What de-conversion feels like

[Lokmer]

"Hitler was a Christian but Jefferson wasn't even though he said he was."

You gotta love it.

No, I actually have a rather small well of agapos and affection when it comes to people who deliberately misrepresent me and find it easier to construct straw men and twist my words.

Hitler was a Christian from a long and distinguished Christian tradition running through the history of the Christian church from Origen to Isabella of Spain to Martin Luther and John Calvin and further on from there. Was he a good man? Certainly not! Did he embody the best points of Christ's teaching? Hardly! But everything he wrote, everything he said, indicated that he was devout and earnest about his faith. Could he have been lying? Certainly. But there isn't much that indicates that he was.

By the same token, Jefferson never once claimed to be a Christian without redefining the term to accomodate his antisupernaturalist rationalist worldview. Holding Jesus non-supernatural ethical teachings up as admirable and a paradigm of virtue is a LONG way from being a Christian in any meaningful sense of the word.

So much for deciding to bow out of the conversation in a marginally graceful manner.

-Lokmer

 

[spirit1st]

Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
The mind still thinks wrong,And must be taught ,to accept the mind of JESUS CHRIST.The inner man .NEVER sins again,And is kept by JESUS CHRIST forever more.We never again are seperated from CHRIST JESUS.But may get discouraged and return to our old life?But we will hate it.Because the HOLY GHOST will keep telling us this is evil and our new inner man ,will also put those thoughts in our mind.Now?We see in the bible,if we refuse to repent ,what then takes place?
1Co 5:5 To deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
BECAUSE our new birth is in the spirit.
The flesh is lost forever more.But the REAL US!The spirit can be GODS OWN CHILD!FEW UNDERSTAND THE SPIRIT FILLED LIFE.We are MORE THAN CONQUERS ,though JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD.WE OVERCOME ALL THINGS .
Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
1Jo 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. Joh 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Col 3:10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:
HE ALONE KEEPS US.WE DO NOT KEEP OURSELVES!
WE BELIEVE AND ACCEPT BY FAITH!
1Pe 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
FEW recieve this experiance,BECAUSE FEW WILL FOLLOW HIM.They will follow other men!

 

[radorth]

No, I actually have a rather small well of agapos and affection when it comes to people who deliberately misrepresent me and find it easier to construct straw men and twist my words.

Oh I wasn't just addressing you. That paradox is typical of atheist "logic" and shows how bogus it is.

By the same token, Jefferson never once claimed to be a Christian without redefining the term to accomodate his antisupernaturalist rationalist worldview.

Well no, he made the stand alone statement that
"I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others."

Do I think he was a Christian? No. But I don't live by the No True Scotsman Fallacy. That is used by atheists and now they are, logically speaking, screwed in the case of Jefferson.

And then there's all the judging and harping about how a good Christian should behave more like Jesus. Using your goofball logic, we just have to do a little better than Hitler.

Like I said, truly logical people with a decent memory will have a laugh a minute here if the irony doesn't kill them. Human nature is absolutely fascinating. Those who doggedly claim this or that wiser-than-thou position will be the first to violate it because they are just kidding themselves. Those who whine about insults are the first to insult. Those who constantly find personal fault in others have the same problems and are merely trying to justify themselves. We're all sinners here my friends, all vulnerable to the same self-righteousness and weaknesses

Rad

 

[Grizzly]

Sounds like? You mean you are now retracting your ridiculous assertions? And where does it say he invented anything? "Arranging to put new cereal strains into production" is not inventing them by any stretch. He worked for DuPont, and worked tirelessly out in the field apparently, and so he got the prize. That's not what you said. what you said is that he fed billions with his own money working all by himself. That's crap

And this from an atheist going around claiming to be objective?

Rad

um, rad. I didn't make any assertions. You have me confused with Lokmer. I never claimed he fed billions, nor have I ever claimed to be objective.

Just back away slowly from your keyboard and take a deep breath.

 

[Grizzly]

"Hitler was a Christian but Jefferson wasn't even though he said he was."

You gotta love it.

Rad

One thing I know for certian. If Jefferson were alive today, he would not be able to claim he was a Christian here at Christianforums. Anyone who denies the divinity of Christ would not be considered a Christian here....

 

[Lokmer]

Oh I wasn't just addressing you. That paradox is typical of atheist "logic" and shows how bogus it is.

