Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.
De-Commissioned Forum
February 21, 2019, 04:25:42 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: In my defense/ for shame  (Read 5160 times)
danrudeisevil
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 28



« on: June 18, 2011, 10:52:10 pm »

I know I said I wasn't going to post again, but my curiosity overcame me and I read some of the ensuing posts today, my self worth prompting me to repudiate some things that deserve attention.

Take into consideration the monumental task of taking up a debate on this forum from my point of view. One must make generalizations; there are a plethora of differing views on 'theological' matters held on this site (too many to answer individually). Seemingly, some believe in evolution, some disagree on the issue of hell... the full list would be exhaustive, because the varying denominations of christianity is equally exhaustive. So if I say christians believe 'x' I am shooting for the median as much as possible. An example that has cropped up is the use of 'theologan'; some are ultra conservative while some are nearly athiests, with a colorful spectrum in between. The median in modern times increasingly shifts to the left. Now, if I say that xians have to believe in a literal Genesis, I make the assumption (I believe rightly so) that the agreed definition of vicarious redemption rests on the 'fact' that Jesus paid for individual sins as well as the original sin of Adam, which is of vital significance to being a xian (Second Adam and so on). If you don't hold this view, then the argument is irrelevant to you, and wether or not Genesis is valid is a separate discussion (I point out that to make these arguments I am making the concession from your point of view, something not really reciprocated thus far). Regardless, it holds true that if Adam didn't exist, then a major factor (original sin) is detracted from Christ's redemptive powers. So don't say that the argument is wrong because you think my generalization is faulty (could be, but experience has taught me otherwise). Concurrently, don't insinuate that I don't know anything about xianity based that my only exposure to it was from GCx; just because a muslim (say) rejects islam doesn't mean that he doesn't know anything about islam. I am correct that my second post contained the caveat that for expediencies sake, I have to use a certain amount of generalizations and that I would try my best to use good, not hasty ones, and I think I have lived up to that.

Before I continue, any questions posed will be rhetorical, ponder them by yourself, I will not check replies after this. Continuing the topic of insinuations, a general trend I see is that I am parroting mainstream atheist ideas. I have said before, I have NOT read anything from Hitchens, Dawkins or any others. I have intentionally isolated myself from anything mainstream, so that as much as possible, any ideas I have are from myself, not dictated by an authoritative 'evangelist' (something I detested in xianity by the way, and would you know how to respond to contrary arguments if you hadn't read Josh Mcdowell?). If there be any overlap, its because the logic led to the same conclusion. As an aside, none of you have pointed out specifically any arguments taken directly from the aforementioned sources, I cannot defend myself because I'm not sure of the accusation excepting the following: that any vitriol I have directed toward religion is generated by their arguments.
    I must (re)iterate that when I left GCx I really didn't have any grudge or contention with them, I simply did not believe anymore. In the subsequent two years, after thinking about and refining my ideas about theology and epistemology further did I realize what a brain-parasite religion is, starting first with the core of GCx. I then realized that selfsame magical thinking (to pick one out of many examples) is common not only in xianity but all religious thought. I'm using the wrong word, but the more I 'brooded' the more and more I loathed the idea itself and its effects on people. In retrospect, perhaps 'hate' was the wrong word, it might be more like 'pity' in that the psychological entrapment instigated by religious ideas, like those in GCx, is ultimately sad. I contend though: when the issue of slavery was the hot topic, was it wrong for people to get heated about its injustices? No. Did those who thought slavery was wrong give a damn if they insulted the sensibilities of slaveholders?

On this thought: Is it wrong or insulting to criticize someones religion? I say no, and a lot of you are guilty of the same thing. Most of you believe that xianity is the one true religion and can find flaws in any other 'false' religion, and openly criticize its faults (again generalizing off the median!). I'm just going one religion more. Will you condemn me for that? Mormons believe their long johns are bulletproof. Thats a ridiculous belief and I feel no compulsion to stay my tongue because they might get offended. If you have been observant, I have criticized the beliefs of people in this blog and not the person itself. The screensaver 'danrudeisevil' was indeed to spark conversation about this very idea. And it is true that I hate all of his actions that stem directly from his belief, but he isn't intrinsically evil: no one is. If I take offense at something it is for two reasons(in this context):
1. To say that I'm amoral or immoral intrinsically, you are indeed judging me as a person intrinsically.
2. If you say that I'm immoral/amoral based by actions, then how do you explain actions I take that are morally praiseworthy?
If you say my moral instinct is from 'God' then if I act morally it's because of that, and if I act immorally it is because I'm an atheist?

As for trolling: I can guess, but I'm not exactly sure what that is. I'm terrible with computer slang. Is someone that points out the fault in another's logic trolling? (actually I don't know for sure) I have enumerated elsewhere my primary goals for posting on this site and feel no compulsion to do so again (read for yourselves). Wether you believe me or not is your issue, not mine.


Now, for what I read about my very last post gives me a very clear insight. I will start by saying a hearty "Thank you" to those that tried to respond thoroughly, it takes time and I very much appreciate it and I have considered and analyzed your ideas. I realize that even though answering one person (me), one must generalize somewhat, and I can see that some of you took the 'gist' of what I said and answered (with appropriate quotes, much appreciated) accordingly.
  
