Truth (for me) outside the Bible also.

So! The man who cannot find the courage to respond to a challenge to "be a man" and respond to a difficult question dares call me childish and silly for concluding that said man is behaving as though the atheist is an enemy?
No. I did not call YOU childish and silly. I don’t know you. I find the use of the word ‘enemy’ in this context to be childish and silly. Do you see the difference?
‘Courage’? There you go again, RSM – over-reacting. It does not take ‘courage’ to respond to a challenge to “Be a man”. Quite the opposite, in fact. I would consider it a sign of weakness to respond to this kind of ‘baiting’, since I have no doubts whatsoever concerning my gender identity, and have no need to prove it, especially to someone I don’t know..

That's exactly part of the "going native" strategy. First you convince the atheist that he/she is not your enemy.
RSM, I f you want to convince yourself that I regard you as my enemy, then you will. Nothing I can do about that. I say again – I do not see you as an enemy. I don’t know you. Take it or leave it – your choice.

You build rapport, gain their trust. Then wham them with your "good news." Not the old fashioned hard-core evangelical method, perhaps, but just as sure-fire determined. Given the huge number of inconsistencies in your self-presentation and they stuff you're hiding, I can come to no other conclusion.
Ok RSM – I don’t know how often I can keep saying the same thing. Your judgement is flawed in this area – that’s all there is to it.

Given your connections with Geneva, headquarters of World Council of Churches (I think), my guess is you're an active part of the world-wide ecumenical movement.
Wild guess, and also wrong. I was attending a scientific conference.


Marti

I think you're right in that we're going in circles. I think we're both frustrated to some degree. I looked at the other thread where this conversation started. I wonder if we could continue there. It's this thread What is the Theme of the Bible. My post of Nov. 11 asks a question I would be interested to see answers for. I posted a few things since then because I didn't knoe you were coming back, but it's the Nov. 11 post where I posted the question. I realize the analogy I provide is way off but I just don't know how better to make sense of it. Maybe you can use it as a jump-off point to explain what you mean--I really don't know.

Talk about six years of solid study and now having paying work based on that. I have ten years of solid study and still don't have a paying position. So I do think one has something to be grateful for if one is able to find paying work in their field of interest and training and expertise.

Hi RSM

Perhaps you will address the points I have made in this post?
In the meantime I will certainly go back and have a look at your post of Nov. 11.

Thank you.

Talk about six years of solid study and now having paying work based on that. I have ten years of solid study and still don't have a paying position. So I do think one has something to be grateful for if one is able to find paying work in their field of interest and training and expertise

Oh, I sure am grateful. I just don’t think there was any ‘luck’ involved.


Marti

I am unsure what points there are to address. Regarding my use of the word "fight," look up the info mentioned in my post in this thread of Jan. 1, Point 1. I think when you understand the purpose of this project, some of your other questions will be answered, too.

I should have clarified what I mean by "preposterous claim." To me it seem preposterous to claim that the inconsistencies of the Bible give it a "ring of truth." I would like to see how the logic works that goes into that statement. Your statement "I know many people who feel the same way" is an appeal to authority and does not explain the logic I need to understand why a person finds it tenable. The fact that humans wrote it does not explain the inconsistencies, either. All the books we have were written by humans. This includes libraries upon libraries of religious books, not to mention newspapers and magazines and court reports. Few contain inconsistencies of the scope, number, and magnitude found in the Bible. (For more information on inconsistencies of the Bible check out sources such as Skeptic's Annotated Bible in the CONTRADICTIONS IN SACRED TEXTS section in the Index of Sources.)

About Christians hating atheists. The hostility I have encountered since my deconversion has been such that I do not volunteer my religious position without very good reason. I have even run into unanticipated problems with liberal Christians. Religion is an off-limits topic with some people simply to avoid conflict. Regarding your own position, do you think God will admit atheists into heaven? Would you vote for an atheist in public office?

Whether all of religion is at fault or just fundamentalism is an openly debated question among atheists. Too many atheists see moderate and liberal religionists defending fundamentalists and covering for them. Here is an example from Islam:



FROM: Islam's Silent Moderates re a girl who faces a death sentence for having been raped.

Your position regarding fundamentalist religionists is very unclear to me.



I noticed that you don't like me to use the word "luck" so I used the word "grateful" instead.

Since this thread has turned into a discussion I will move it to the Lab.