There's no paradox there. And "atheist logic" has nothing to do with matters of fact in history.

Well no, he made the stand alone statement that
"I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others."

Do I think he was a Christian? No.

Exactly. He qualified the statement so that it could fit his antisupernaturalist worldview.

But I don't live by the No True Scotsman Fallacy. That is used by atheists and now they are, logically speaking, screwed in the case of Jefferson.

Wrong again. "Christian" is a word that means something. That meaning is, admittedly, overbroad with the 30,000+ doctrinally distinct sects of Christianity from all ends of the Earth (ref: http://www.adherents.com/ ), but someone who denies the divinity of Christ or the atonement is well outside the historical bounds of Christianity. These are legitimate criteria arising from history and your own theologians. No "No True Scotsman" fallacy here.


On the other hand, you who claims not to live by that fallacy, has spent a goodly number of pages insinuating that Catholics aren't real Christians, that slaveholders in the south weren't real born-again, New Testament savvy Christains, in utter contradiction both of the facts and of your claim that your thinking is not characterized by this fallacy.

And then there's all the judging and harping about how a good Christian should behave more like Jesus.

There is, eh? I haven't made such a statement -- the closest I got was quoting Jesus saying "By their fruits shall you know them."

Using your goofball logic, we just have to do a little better than Hitler.

No, that's Martin Luther's goofball logic. It's called "Justification by faith" and it's the foundational notion of the Reformation.

Human nature is absolutely fascinating. Those who doggedly claim this or that wiser-than-thou position will be the first to violate it because they are just kidding themselves. Those who whine about insults are the first to insult. Those who constantly find personal fault in others have the same problems and are merely trying to justify themselves.

Whether these general observations of human nature are accurate or not is entirely beside the point. You continue to obliquely attempt to insult and/or preach when you can't hold up your end of the debate.

Oh, well...
-Lokmer

 

[CCWoody]

That's not what I said. I said that the fact that scripture and tradition can't agree on the most basic notion of doctrine is proof enough that God has left that building (i.e. God isn't involved in it, unless God is the sadistic author of confusion). Differences on the morality of alcohol or polygamy are one thing, but a lack of clear teaching on what constitutes the core doctrine is something else entirely.

I'm sorry, but I reject your presumptions out of hand. If you wish to present your case that there is a vast difference in core doctrine within the true church, then you are free to attempt it. Othewise, I simply deny your assertion as just making up stories as you go.

Problem is, that even if you are able to demonstrate your case, you still haven't accomplished anything other than to demonstrate that there are difference in core doctrine. You have done nothing to prove that God is not involved. Neither have you established that God is the sadistic author of confusion.

In short, just making up stuff as you go doesn't prove or demonstrate anything other than you like to make up stories as you go and pretend they are fact.

All of Christian theology (and I do mean *ALL*) consists of picking and chosing which verses of the bible are the important ones and either ignoring or harmonizing the conflicting passages. One picks which of the myriad biblical ways one will follow, and that chosing is done, ultimately, on the basis of personal and cultural bias.

Again, I simply deny your statment out of hand. You are free to try and prove your case if you want, but just making up stories as if everyone is suppose to bow down before you isn't going to happen.

Well, if nothing else, I'm pleased that my loquacity was gratifying. However, a substantive argument about *why* I'm wrong wouldn't go amiss.
-Lokmer

Oh, I didn't think you were actually serious that I prove that I am not engaging in a "spiritual mastrubation." That is like saying "Have you stopped beating your wife" and expecting that someone seriously consider defending it. I never respond to such things.

 

[Lanakila]

But, but, but Woody, if he explains the churches that differ on core doctrines (he has already in this very thread) any of the "true Christians" will say that they aren't Christian churches. I have been through this same argument so many times it gets redundant.

 

[radorth]

Exactly. He qualified the statement so that it could fit his antisupernaturalist worldview.

Doesn't matter. We'll use a different example. We all know what you guys do. If a bad person says they are a Christian you presume they are. If a "freethinker" like Frederick Douglas says we should worship Jesus and says nascent Christianity is "holy and good" you say he's an atheist anyway. It's totally subjective, and yet you rationalize away all the logical problems. And I love every minute of it too.

