Find the enemy...

[razeontherock]

I'm not going to sit here and pretend I'm above it. Nobody knows better than I do that it's impossible for anyone to stand above prejudice.

Sorry but that's a false statement. Perhaps that should be your working definition of "doctrinal Christianity," someone who rises above prejudice?

G-d can enable you to do that.

what I see is still a disturbingly large number of people calling me their enemy with an open Bible in front of them.

Here's an even better way to separate "doctrinal C's" from "pop C's:"

(Ephesians 6:12) "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places]."

Anyone declaring you their enemy is not a "True Christian." TM

So how did you know their behavior was out of place?

 

[oi_antz]

Hi JGG, I've been discovering a difference between Christians who believe a false Christ, and those who believe the one and only Jesus Christ. Notice that as soon as someone begins arguing with what The Bible says, they are then demonstrating that the "Christ" they are listening to is actually a demon. It's dangerous territory to believe demons, and I know it from experience. So if you are honest in what you read from The Bible, then you are sufficiently qualified to know if the "True Christian" is using scripture in it's intended context or whether there is something that God has told him that he doesn't want to accept and thus, believes a false Christ. Take for example the following passage:

Malachi 3:8-12 (New Living Translation)

8 “Should people cheat God? Yet you have cheated me!

“But you ask, ‘What do you mean? When did we ever cheat you?’

“You have cheated me of the tithes and offerings due to me. 9 You are under a curse, for your whole nation has been cheating me. 10 Bring all the tithes into the storehouse so there will be enough food in my Temple. If you do,” says the Lord of Heaven’s Armies, “I will open the windows of heaven for you. I will pour out a blessing so great you won’t have enough room to take it in! Try it! Put me to the test! 11 Your crops will be abundant, for I will guard them from insects and disease.[a] Your grapes will not fall from the vine before they are ripe,” says the Lord of Heaven’s Armies. 12 “Then all nations will call you blessed, for your land will be such a delight,” says the Lord of Heaven’s Armies.

If you have ever believed that God doesn't expect tithes then you have listened to a false god, and many Christians have done this too. Thus, I am refraining from a distinction between true and false Christians, and beginning to refer to Christians as those who are repentant and who follow the path of straight and narrow, comparing that to those who are on the broad road where they can wander to and fro. So the broad road catches a lot of fish, but many of those fish are cast back and few who find the narrow gate. If you do find the narrow gate, you are very wise not to turn away from it.

 

[DomainRider]

Are you talking to me or him?

Anyone who's interested.

 

[JGG]

You don't. If you want to be able to make a real discernment between popular Christianity and biblical Christianity then do your own research.

I have, although I suspect mine was from a different perspective than yours. However, I still don't believe in the idea of a "True Christian."

Because collage professors have been rightly given the abusive stereotype, and because I pointed out this fact to you

Actually, you did not point out a fact, you pointed out your opinion. And it seems to be that your opinion that was based on a purported handful of students (among millions of students, and tens of thousands of professors), and even then only really on one (which I personally find less than credible). There are certainly a handful of cases of abusive First Grade teachers (I had one), you wouldn't accept that stereotype to justified.

You represent one extreme, and the story another. The truth lies somewhere between the two. It is my sincerest hope that you received more from my efforts than what you have posted to this point.

What makes you think I'm an extreme? I really doubt I am. Secondly, the story doesn't actually represent anything. It represents a social stereotype in a fantasy story.

Again, take a look at some of the posts that your 'brothers' have started and maintained. You my friend are in the minority of the minority. Others who bear your icon of belief do not seem to share your sentiments.

They are not required to. And guess what? They can disagree with me, and still be atheists.

After all do you believe that all black men are criminals? Do you presuppose that all Oriental people can not drive? that all Mexicans, are landscapers? That all Gay men are pedophiles?

No. None of the black men I know are criminals. I don't know that any of the Asians I know are particularly bad drivers. I don't know any Mexican landscapers, and I don't know any gay pedophiles. In other words, I don't believe these stereotypes because they are social stereotypes, and my personal experiences do not reflect these stereotypes at all.

Why are you able to drag out a teaspoon worth of discernment here, and are not willing to do so with Christianity?

Because, while I will admit to having prejudices, just like everyone else, they're based on my own personal experiences with the Christian community over my lifetime. They're not based on social stereotypes. Stereotypes are easy to refute. Prejudices are less so. My prejudices exist because I have had more negative experiences with Christians than positive ones. Certainly, the negative ones have been far more impactful on me than any positive ones. Unfortunately, the only way for me to lessen such prejudices is the very same way I got them to begin with.

Never the less there does seem to be a smug satisfaction when an atheist makes a believer doubt his faith. This seems to be reward enough for those who come here. This also seems to be the fuel that keep your brothers coming back. Which makes it apart of your belief.

Really? What do you think I gain by converting someone to atheism? I don't really get any satisfaction from seeing someone lose their faith. But doubt it? That I understand.

For example, you keep going on about how I have to understand your point of view. How it is essential for me to understand the Christian point of view regarding "True Christians," "Doctrinal Christians," and "Pop Christians." But keep in mind, this is my thread, my subject, and my concern. This kind of revolves around my point of view, and you clearly have made no attempt to see things from where I sit.

You believe that Christ, the divine son of God, lived, and gave us a clear, concise, singular doctrine, that was recorded in the Bible. This doctrine can be read an understood, and needs to be followed. Those who do this are Doctrinal Christians, or True Christians. Those who do not understand, do not follow, or follow another doctrine are Pop Christians or Fake Christians. You claim that you are among those who who understand and follow the doctrine.

But you also have to understand that I don't believe that Christ lived, and everything kind of falls apart from there. I do not believe that the Bible has a singular message. I believe people interpret it by putting greater emphasis on some parts, and less emphasis on, sometimes discarding others, depending on how they conform to their existing values. Every Christian believes that they are part of the group that has the real doctrine, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong. So when you say this time you really, truly, honestly are the one who has the real doctrine, realize that I've had this conversation dozens of times already, and will probably have it a dozen more times.