By the way, when are you going to back up your assertion he was an atheist? I assume all those who talk about supporting assertions are waiting for your link. But maybe you've realized by now that all these atheist claims we should back up assertions which contradict Douglass himself do not apply to you.

Wrong again. "Christian" is a word that means something.

HA! Man you are making my day here. Yeah it means Hitler is a Christian because he says so. How incredibly convenient. But then you automatically make void every atheist judgement of Christians who don't act like Jesus did. Hitler hated Jews and Jesus called them his brethren, but what do you care. Right?

On the other hand, you who claims not to live by that fallacy, has spent a goodly number of pages insinuating that Catholics aren't real Christians, that slaveholders in the south weren't real born-again, New Testament savvy Christains, in utter contradiction

Ah but the point you are evading is that I don't believe everyone who says they are a Christian is one. I have to see Christlike behavior, at least from those who have access to the Bible. But no, I don't hold medieval Catholics responsible for what was unavailable to them. Hey judge however you want, but you better be right if the NT is so.

Rad

 

[spirit1st]

I have little faith in mankind or the books he has written ,Who can believe any of it?We see lies in the news every day.But I believe in the bible and in the HOLY GHOST ,to teach us!.JESUS CHRIST came to free us and take the burdern off us.But men want the burdern back on us!
And most will follow other men!This is not the way of GOD.This is the way of bondage.Being BORN OF GOD ,is the start.Following the HOLY GHOST is the way.As HE always leads though JESUS CHRIST.We born of GOD will not hurt or put other under a yoke.bEcause our new nature is too have mercy where we can!We are all bound ?To either our LORD JESUS CHRIST ,willingly or satan .No in between.We never live for our selves to any degree.One will have power over us!But the LORD JESUS CHRIST does not force us.unless our salvation is at stsake.But satan makes people do some very evil things.Most they keep hidden!But none the less,they are bound!

 

[Lokmer]

I'm sorry, but I reject your presumptions out of hand. If you wish to present your case that there is a vast difference in core doctrine within the true church, then you are free to attempt it. Othewise, I simply deny your assertion as just making up stories as you go.

Well, at least you're honest.

Unfortunately, you are - whether consciously or not - setting up a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation, where you get to pick what true Christianity is only after I've met another burden of proof. I'm not going to play that game. If you'd like to clearly state your criteria for "true" Christianity, I would be more inclined to play.

Problem is, that even if you are able to demonstrate your case, you still haven't accomplished anything other than to demonstrate that there are difference in core doctrine.

Again, which doctrines do you consider "core?" I've already been clear about which doctrines I consider clearly foundational to Christianity. Would you be so kind as to be as forthcoming with me?

You have done nothing to prove that God is not involved. Neither have you established that God is the sadistic author of confusion.

No, this is true. There are two rather distinct ways in which God could not be sadistic. One is that he's not involved in the Christian equation at all, and thus no the author of the confusion I've spoken of. The other is that God is involved but some form of Universalist Christianity is correct, thus eliminating the need for someone to pass a theology test to enter Heaven.

Again, I simply deny your statment out of hand. You are free to try and prove your case if you want, but just making up stories as if everyone is suppose to bow down before you isn't going to happen.

I do not seek to be bowed down before, nor to have sacrifices made to me. I honestly don't expect many people to agree with me, or even particularly to like me. But I am always interested in an honest (if contentious exchange of ideas). If I have said something you view as "simply making up stories" please point it out, and I will either back it up or back off from it. If I have not, please refrain from making charactarizations that you do not consider to be accurate.

Oh, I didn't think you were actually serious that I prove that I am not engaging in a "spiritual mastrubation." That is like saying "Have you stopped beating your wife" and expecting that someone seriously consider defending it.

Ummm...I didn't ask you to do that. I stated my opinion that doctrinal disputes have an insulating and self-gratifying psychological value that is rather at odds with the notion of loving one's neighbor. Perhaps my metaphor was a bit strong for this crowd, and if so, I apologize. But it was (forgive the pun) just tossed off, and a capstone to the rest of the post, which holds up on its own without it.

I never respond to such things.

There is, evidently, a first time for everything.

Have a good one
-Lokmer

 

[Lokmer]

Doesn't matter. We'll use a different example. We all know what you guys do.

Translation: "I lost that round, but I'm going to pretend that my loss is actually a win and showboat on it."