I already know you're going to disagree with me, because I'm sure you're already certain that you have the real doctrine. But you're going to have to convince me in some other manner than just claiming over and over again that you have the real doctrine and that I have to understand it. You can start by convincing me that the Bible is valid and more than just a book. To do that you're going to have to genuinely understand why I don't believe it is.

Now, back to doubt: Mother Theresa had doubts, Martin Luther had doubts, Sir Isaac Newton had doubts (he's the grandfather of atheism!), Martin Luther King had doubts, even Thomas the apostle had doubts. He who is certain in his beliefs without any questioning or doubt, lacks humility. And more often than not, this is the problem I, and probably other atheists run into. Many Christians hold themselves up on a platform and talk down to us. They expect us to conform to their beliefs and understand their point of view, but never make any effort to do the same for us. Why would they? They know they're right, they shouldn't have to understand any other point of view. Those who can doubt their faith, and struggle with their faith, can actually understand people like me, which is really all I ask. These people can empathize, and talk to me like we're fellow human beings, not like the righteous man talking at the infidel. These Christians are, unfortunately, few and far between. So the idea of creating doubt, I can empathize with.

If you cared at all about the blind you are creating then you would do a little research. For you it may seem like you have a legitimate argument here, and this may have been true if there were no standards for me to make the distinction that I did, but the opposite is true. For instance. the other guy you are talking with took a strong defensive posture on your story as if he was the author, and had different reasons to try and defend the way the professor was handled. He hung all of this on an old testament/Jewish proverb, when in fact the works and word of Christ were contrary to his claims. When I posted these words his argument stopped. As a doctrinal Christian there was little else he could say.

I have not refered to any other poster on here at all. I used "these guys" as a rhetorical device. I'm pretty sure referring to other posters as not being "True Christians" is against forum rules.

The same as you do popular Christians. The bible.

If I'm going to hold all Christians to the same standard, why would we make a distinction?

Book Chapter and Verse. I've demonstrated this in this thread a couple of different times already.

Yeah, you've gone on and on about the content. Explain how you would use the Bible to counter the contextual idea that atheists are the enemy.

The whole of your argument is based on a double standard, or rather you are pointing out a stereotypical 'christian' prejudice, when you have to employ an equally prejudice tactic to do so yourself.

No. Firstly, stereotypes and prejudice are different things. The story is meant to teach, and propagate a social stereotype. It serves to further the view without dissenting opinion. I admit that I am prejudiced, but at least I'm working on it. I'd like to believe that Christians can accept me as a fellow, equal human being as an atheist, and not as a Goliath to be slain. However, my personal experience says otherwise. I'm not trying to spread my prejudice as propaganda, I'm expressing them to those who can either correct them, or make them worse. I'm explaining my problems with Modern Western Christianity to people who can try to understand them, and maybe even do something about it, or at least attempt to make up for it. Or they can say "Yeah, but..."

This action show that you have little concern about the manner in which the professor in the story was tried and found guilty, your primary focus is on exploiting an opportunity to persecute those you have similarly have tried and found guilty. This point is further demonstrated by the fact that you have little to no interest in segregating the "wheat from the weeds or the sheep from the goats." (The good/from the bad) It's not that you can not do this, or that you have not done this in other instances (as you previous paragraph has indicated.) You choose not to. You are so focused on your target that you have ignored all other elements of civility, thus sacrificing your intergity... Which puts you in the very same realm of professor that this story is all about.

I can say that there are good and bad Christians. I am unwilling to say that there are True Christians, and fake Christians. There are good and bad African Americans, but there aren't True African Americans, and Fake African Americans. I am willing to accept that a Christian who does not believe in Revelation can still be "good," even though you claim that they're not True Christians.

You keep demanding that I agree with you about True Christians, and Doctrinal Christians. I can't do that. It requires that I believe something that I just can't believe.

Because it would show genuine concern as to resolving the nature of this conflict.

It could, or you could understand why I cannot accept the claim that there are True Christians.

From your perspective I do not. Because it would take you off your intended path. However as I just said if you intent was to help resolve this issue, then it would truly be a wake up call to have an atheist professor tell a pop christian (with the proper book chapter and verse) that their actions do not align with the teachings and actions of Christ.

Why would an atheist professor, of all people, tell any Christian that they are not aligned with the teachings and actions of Christ? We don't even believe that there was a message, or were actions of Christ. If you're so concerned about it, you tell them.

The discernment they use to classify you as an enemy is not an anti Christian act. Treating you as one is. There is no sin in approaching you with their guard up. Your actions here tell me this is a well justified approach.

Just as my keeping a guard toward "True Christians" approaching me is clearly a justified approach. Frankly, declaring me an enemy is treating me as one.

 

[razeontherock]

Because, while I will admit to having prejudices, just like everyone else, they're based on my own personal experiences with the Christian community over my lifetime ...

Unfortunately, the only way for me to lessen such prejudices is the very same way I got them to begin with.

That will not work. You need a different process to undo the ingraining of prejudice. Are you willing to look at this from a practical, workable standpoint?

You can accurately view your experience to date w/ Christians, and I concede it's been mostly bad. Obviously. You are allowed to grimace when next engaging a known professing Christian, expecting pain similar to what you've experienced before. This is normal. Can you then respect that person's individuality, and actually respond to what they say? Or do you have to stop your ears and let your own closure, the very worst of human nature, kick in and provide all the details even over the vocal opposition from whomever you're engaging?

Most of my time on CF has been engaging atheists, mostly to try to understand their mindset. And all but maybe one has fallen into that latter camp. Why not show me you can bring that up to 2?

And that is how you conquer prejudice.

He who is certain in his beliefs without any questioning or doubt, lacks humility.

Either that or they have been through the process of struggle and suffering, and have matured and been established by G-d Himself. The difference is obvious, and this is how the Bible proves itself to be more than just another book, because it comes alive.

Those who can doubt their faith, and struggle with their faith, can actually understand people like me, which is really all I ask. These people can empathize, and talk to me like we're fellow human beings

You just said you don't wish to engage a mature Christian who actually knows G-d and has experience, so I hope you'll understand why I ask you to refine your position here. A baby Christian who sees everything in black and white and can't handle the "sword of the Spirit" w/o attempting to chop your head off with it is no solution. A mature Christian who has struggled and overcome doubt has abundant humility, and the right person can relate to you. You might be interested in seeing some word pictures where G-d has spoken to this very process of maturity? I find them quite beautiful!

Explain how you would use the Bible to counter the contextual idea that atheists are the enemy.

I've already done that, which is an example of the Word coming alive; yes, in little ol' me. And w/o having to quote book chapter and verse, I'll point out this too is evidence of both G-d Himself, and His authorship of the Bible as a cohesive whole: "before you ask, the answer is on it's way."

Notice the wording. Why "on it's way?" Because while it was sent, you overlooked it, and haven't received it. Otherwise you wouldn't have written this last snippet I quoted.

I'd like to believe that Christians can accept me as a fellow, equal human being as an atheist, and not as a Goliath to be slain.

Done!

I can say that there are good and bad Christians. I am unwilling to say that there are True Christians, and fake Christians. There are good and bad African Americans, but there aren't True African Americans, and Fake African Americans.

I do see your point, but can you see mine? You are trying to apply the No True Scotsman fallacy to Christianity, ("C") and it just doesn't apply because your analogy doesn't hold. Being of a certain ethnicity is verifiable by many means. Being C, or not, isn't. Simply because we can't see a person's heart. In fact we're told our own heart is the most deceitful and wicked thing that ever existed. Kind humbling, eh?

So we are left to discerning behavior. And we are given clear guidelines. We are also given clear instructions to be "fruit inspectors." This is on a need to know basis, and - we (C's) need to know.

 

[oi_antz]

However, I still don't believe in the idea of a "True Christian."

I have been thinking a huge amount about this too. From getting around various churches I have seen people who are involved in Christianity but they have not given their life to God. They sit amongst the flock and they answer questions about faith to the best of their knowledge, but their heart is far from Him because they have not cut loose the sin in their life. Remember this verse:

Isaiah 29:13 (New Living Translation)

13 And so the Lord says,
“These people say they are mine.
They honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
And their worship of me
is nothing but man-made rules learned by rote.

These people do not know God because they have divorced Him with their sin. Everything they say is mere knowledge learned by listening to others, and does not come from their heart. If you look at the conscience of such a person, it is not white as snow. These are those who are worshiping a false Christ, and if you pressed them you would see they have doubts about the resurrection and Jesus' second coming. These ones are actually working for Satan without knowing it, they are called hypocrites.

A building doesn't define a church, it is the faithful congregation that defines the church. Thus, though there may be 25% of attendees in a church building who have genuine faith, who know God and obey Him with all their strength, the other 75% can have what we call false faith, where they will tell lies to your face and they forget about God as soon as they walk out the door.

You have the right to know whether a Christian is lying to you, just invoke them to speak about their faith under oath in Jesus' name. The Bible is your sword and faith is your shield. Although I see you have a lot of hurt recoiled against Christianity, I see you have mercy for those who are good. Remember that in the flock, there are many who love to be good. There's a couple of adages about this:

• It only takes a few spoiled apples to ruin the cart.
• Will not a pound of meat be affected by a quarter pound of salt?

Jesus tells us we are the salt of the earth, if we lose our flavor we are no longer good for anything but to be trodden underfoot.

I hope you will give some thought toward identifying Christians who are striving for holiness and making the distinction against those who are serving false gods and trying to destroy God's kingdom. It is by their fruits you shall know them. Read Galations 5 about that.

You need to be fair to Jesus, because not everyone who claims to represent Him is actually living the way He has instructed them. Do you know how weak the human is? I just couldn't get my flatmates to stop stealing my coffe and sugar and stop using perfume, because they are so weak! If we fail to embrace Jesus and the power of The Holy Spirit we will be slaves to sin forever! In the end I just moved away from them, oh how weak is the human flesh. They wanted to do right, but could not help behaving with disrespect and then lying to my face about it.

 

[oi_antz]

But you also have to understand that I don't believe that Christ lived, and everything kind of falls apart from there.

This is the greatest hurdle I have seen you face yet. Once you believe that even one part of the Bible is wrong then you have divorced yourself from accepting that anything God says is true, and instead you have decided that the buck stops with you. Therefore, you have elevated yourself to God's position. Do you not realize that this puts you at enmity to God, and even God's people?

I feel concerned for you when I hear you say this, the battle over your soul is so intense that you are really facing some of the most challenging thoughts I've ever witnessed, and the way youu approached the matter of the honesty thread, I have noticed quite a serious change for the worse in terms of your faith. I really do hope you'll find a Christian friend who you trust enough to know they want to help and not hurt, to talk with about these things. I feel like the internet prevents so much of our character from shining through such as hugs and handshakes, but I will pray for you because although you face difficult challenges, you are not the only one who has had to go through it.

I wonder, have you ever read the entire Bible? Have you ever understood it? Have you ever read Nahum? I found that book was really good to help me when I was new to the faith, and if you read that book faithfully then I think you would see that God is not against you but instead He wants to save you from those who are against Him, such as that antichrist you are listening to.

I understand that you are upset at the way some Christians behave, and don't go thinking that I'm here to defend such behavior, but it is easy to blame a man when you have never walked in his shoes. When you dabble with Christianity you dabble with angels, demons and God Himself who sends and restrains them according to the training we require. We each have a personal struggle with pride and stereotypes (which is what motivated your OP), some people are more mature than others, but I doubt whether having the label "Christian" or "Atheist" has any bearing upon this sort of activity, I see plenty of Christian-bashing going on in secular circles.

 

[drich0150]

I have, although I suspect mine was from a different perspective than yours. However, I still don't believe in the idea of a "True Christian."

Being a "True Christian" has absolutely nothing to do with the differences between Biblical and Popular Christianity. As I have already mentioned It is possible for a bible believing Christian to get caught up in popular Christian notions.

Actually, you did not point out a fact, you pointed out your opinion. And it seems to be that your opinion that was based on a purported handful of students (among millions of students, and tens of thousands of professors), and even then only really on one (which I personally find less than credible). There are certainly a handful of cases of abusive First Grade teachers (I had one), you wouldn't accept that stereotype to justified.