If a bad person says they are a Christian you presume they are. If a "freethinker" like Frederick Douglas says we should worship Jesus and says nascent Christianity is "holy and good" you say he's an atheist anyway.

He did not say we should worship Jesus. He did say that a primitivist version of Christianity was holy and good...you know, kind of like Thomas Jefferson did.

It's totally subjective, and yet you rationalize away all the logical problems. And I love every minute of it too.

Totally subjective? The only subjectivism I see creeping in here is your attempt to construe "bad guys" as antichristian and "good guys" as all on your side. A few points of reality checks here:

1) You're a calvanist, you believe in predestined salvation by grace, the evidence of which is shown through faith. As such, there is no guarrantee of salvation this side of judgement day, but as a rule of thumb people who maintain a faith commitment are considered to be part of the elect. This leaves you no wiggle room on people like Hitler, whose faith commitment never seems to have wavered. He may have been evil and done evil things, but so was Calvin (smaller body count, but similar style of fascist police state in Geneva), Luther (anti-semetic in the extreme, prostituted his theological influence for protection, participated in the burning of heretics after he himself was a heretic and should have known better), Moses (the genocidal wars against the natives of Palestine, if the conquest narratives are to be believed), and many other heros of Christianity and Judaism.

2) There are many, many people - the majority of non-Christians in the post-enlightenment west, I'd wager - who don't believe a word of Christian doctrine and yet see great value in some of its moral teachings, or see great beauty in its stories, and thus encourage those who can believe to be earnest in their faith.

Jefferson and Douglass were both of the second stripe, as even a cursory look at their writings makes clear. Contrary to your assertion that I "say he's an atheist anyway," I made it quite clear that some of his writings impute a possible diestic belief system, but that there isn't enough to make a firm judgement.

Here are some quotes from Fredrick Douglass that are fairly damning for your position:
-----
"I prayed for twenty years but received no answer until I prayed with my legs."

"Where I to be again reduced to the chains of slavery, next to that enslavement, I should regard being the slave of a religious master the greatest calamity that could befall me...I...hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land." (from "After The Escape")

"The church of this country is not only indifferent to the wrongs of the slave, it actually takes sides with the oppressors.... For my part, I would say, welcome infidelity! Welcome atheism! Welcome anything! in preference to the gospel, as preached by these Divines! They convert the very name of religion into an engine of tyranny and barbarous cruelty, and serve to confirm more infidels, in this age, than all the infidel writings of Thomas Paine, Voltaire, and Bolingbroke put together have done!" (from "The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro")

"Once, in a heated controversy over the wisdom of giving the
Bible to slaves, he asserted that it would be 'infinitely
better to send them a pocket compass and a pistol.'" (Narrative of the Life of Fredrick Douglass)
----

By the way, when are you going to back up your assertion he was an atheist? I assume all those who talk about supporting assertions are waiting for your link. But maybe you've realized by now that all these atheist claims we should back up assertions which contradict Douglass himself do not apply to you.

Care to retract your slander now?

HA! Man you are making my day here. Yeah it means Hitler is a Christian because he says so. How incredibly convenient. But then you automatically make void every atheist judgement of Christians who don't act like Jesus did. Hitler hated Jews and Jesus called them his brethren, but what do you care. Right?

This is fairly incoherent, and I don't see how it relates (mostly because it's muddy and seems to slide across three or four points). Would you care to clarify?

Ah but the point you are evading is that I don't believe everyone who says they are a Christian is one. I have to see Christlike behavior, at least from those who have access to the Bible.

In addition to the really good things that he said and did, Christ publically insulted his mother, committed acts of terrorism in the temple, committed a capitol offence (Sabbath breaking) because he believed that the needs of men are higher than the law of God, lied to his brothers, demanded abject servitude from his disciples, encouraged vagrancy, and validated slavery. It seems that the definition of Christlike, as given in the gospels, is consierably wider than your operational definition.

And, once again, Medeival Catholic theologians and clergy *DID* have access to the Bible --- not that that should matter if the Holy Spirit bears witness of what is right to the heart of the elect.

-Lokmer

 

[CCWoody]

But, but, but Woody, if he explains the churches that differ on core doctrines (he has already in this very thread) any of the "true Christians" will say that they aren't Christian churches. I have been through this same argument so many times it gets redundant.