So it is your professional opinion, that My personal opinion among a minority following of like minded believers have spawned this unfounded tale... Why is it you are so will to acknowledge the reason for a stereotype when it benefits your argument but can not seem to find yourself when the same reasoning works against you?

What makes you think I'm an extreme? I really doubt I am. Secondly, the story doesn't actually represent anything. It represents a social stereotype in a fantasy story.

Because in your claim you do not fit the stereotypical profile the a self righteous professor that the story portrays.

..and the story does represent a need for those caught up in popular christianity to reground their efforts in scripture.

They are not required to. And guess what? They can disagree with me, and still be atheists.

Which as my statement originally pointed out, makes you apart of the minority.

No. None of the black men I know are criminals. I don't know that any of the Asians I know are particularly bad drivers. I don't know any Mexican landscapers, and I don't know any gay pedophiles. In other words, I don't believe these stereotypes because they are social stereotypes, and my personal experiences do not reflect these stereotypes at all.

Lol, Have you ever work in a prison outreach of any kind? Maybe it is a regional thing. Here there are more black men in prison that white Latino or Asian. All my family are terrible drivers, (Including myself 1 speeding ticket and an accident with in 60 days of each other)My neighbors are Mexican landscapers (The literal 10 that live in their house minus the kids) And evidently the Catholic church has it's fill of homosexual pedophiles. Stereotypes are based on well founded prejudices.
It is what one does with those stereotypes/prejudices that makes or breaks a man's integrity.
What broke yours is that you are willing to maintain and with hold judgment on prejudices that it is mandated by pop culture, but you let the Axe fall when and where ever you can. This makes you sir are an old school bigot who has learned to play the system. this is made apparent when you are willing to quickly accuse doctrinal Christians for the social sins that popular christians have committed with out the same care or discernment that you so carefully laid out for those stereotypes/prejudices that a white man is forbidden to make.

What is truly disgusting is that you make a case based on your stated disapproval of this type of behavior when clearly you have no qualms in pursuing 'reparations' even if you have to sell your soul to the very same behavior you so adamantly disapprove of to begin with.

Because, while I will admit to having prejudices, just like everyone else, they're based on my own personal experiences with the Christian community over my lifetime.

When I made a similar observation you summarily identified my efforts and move to quickly dismiss them in the first or second paragraph of your last response. Again Hypocrisy from the one who claims enlightenment.

They're not based on social stereotypes. Stereotypes are easy to refute. Prejudices are less so. My prejudices exist because I have had more negative experiences with Christians than positive ones.

Again this is the stereotype you are playing to. That all negative acts were in accordance with doctrinal Christianity. Do you not see this or do you hope that i will simply drop this point? Or do you content that you have indeed weighted and measure every single "Christian" you have come in contact with and have deemed their works in line with the works found in scripture?

Really? What do you think I gain by converting someone to atheism?

What do you gain by holding the whole of Christianity to the actions of so few?

For example, you keep going on about how I have to understand your point of view. How it is essential for me to understand the Christian point of view regarding "True Christians," "Doctrinal Christians," and "Pop Christians." But keep in mind, this is my thread, my subject, and my concern. This kind of revolves around my point of view, and you clearly have made no attempt to see things from where I sit.

I have acknowledge you POV several time through out this discussion. I simply do not agree with it. I am currently in the process of identifying and drawing parallels in the efforts you have made in this thread to this point, and to the behavior you claim to distaste so much. But evidently it is not the core behavior itself that you despise. It is the fact it is being successfully used against you.

You believe that Christ, the divine son of God, lived, and gave us a clear, concise, singular doctrine, that was recorded in the Bible. This doctrine can be read an understood, and needs to be followed. Those who do this are Doctrinal Christians, or True Christians.

"True Christian" is your distinction. As I have pointed out 4 or 5 times now a Doctrinal Christian can be caught up in popular Christianity. That it is why you nor I am to make a "true Christian" distinction. We are simply to inspect the fruit of their efforts and point out where they efforts do not align with Doctrinal Christianity.

Those who do not understand, do not follow, or follow another doctrine are Pop Christians or Fake Christians. You claim that you are among those who who understand and follow the doctrine.

This is the argument you hope or Need me to argue so that your practiced arguments will maintain cohesion. Again and again this is not the case.

But you also have to understand that I don't believe that Christ lived, and everything kind of falls apart from there.
I do not believe that the Bible has a singular message. I believe people interpret it by putting greater emphasis on some parts, and less emphasis on, sometimes discarding others, depending on how they conform to their existing values. Every Christian believes that they are part of the group that has the real doctrine, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong. So when you say this time you really, truly, honestly are the one who has the real doctrine, realize that I've had this conversation dozens of times already, and will probably have it a dozen more times.

The old, lets throw the baby out with the bath water argument. When an atheist feels cornered you all have the same response. In that you press what you perceive to be the panic stop button on the argument. That somehow because you do not believe in God the bible or Christ that somehow diminished the hold all of those things have over you and on this discussion.

i have two options, either go back and highlight all of the posturing you have done through out this thread in an attempt to hold Christians to a righteousness standard that does not exist (Otherwise why spend so much time and effort pursuing your point if you did not at least believe in some standard if not for anyone else but for the way a Christian is to act.)
Or two
simply allow you to wander into what ever direction you need to go so that you may save face. To ignore the blatant changes you have made to my statements so that you may coherently argue a singular point. One that you have derived from stereotypical Christian dialogue...

I guess the third option is to present both options and allow you to argue what ever you feel most comfortable with.
so...

I already know you're going to disagree with me, because I'm sure you're already certain that you have the real doctrine. But you're going to have to convince me in some other manner than just claiming over and over again that you have the real doctrine and that I have to understand it. You can start by convincing me that the Bible is valid and more than just a book. To do that you're going to have to genuinely understand why I don't believe it is.

Answered above, this statement has absolutely nothing to do with anything I have said to this point. If this is a line of thought you wish to pursue then this conversation is over.

Now, back to doubt: Mother Theresa had doubts, Martin Luther had doubts, Sir Isaac Newton had doubts (he's the grandfather of atheism!), Martin Luther King had doubts, even Thomas the apostle had doubts. He who is certain in his beliefs without any questioning or doubt, lacks humility. And more often than not, this is the problem I, and probably other atheists run into. Many Christians hold themselves up on a platform and talk down to us. They expect us to conform to their beliefs and understand their point of view, but never make any effort to do the same for us. Why would they? They know they're right, they shouldn't have to understand any other point of view. Those who can doubt their faith, and struggle with their faith, can actually understand people like me, which is really all I ask. These people can empathize, and talk to me like we're fellow human beings, not like the righteous man talking at the infidel. These Christians are, unfortunately, few and far between. So the idea of creating doubt, I can empathize with.

Which is not consistent with what you said acouple of paragraphs earlier, when you championed your righteousness in not wanting to cause a believer to doubt his faith.

Do you want to know why "we" approach you all with our guard up? Because you all have absolutely nothing in the way of an absolute standard in which to follow that is to set or govern your behavior. This last comment is evidence of that in you specifically, especially when held in the light to your previous comment. How can we approach you as an equal if at any minute you may turn on us as a stray dog could? Your scruples seem to be directly tied to your emotional state. "Be good when you "feel" like it and unleash Hell when it suits your mood.

"We" do not have that luxury. We have been given a set of directives that compels us to maintain a specific code of conduct no matter how those around us "feel." This means if a professor decides to make an example of one of us, and we have nothing else we can say, then we are to be made an example of. How many times do you think this needs to happen before the young in Spirit want to stay with in the safety of like minded believers?

Do not be offended when brothers circle the wagons when you exhibit behavior the deems it necessary that they do so.

If I'm going to hold all Christians to the same standard, why would we make a distinction?

So that you may personally discern that those who may have wronged you may have done so outside Doctrinal Christianity. Also it gives you the option to rebuke their behavior to the only standard we have that is to dictate our behavior.

No. Firstly, stereotypes and prejudice are different things. The story is meant to teach, and propagate a social stereotype. It serves to further the view without dissenting opinion. I admit that I am prejudiced, but at least I'm working on it. I'd like to believe that Christians can accept me as a fellow, equal human being as an atheist, and not as a Goliath to be slain. However, my personal experience says otherwise. I'm not trying to spread my prejudice as propaganda, I'm expressing them to those who can either correct them, or make them worse. I'm explaining my problems with Modern Western Christianity to people who can try to understand them, and maybe even do something about it, or at least attempt to make up for it. Or they can say "Yeah, but..."

How are "we" (The whole of Christianity) to make up for the social sins committed against you, by those who were not acting on the behalf of Christ or Christianity?

I can say that there are good and bad Christians. I am unwilling to say that there are True Christians, and fake Christians. There are good and bad African Americans, but there aren't True African Americans, and Fake African Americans. I am willing to accept that a Christian who does not believe in Revelation can still be "good," even though you claim that they're not True Christians.

Your argument not mine.

You keep demanding that I agree with you about True Christians, and Doctrinal Christians. I can't do that. It requires that I believe something that I just can't believe.

Do You keep differing to this argument so that you may ignore what is actually being said here? (Go back and reread if you truly want to know)

Why would an atheist professor, of all people, tell any Christian that they are not aligned with the teachings and actions of Christ? We don't even believe that there was a message, or were actions of Christ. If you're so concerned about it, you tell them.

Asked and answered a few paragraphs earlier

Just as my keeping a guard toward "True Christians" approaching me is clearly a justified approach. Frankly, declaring me an enemy is treating me as one.

Thankfully we do not have to placate to the emotions or to the 'moral standards' of our enemies. We are simply bound not to treat them as they would treat us.

 

[JGG]

That will not work. You need a different process to undo the ingraining of prejudice. Are you willing to look at this from a practical, workable standpoint?

You can accurately view your experience to date w/ Christians, and I concede it's been mostly bad. Obviously. You are allowed to grimace when next engaging a known professing Christian, expecting pain similar to what you've experienced before. This is normal. Can you then respect that person's individuality, and actually respond to what they say? Or do you have to stop your ears and let your own closure, the very worst of human nature, kick in and provide all the details even over the vocal opposition from whomever you're engaging?

Some from column A, some from column B. My prejudices are not quite so cut and dry as you may already think. However, as long as the person has something new, and interesting to say, I typically engage. If it turns into the same old same old, I just go through the motions.

Most of my time on CF has been engaging atheists, mostly to try to understand their mindset. And all but maybe one has fallen into that latter camp. Why not show me you can bring that up to 2?

And that is how you conquer prejudice.

I'm sorry, what is how you conquer prejudice?

Either that or they have been through the process of struggle and suffering, and have matured and been established by G-d Himself. The difference is obvious, and this is how the Bible proves itself to be more than just another book, because it comes alive.

You just said you don't wish to engage a mature Christian who actually knows G-d and has experience, so I hope you'll understand why I ask you to refine your position here. A baby Christian who sees everything in black and white and can't handle the "sword of the Spirit" w/o attempting to chop your head off with it is no solution. A mature Christian who has struggled and overcome doubt has abundant humility, and the right person can relate to you. You might be interested in seeing some word pictures where G-d has spoken to this very process of maturity? I find them quite beautiful!

There's an old Buddhist story that Monks used to use a teaching tool (which I am paraphrasing). A young monk after meditating, discovers Nirvana. He runs to the other Monks and tells them, "I have experienced Nirvana. It is like running through an endless field of daisies."

One of the Elders leans forward and says "I know what you describe, and I'm afraid it's not Nirvana. If you meditate even deeper as I have, you will realize that it's not like running through an endless field of daisies at all. True Nirvana is like swimming in a stream that carries you along like a leaf on the wind."

Then, another elder leans forward and says "I know what you both describe, and I'm afraid neither is Nirvana. If you meditate even deeper as I have, you will each realize that it's not like running through an endless field of daisies, or swimming in a stream that carries you along like a leaf on the wind at all. If you each meditate even deeper as I have..."

I've already done that, which is an example of the Word coming alive; yes, in little ol' me. And w/o having to quote book chapter and verse, I'll point out this too is evidence of both G-d Himself, and His authorship of the Bible as a cohesive whole: "before you ask, the answer is on it's way."