Let me repeat myself:

Problem is, that even if you are able to demonstrate your case, you still haven't accomplished anything other than to demonstrate that there are differences in core doctrine. You have done nothing to prove that God is not involved. Neither have you established that God is the sadistic author of confusion.

 

[CCWoody]

No, this is true. There are two rather distinct ways in which God could not be sadistic. One is that he's not involved in the Christian equation at all, and thus no the author of the confusion I've spoken of. The other is that God is involved but some form of Universalist Christianity is correct, thus eliminating the need for someone to pass a theology test to enter Heaven.

Nope! You have obviously decided that there is also some kind of universally accepted view of what is sadistic and what is not. I reject that out of hand as well. You must prove yourself, not simply declare things as if it is universally accepted.

I do not seek to be bowed down before, nor to have sacrifices made to me. I honestly don't expect many people to agree with me, or even particularly to like me. But I am always interested in an honest (if contentious exchange of ideas). If I have said something you view as "simply making up stories" please point it out, and I will either back it up or back off from it. If I have not, please refrain from making charactarizations that you do not consider to be accurate.

If you were really interested in an exchange of ideas, you would not be simply stating as fact some of the things which must be proved. To be honest, almost nothing you have said is consistent with Christian theology.

Ummm...I didn't ask you to do that. I stated my opinion that doctrinal disputes have an insulating and self-gratifying psychological value that is rather at odds with the notion of loving one's neighbor. Perhaps my metaphor was a bit strong for this crowd, and if so, I apologize. But it was (forgive the pun) just tossed off, and a capstone to the rest of the post, which holds up on its own without it.

Again, you have stated that "spiritual mastrubation" (your words) are at odds with the notion of loving one's neighbor. I reject it out of hand. You must prove it. Of course, in doing so, you must get into a doctrinal dispute and have one of these self-gratifying psychological experiences. So, if you want to prove it and hate me while so doing (your own declaration of what you would be doing), then have at 'er.

 

[Lokmer]

Nope! You have obviously decided that there is also some kind of universally accepted view of what is sadistic and what is not. I reject that out of hand as well. You must prove yourself, not simply declare things as if it is universally accepted.

Um...there is.

You see, there's this science called "lexicography" which is concerned with the definitions of words and the structure of langage. Lexicographers produce books called "dictionaries" which chronicle the common social contract by which certain words mean certain things.


From Dictionary.com, the lowest common denominator among lexicographers:

"Sadistic:

1. The deriving of sexual gratification or the tendency to derive sexual gratification from inflicting pain or emotional abuse on others.
2. The deriving of pleasure, or the tendency to derive pleasure, from cruelty.
3. Extreme cruelty."

Allowing people who are earnest in their desire to see heavan and serve God to go for 2,000 years without a definitive answer on the mechanics of how salvation works, in fact seeding their holy book (which you inspired) with contradictory ideas on that central topic that require harmonization, and declining to step in and resolve the confusion that you have authored (both by initial inspiration and by lack of clarification) is, at best, negligent. Doing so when the eternal destinies of these people hang in the balance, when they face unending torture for failing their theology tests, is wantonly cruel. An all powerful entity would not allow such a situation to exist unless he was gratified by it, therefore it qualifies as sadism under points 2 and 3 of the definition of the word.

To be honest, almost nothing you have said is consistent with Christian theology.

It is hardly my fault that Christian theology does not square with Christian scriptures without a good deal of wiggling. And it's rather glib and inaccurate to imply that there is such a thing as a uniform opinion or universal agreement in "Christian theology."

Again, you have stated that "spiritual mastrubation" (your words) are at odds with the notion of loving one's neighbor.

Certainly. Any time you spend slagging each other off for minor differences of opinion is time that you're not out in the world feeding and clothing the needy, displaying lovingkindness to your family, friends, and enemies, or talking with people about other things that make their life worth living, or praying and trying to go "further up and further in" to God's mysteries (to steal a term from C.S. Lewis).

I reject it out of hand. You must prove it.

No, I don't have to prove it. But it's reasonable that I be asked to explain it, which I have just done.

Of course, in doing so, you must get into a doctrinal dispute and have one of these self-gratifying psychological experiences.

Well, no. I'm not a Christian, so I have no need to save souls from hell. I am interested in critical thinking, so by posting here where people violently disagree with me I am provoking other people to think in directions they may not have done, and I'm also checking the integrity of my own thinking against other sincere and generally honest people.

So, if you want to prove it and hate me while so doing (your own declaration of what you would be doing), then have at 'er.

You really do need to work on how you set up double-binds. You seem to really like them, but you're not very good at it.
-Lokmer

 

[CEV]

For those who have never experienced de-conversion, it can be difficult to describe what it 'feels' like. I think many Christians assume the de-convert's feeling are like those of a lost person. This is not what I experienced. I think "liberation" is closer to describing the feeling (at least myself) had upon leaving the church.

(Robert G. Ingersoll)
When I became convinced that the universe is natural, that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell. The dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world, not even in infinite space. I was free--free to think, to express my thoughts--free to live my own ideal, free to live for myself and those I loved, free to use all my faculties, all my senses, free to spread imagination's wings, free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope, free to judge and determine for myself . . . I was free! I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously faced all worlds.
​

Yes, but for me it was not as profound. It felt like I was indeed freed. But I also realized that the world in which I lived was actually a much simpler place. All the superstitions melted away and reality became like the stars: cold, unyielding, constants obeying natural laws without deviation. All matter, all energy, everything that was, existed exactly as it was, and nothing more. Nothing more.

 

[CEV]

I've read many deconversion stories (on another site) and it never seems to be an easy thing for people to do. It seems the more hardline and religiously sheltered people are the more painful the deconversion experience is because it's like their entire reality has been ripped out from under them. I would never encourage someone I know to deconvert unless their beliefs were obviously hurting them in some way. It's definitely something people need to do on their own terms whether it means totally turning their back on their faith or quietly faking it to avoid conflict.

The hard part wasn't in the instantaneous deconversion--the moment at which I realized I no longer was Christian--but rather the gradual process of deconverting my thoughts and lifestyle and views from fundamentalist Christianity into my own ways. This has affected myself, my family, my friends, and new friends and people that I pursued as significant others. I have ruined relationships because my thoughts and expectations were very different from the other persons', due to having freshly deconverted and still having retained the old strict expectations. I had to learn to become comfortable with the person that I was, to be free and open, without thoughts of being judged by god or my family. I had to learn how to freely share of myself emotionally, mentally, and physically, rather than hold it all in due to worry of being judged and found guilty.

Intellectually, I knew there was no god, but I had to train my thought patterns and behavior to follow.

 

[judy]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Lokmer again."





​

 

[gladiatrix]

"My favorite website says the women (and men) had to work for their tuition, therefore Oberlin did nothing to liberate and educate women."

You are trying to portray this "admission" of women as some kind of evidence that Christians were concerned about the EDUCATION of women and were in the forefront of their emancipation (an good education a must) before anyone else as part of your "all good things are the products of my kind of Christianity" campaign). The FACT remains that women were BANNED from all the courses that would actually constitute an EDUCATION.

HERE

The average week of the ladies was set up to facilitate these chores. Mondays were set aside for laundry and mending of the men’s clothes.

• The rest of the week was spent cooking, cleaning after the men and studying in their spare time.
• The education of ladies always came secondary to the duties of maintaining the school.
• Not surprisingly, even secondary institutions like Oberlin followed the decisive academic gender split so common of the day.
  [*]Oberlin’s ladies were separated in a department that specialized in religion, French, and literature, and shut out from the men’s studies, which included Greek, Latin and Hebrew.
• Oberlin College was not shy to admit that their goal was to train the women to serve as “discrete, genteel, pious, and frugal wives for ministers."31
• Throughout the entire Oberlin experience there was never a comment recorded about the quality of the learning environment of the female. This omission further justifies the motives of the men when allowing the coeducation of their institution. (formatting edited from the original

They were only admitted IF they agreed to be unpaid drudges for the men. The motives of the college for admitting them was CRYSTAL CLEAR:

HERE

More often than not this milestone is misrepresented as liberation of the female student who finally received her validation. In actuality these women were viewed as a “domestic workforce” necessary for the school’s survival.30 Regardless, these women were grateful for the opportunity of education and therefore took care of the household duties.
. . . .
Arguments were made that the presence of women assured the mental tranquility of the male students and provided an environment conducive to male learning

The objectives of the college for admitting them had NOTHING to do with any concern for their emancipation which is what you are trying to have us believe.