Notice the wording. Why "on it's way?" Because while it was sent, you overlooked it, and haven't received it. Otherwise you wouldn't have written this last snippet I quoted.

To be fair, and no offence, but the question wasn't directed at you for a reason. I assume you refer to the scripture in the other thread?

Done!

That's about the easiest thing in the world to say. How do either of us know that's it's true?

I do see your point, but can you see mine? You are trying to apply the No True Scotsman fallacy to Christianity, ("C") and it just doesn't apply because your analogy doesn't hold. Being of a certain ethnicity is verifiable by many means. Being C, or not, isn't. Simply because we can't see a person's heart. In fact we're told our own heart is the most deceitful and wicked thing that ever existed. Kind humbling, eh?

But that's exactly why the No True Scotsman fallacy applies. It is the fact that we "can't see a person's heart" only one who can do so can make genuine claim as to who is a True Christian. Since I do not believe that such a being exists, so I cannot say that a True Christian truly exists. In the very least, neither you or I, can make such a claim.

So we are left to discerning behavior. And we are given clear guidelines. We are also given clear instructions to be "fruit inspectors." This is on a need to know basis, and - we (C's) need to know.

Which for me comes down to there are good people and bad people. Whether someone is Christian or not, isn't up to me to decide.

 

[JGG]

This is the greatest hurdle I have seen you face yet. Once you believe that even one part of the Bible is wrong then you have divorced yourself from accepting that anything God says is true, and instead you have decided that the buck stops with you. Therefore, you have elevated yourself to God's position. Do you not realize that this puts you at enmity to God, and even God's people?

I wouldn't say that just because one part is wrong, that I threw out the rest. It did shatter an illusion I had though, and that didn't help my faith. The reason I gave up on it is that couldn't reason why I believed it in the first place.

I feel concerned for you when I hear you say this, the battle over your soul is so intense that you are really facing some of the most challenging thoughts I've ever witnessed, and the way youu approached the matter of the honesty thread, I have noticed quite a serious change for the worse in terms of your faith.

To be fair, I don't think so. My position is the same now as it ever was. I didn't have faith then, and I don't now.

I really do hope you'll find a Christian friend who you trust enough to know they want to help and not hurt, to talk with about these things.

In a sense, so do I, but for other reasons. However, instead I keep finding people who already know that I'm their enemy.

I wonder, have you ever read the entire Bible?

Twice. Once as a Christian, and again on my way out. That doesn't include Bible study as a teenager, and bits since.

Have you ever understood it?

As a believer I did. As a non-believer, I did. I'm sure you would say in either instance I did not.

Have you ever read Nahum? I found that book was really good to help me when I was new to the faith, and if you read that book faithfully then I think you would see that God is not against you but instead He wants to save you from those who are against Him, such as that antichrist you are listening to.

Whoa, I'm not new to the faith. I'm not in the faith. My ideas are different. I know you see that as being the antichrist, but only because you can't see things the way I do.

I understand that you are upset at the way some Christians behave, and don't go thinking that I'm here to defend such behavior, but it is easy to blame a man when you have never walked in his shoes. When you dabble with Christianity you dabble with angels, demons and God Himself who sends and restrains them according to the training we require.

But I have walked in the shoes of those people. Which makes me all the more upset.

We each have a personal struggle with pride and stereotypes (which is what motivated your OP), some people are more mature than others, but I doubt whether having the label "Christian" or "Atheist" has any bearing upon this sort of activity, I see plenty of Christian-bashing going on in secular circles.

Here's my problem with this: Some Christians are part of secular circles. Christians are welcome in secular circles. Christians are wanted in secular circles. Secularism is simply about society where one religion, or religious position is no more important, or favoured than any other. Those Christians who choose to hold themselves above the rest of us tend to be the people I'm talking about.

 

[razeontherock]

Some from column A, some from column B. However, as long as the person has something new, and interesting to say, I typically engage. If it turns into the same old same old, I just go through the motions.

Is it not possible that what appears same old same old to you, is actually referring to something you've never gotten a glimpse of?

I assume you refer to the scripture in the other thread?

Professor, you should know what happens when you assume. Please don't. I realize many people cannot be taken at face value; just don't apply that to me. Thanks.

 

[JGG]

Is it not possible that what appears same old same old to you, is actually referring to something you've never gotten a glimpse of?

Presumably, I didn't get a glimpse of it the first time either. However, presenting it again, the same way, without considering what I'm saying, doesn't get anyone anywhere.

When Christians claim that I'm an atheist because I hate God, or because I just want to sin, I don't really listen to anything else that person has to say. If they don't feel up to actually considering things from my point of view, I don't feel like putting in the effort to wade through their ignorance.

Professor, you should know what happens when you assume. Please don't. I realize many people cannot be taken at face value; just don't apply that to me. Thanks.

Well then I apologize sir, but if you're going to vaguely refer to a single post among many, you're going to have to be more specific. Afterall, you know what I said earlier about all this.

 

[JGG]

Lol, Have you ever work in a prison outreach of any kind? Maybe it is a regional thing. Here there are more black men in prison that white Latino or Asian. All my family are terrible drivers, (Including myself 1 speeding ticket and an accident with in 60 days of each other)My neighbors are Mexican landscapers (The literal 10 that live in their house minus the kids) And evidently the Catholic church has it's fill of homosexual pedophiles. Stereotypes are based on well founded prejudices.
It is what one does with those stereotypes/prejudices that makes or breaks a man's integrity.
What broke yours is that you are willing to maintain and with hold judgment on prejudices that it is mandated by pop culture, but you let the Axe fall when and where ever you can. This makes you sir are an old school bigot who has learned to play the system. this is made apparent when you are willing to quickly accuse doctrinal Christians for the social sins that popular christians have committed with out the same care or discernment that you so carefully laid out for those stereotypes/prejudices that a white man is forbidden to make.

I'm sorry, this just demonstrates to me that you are not actually paying attention to anything I say. You're just trying to "slay Goliath," and are apparently willing to validate racial stereotypes in order to do it. I don't see any reason to continue addressing you.

 

[drich0150]

I'm sorry, this just demonstrates to me that you are not actually paying attention to anything I say. You're just trying to "slay Goliath," and are apparently willing to validate racial stereotypes in order to do it. I don't see any reason to continue addressing you.

If you are at an end, then may I leave you with your Head.
(David took Goliath's Head with his own sword.)

 

[Zebra1552]

2. This philosophy professor does not concern himself with science. (a) he is a philosophy professor afterall, and (b) not a single argument he makes stems from scientific inquiry.

The questions, however, illustrate the limitations of science perfectly: It cannot establish whether the metaphysical is real or not whereas philosophy can.

Why does the philosophy professor not know the difference between science and PHILOSOPHY!? Why is he a complete moron? How would this man have graduated from university much less become a professor of philosophy?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but science is a way of acquiring knowledge, which is a part of philosophy. Perhaps the professor's point was to illustrate the differences in how one acquires knowledge.

So, read again, and I'll let's ask again: why was this fantasy written and spread around among Christians? What is this strawman meant to achieve? How does a Christian view atheists, or higher education after this is read?

You assume it is a straw man. Many well-known atheists such as Pulman and Dawkins do attack Christianity partly on the basis of science and evolution rather than philosophy and then go on to attack Christians with ad hominem attacks. If you're going to criticize the story on the basis that it contains a logical fallacy, then you will also have to deal with the fallacies dealt by atheists. There are many straw man arguments created by the professor based in a misunderstanding of Christian theology as well.

As to your first question, many Christians wouldn't be able to respond as the student has and furthermore would not understand the entire exchange. One purpose might be to show the average Christian's ignorance.

As to your last question, atheists often do antagonize Christians as the professor in this story has. I could easily list 5 examples from this site, mostly back in the day GA was around. Higher education is wonderful, but it can be taken too far. An exclusively scientific approach is depressing. All we are is a random collection of atoms with no apparent purpose. Atheists I don't have a problem with. Militant atheists I have a very large problem with because they choose to antagonize.

I don't know what this article is meant to achieve in the average Christian, because I'm not an average Christian.

 

[JGG]

The questions, however, illustrate the limitations of science perfectly: It cannot establish whether the metaphysical is real or not whereas philosophy can.

While that's true, it doesn't illustrate that at all. The Philosophy Professor purports to represent science, and yet doesn't make even a scientific statement in the whole story. In fact when he is actually given the opportunity to (re: evolution) he cannot. Even as a philosopher he fails. The questions he asks are pretty shallow, easily answered questions.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but science is a way of acquiring knowledge, which is a part of philosophy. Perhaps the professor's point was to illustrate the differences in how one acquires knowledge.

Then he should be explaining the philosophy of science in the story, not how "science has a problem with Christ," without explaining how science even enters into the discussion.

You assume it is a straw man. Many well-known atheists such as Pulman and Dawkins do attack Christianity partly on the basis of science and evolution rather than philosophy and then go on to attack Christians with ad hominem attacks. If you're going to criticize the story on the basis that it contains a logical fallacy, then you will also have to deal with the fallacies dealt by atheists. There are many straw man arguments created by the professor based in a misunderstanding of Christian theology as well.

To the best of my knowledge, Dawkins does not generally attack Christianity with science, he attacks Creationism, and Intelligent Design with science. However, as they have wandered into the scientific realm, I see that more as peer review. However, I'm not exactly up with my Dawkins, and have never read anything by Pulman, so I can't talk much.

However, I was thinking strawman specifically in terms of the fact that the Professor's "attacks" are profoundly stupid, and easily refuted, even by me. Then, when the Christian attacks evolution, and asks why we should believe the professor has a brain, it is clearly a poor analogy, and a first year student taking a course in biology and/or logics should be able to answer it, much less a Professor of science/philosophy. Yet he folds.

In other words, the writer takes a whole bunch of really stupid, useless questions an actual, educated person would never make, drags scientific inquiry into it for some reason, and then proceeds to beat them down. Then, the story attacks basic biology and logic, and goes unchallenged, as though there is no way to respond.

That's why I call it a strawman.

As to your first question, many Christians wouldn't be able to respond as the student has and furthermore would not understand the entire exchange. One purpose might be to show the average Christian's ignorance.

More ignorant than the writer?

As to your last question, atheists often do antagonize Christians as the professor in this story has. I could easily list 5 examples from this site, mostly back in the day GA was around. Higher education is wonderful, but it can be taken too far. An exclusively scientific approach is depressing.

Depressing for you perhaps. Clearly not depressing for everyone.

All we are is a random collection of atoms with no apparent purpose.

That's something of a strawman as well.

Atheists I don't have a problem with. Militant atheists I have a very large problem with because they choose to antagonize.

Why a problem with "militant" atheists (In what way are they "militant"?), and not "militant" Christians?

I don't know what this article is meant to achieve in the average Christian, because I'm not an average Christian.

Fair enough.

 

[Zebra1552]

While that's true, it doesn't illustrate that at all. The Philosophy Professor purports to represent science, and yet doesn't make even a scientific statement in the whole story. In fact when he is actually given the opportunity to (re: evolution) he cannot. Even as a philosopher he fails. The questions he asks are pretty shallow, easily answered questions.

Both fields have their limitations. You can only go so far with both. The story illustrates that quite well.

Then he should be explaining the philosophy of science in the story, not how "science has a problem with Christ," without explaining how science even enters into the discussion.

You asked for explanations. Yet when they are given, you dismiss them.

However, I was thinking strawman specifically in terms of the fact that the Professor's "attacks" are profoundly stupid, and easily refuted, even by me. Then, when the Christian attacks evolution, and asks why we should believe the professor has a brain, it is clearly a poor analogy, and a first year student taking a course in biology and/or logics should be able to answer it, much less a Professor of science/philosophy. Yet he folds.

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying, or the story. Twice you see the prof thinking it will be a great semester. Why should he think that when the student is questioning him in front of the class? The only other explanation is that the student is thinking: Likely about the limitations of our own knowledge. Science is limited: It cannot explain or test anything outside the natural realm. Philosophy is limited: It only works with what is known, not the unknown. Christianity, among other things, is a way of seeking knowledge from the Guy who created it all. That is what I glean from the story.