The stated PURPOSE of Oberlin for admitting them was NOT to "educate" them in any meaningful sense of the word, but to churn out good little obedient hausefrauen for ministers. Once again, the STATED PURPOSE of the colleged for "admitting" them, to show just how fraudlent and dishonest your claim is :

HERE
. . . .
In actuality these women were viewed as a “domestic workforce” necessary for the school’s survival.
. . . .
Not surprisingly, even secondary institutions like Oberlin followed the decisive academic gender split so common of the day. Oberlin’s ladies were separated in a department that specialized in religion, French, and literature, and shut out from the men’s studies, which included Greek, Latin and Hebrew
. . . .
Oberlin College was not shy to admit that their goal was to train the women to serve as “discrete, genteel, pious, and frugal wives for ministers."31 Throughout the entire Oberlin experience there was never a comment recorded about the quality of the learning environment of the female
. . . .
Arguments were made that the presence of women assured the mental tranquility of the male students and provided an environment conducive to male learning

They wanted servants for the men and to provide the MEN with "an environment conducive to MALE learning". Their major goal was simply to exploit them for economic gain as mere foils to the MEN getting an education...there's absolutely no escape from these FACTS. Emancipation of women was NOT on the agenda and certainly NOT giving them any kind of meanful education.

How pathetic. These women graduates went on to do a lot more than missionary and housework. Maybe some free-thinkers would like to read some other reports before swallowing your selected propaganda whole. I'll post a history of their actual accomplishments.

http://womhist.binghamton.edu/oberlin/doclist.htm

Oh pulleeze! A PRESENT-DAY, self-serving blurb from Oberlin. If I were them I'd try to put the best possible face on the real motives for admitting women, too. The title of this site

How Did Oberlin Women Students Draw on Their College Experience to Participate in Antebellum Social Movements, 1831-1861

Involvement in "antebellum social movements" is something that they did on their own. If they excelled in other areas, that is certainly no credit to Oberlin but to women themselves who endured the humiliation of being drudges and the fraud of an INTENTIONALLY second-class "education" to become more than what the college originally intended as the outcome.

Again the stated goal and purpose of Oberlin for admitting them:

HERE
. . . .
In actuality these women were viewed as a “domestic workforce” necessary for the school’s survival.
. . . .
Not surprisingly, even secondary institutions like Oberlin followed the decisive academic gender split so common of the day. Oberlin’s ladies were separated in a department that specialized in religion, French, and literature, and shut out from the men’s studies, which included Greek, Latin and Hebrew
. . . .
Oberlin College was not shy to admit that their goal was to train the women to serve as “discrete, genteel, pious, and frugal wives for ministers."
. . . .
Throughout the entire Oberlin experience there was never a comment recorded about the quality of the learning environment of the female
. . . .
Arguments were made that the presence of women assured the mental tranquility of the male students and provided an environment conducive to male learning

The credit goes to them, and NOT to that despicable fraud of an "education" they got from Oberlin.

• Any woman who would endure this sort of treatment for even the discrimatory, inferior education offered would most probably a woman of considerable character in her own right.
• The fact that THEY would excel in other areas is a credit to THEM and not to their "education", because a real education was the furthest thing from the minds of the administrators who admitted them.

I remind you of the FACT that you have portrayed this fraud as somekind of evidence that this college's motives were some kind of Christian-based concern for women's education...an early pioneer in women's rights. The FACTS don't support your claim

I'll let the readers judge the rest of your fact-free "arguments" against my "Salt of the Earth" thread. Perhaps you'd like to comment on one of the few fact-based atheist replies, by David Gould who had the free-thinking temerity to agree with me.

First, it wouldn't matter is a legion agreed with you, that would NOT make your position valid. Millions used to be in "agreement" that the world was flat, too. The world doesn't seem to have conformed to the "majority" opinion, but remained obdurately oblately spheroid in spite of it. Name-dropping (all you are doing...hey X agrees with me!) is worthless in a debate, unless such "agreement" actually conforms to the facts.

Second, it is probably abundantly clear to the readers of this thread by now that your assessment of someone as "free-thinking" is completely and totally contingent on your being able to construe the appearance of "agreement" with your position from what "s/he says". I find such arrogance on your part quite laughable.

 

[gladiatrix]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Lokmer again."


​