More ignorant than the writer?

Very much so. The average Christian wouldn't understand half of the dialogue, let alone the flaws in it.

Depressing for you perhaps. Clearly not depressing for everyone.

Clearly, that's why there's so many philosophy students in the world.

That's something of a strawman as well.

I made a statement. I did not then attack that statement. Show that it is indeed an argument, let alone a strawman.

Why a problem with "militant" atheists (In what way are they "militant"?), and not "militant" Christians?

We were not discussing militant Christians. I told you my problem: They antagonize rather than discuss. PZ Myers ring any bells?

 

[oi_antz]

I wouldn't say that just because one part is wrong, that I threw out the rest. It did shatter an illusion I had though, and that didn't help my faith. The reason I gave up on it is that couldn't reason why I believed it in the first place.

To be fair, I don't think so. My position is the same now as it ever was. I didn't have faith then, and I don't now.

In a sense, so do I, but for other reasons. However, instead I keep finding people who already know that I'm their enemy.

Twice. Once as a Christian, and again on my way out. That doesn't include Bible study as a teenager, and bits since.

As a believer I did. As a non-believer, I did. I'm sure you would say in either instance I did not.

Whoa, I'm not new to the faith. I'm not in the faith. My ideas are different. I know you see that as being the antichrist, but only because you can't see things the way I do.

It really is surprising how fast reality becomes a memory.

But I have walked in the shoes of those people. Which makes me all the more upset.

Here's my problem with this: Some Christians are part of secular circles. Christians are welcome in secular circles. Christians are wanted in secular circles. Secularism is simply about society where one religion, or religious position is no more important, or favoured than any other. Those Christians who choose to hold themselves above the rest of us tend to be the people I'm talking about.

In terms of finding the enemy, it's this "us vs them" mentality that happens whenever we mention Jesus in a good manner and with certainty. I'm dealing with this on another thread where this attitude is so in my face, and I've been told I'm on a high horse. It just seems that if I declare myself Christian and answer questions in a pro-Christian stance, I can't help but receive someone's offensive response. In fact, it is hatred toward me for what I perceive as being undeserved. I find this is usually remedied by conversing with the person, but there are a few who still hold grudges against Christianity enough that it spews all over me. Well, I don't know what else I can do about it except to keep conveying my opinion according to what I know to be true.

Also, about your comment in post #112, sin is defined as disobeying God, this is sin according to the first commandment, so if you know that God is expecting you to do something and you refuse to do it, then it is only reasonable to expect that there will be enmity between yourself and Him. However, I don't think this really should bother you as an atheist, it is only those of us who have devoted our life to serving Him that really need to be concerned if we are not standing right before God. Atheists obviously don't need to comply with God's wishes because you're only interested in the material realm. Well, I don't think that in itself makes us enemies but I know that "us vs them" mentality only serves to aggravate matters and I know that contention is a very strong behavior of the unrepentant.

 

[DomainRider]

All we are is a random collection of atoms with no apparent purpose.

A well-ordered collection of atoms with no apparent purpose. The understanding of how this order came about, though incomplete, is one of the wonders that we have discovered through science, and one of the reasons it is far from depressing for many.

Further to science being depressing, the late Richard Feynman, when admonished by an artist friend who said that, while the artist could appreciate the beauty of a flower, the scientist takes it all apart and it becomes dull, replied that the beauty the artist sees is also available to the scientist, but at the same time, he can see much more in the flower than the artist does - the cells inside have a beauty, there is beauty at smaller dimensions, the actions of the cells and other processes; the colours that have evolved to attract insects for pollination - which means insects can see colour, and raises the question whether insects, like us, have an aesthetic sense. All the interesting questions that come from a knowledge of science only add to the mystery and awe of a flower.

 

[oi_antz]

A well-ordered collection of atoms with no apparent purpose. The understanding of how this order came about, though incomplete, is one of the wonders that we have discovered through science, and one of the reasons it is far from depressing for many.

Further to science being depressing, the late Richard Feynman, when admonished by an artist friend who said that, while the artist could appreciate the beauty of a flower, the scientist takes it all apart and it becomes dull, replied that the beauty the artist sees is also available to the scientist, but at the same time, he can see much more in the flower than the artist does - the cells inside have a beauty, there is beauty at smaller dimensions, the actions of the cells and other processes; the colours that have evolved to attract insects for pollination - which means insects can see colour, and raises the question whether insects, like us, have an aesthetic sense. All the interesting questions that come from a knowledge of science only add to the mystery and awe of a flower.

Hi DR, I appreciate the succinctness of your comment. If you are looking at life from an atheistic perspective then you will certainly see existence as a collection of atoms with "no apparent purpose". The thing is that in doing so you have decided to reject a crucial part of the world we live in, which is God's word. Add that into the equation and we discover that this well-ordered collection of atoms does have an apparent purpose, it's just not perceivable when you choose to eliminate a certain part of the world from consideration. There's a bunch of parables we could use about this, but I'm sure you get my drift.

Anyway, what you end up with is the same old argument "I can't believe in God because I have no evidence of Him", and then we go back to square one. Do you wonder though why a Christian's square one has God? Because they have had experiences that have proven God is real. So why is there a discrepancy, surely if God is real then He would give everyone ample opportunity to discover Him, otherwise they would be justified to believe that He is not real and we wouldn't have Christians who believe that God has told them to go and tell people about the reality of God. I hope you are following me, because I want to introduce you to the verse that just inspired me to write about this:

The one who obeys me is the one who loves me; and because he loves me my Father will love him; and I will too, and I will reveal myself to him.

So we see here that Jesus does not reveal Himself to just anyone, and there is only one way that we can have Jesus' presence in our lives, that is to obey Him. So if you ever come across the scripture that you know is the one thing that you don't want to obey, then you've found the narrow gate and when you decide to obey Jesus then He will come to you and give you answers to your questions like "what is the purpose of such a well-ordered collection of atoms". I hope this helps, I just thought it was pertinent to mention that dismissing what God says is to dismiss a part of the picture that will give you the understanding you desire. I hope you find it interesting.