  For whoever accused me of using a thesaurus, excuse my french, f*** you. You might think being illiterate is awesome, I don't. I read books other than the bible A LOT, I especially love older literature in the vein of Milton and Dumas (not to boast but I've read the KJV through twice, and in my experience in GCx very few have even read the whole OT), and I underline and look up any word I don't understand and memorize it. Command of your native tongue is important to me, and allows one to be more precise. If that makes me sound obscure and overbearing, that is your fault, not mine. If my posts run overlong, it's because there is a lot to talk about! I will admit to using spellcheck often since I can't type well. If your insult is really genuine, then maybe there is something to the stereotype that atheists are smarter.... or maybe you are just being an a**hole. Sorry for the foul language, being well educated is important. Moving on.
    
If you think I'm weak and 'thinskinned', let me answer you more politely than the prior. Despite the incessant use of the 'no-true-scotsman' fallacy, I actually did believe very much that Christ died for me. My mistake is that I took the statement 'seek and ye shall find' a little too literally (as WCCCers would say: 'live the promises of God'). I really, earnestly appealed to God to show me he was true... and then silence, not a word from on high. I prayed, prayed, wept and prayed some more for all this to be true. But the more God collapsed in a puff of logic, the more it became obvious that I was believing something I wanted to be true, not that is true.
      I do not pretend to know anything about your personal struggles after leaving GCx, but let me say that there are only 3 christians in or out I knew prior that will still even acknowledge I exist! (this is down from 5 last year; if they stopped being friends when I de-converted were they ever really friends?) I know a lot of you lost friends when leaving and I'm in the same boat. I've had to start from scratch as many of you surely did. I have to admit that leaving young was easier for me, and that brings me to another point. If I were 50 when I realized there was no God, I'm sure I would not have left.... because to do so would be to admit that 30 years of my life were wasted. In my case its only 3 years, but if I were thinskinned I would've intentionally lived a lie to rid myself of the 'shame' of disbelief. So what is more noble, admit you were wrong and move on with your life, or lie to yourself because you want it to be true? Is that not more 'humble'?  I think a lot of you believe that I wanted to leave xianity because I wanted to drink, masturbate, fornicate, cuss or whatever sinful action. That is fatuously wrong! I 'was' content with my life up to that point, I wanted xianity to be true, or at least there to be something 'out there'! I couldn't lie to myself anymore; is my self-honesty ignoble?
   This brings me to that clear insight, that what people say in your absence speaks volumes. What was said after I 'bowed out' is markedly unchristian. Even if I were attacking you personally (which I"m not, just your beliefs) are you not supposed to turn the other cheek? Are you not supposed to answer in love? "Yeah! Let's slander the gentile when he leaves!"
If an opinion I have is shown to be false by means of good logic and rhetoric, I change the opinion! To a certain extent I admit wanting to know if any of you were capable of the same. For example I have found that presupposing that the xian God exists, the trinity dogma holds up very well under logical scrutiny, granted the presupposition I have found to be false, but nevertheless. If I change my beliefs/opinions based off of good arguments, how is that being fundamentalist? When I encounter an argument, I don't just hold it up to holy writ and judge it by that standard. If something is true I accept it, if something is false I reject it, if something is ambiguous I withhold judgement. As christians you should know better, and I was hoping that this site could be one of rational if not heated discussion. My apologies for those who don't fall into this camp (I have to acknowledge in particular Linda for being a champ!). For those of you who that think I'm the epitome of evil on earth and need Jesus' salvation.... I tried it, it didn't work, don't waste your breath evangelizing me.

I'll leave my account open for the next few days for those who don't have insults or propitiations/prayers for my salvation.

Veni, vidi, non volo vici
« Last Edit: June 18, 2011, 11:01:16 pm by danrudeisevil » Logged
Cossette729
Obscure Poster (1-14 Posts)
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11



« Reply #1 on: June 19, 2011, 01:44:31 am »

Oh, for goodness's sake, are you ever going to go away?  I know I'm feeding the troll here, but I also know you'll be back to read this despite your promises to leave, so...

Quote
Take into consideration the monumental task of taking up a debate on this forum from my point of view.
First of all, why would you want to take up a debate on this forum?  And second of all, what makes your point of view unique?  You're not particularly different from anyone else here, except in your own mind and in the fact that you think it is appropriate to drop into a forum where you don't know anyone and aren't familiar with the relationships or dynamics that already exist and start making accusations and assertions of other people's beliefs.

Quote
One must make generalizations; there are a plethora of differing views on 'theological' matters held on this site (too many to answer individually). Seemingly, some believe in evolution, some disagree on the issue of hell... the full list would be exhaustive, because the varying denominations of christianity is equally exhaustive. So if I say christians believe 'x' I am shooting for the median as much as possible.
Except, as you've just pointed out, saying Christians believe "x" is ridiculous, because Christianity is not homogenous.  And while you may be shooting for the median, your aim is rather mediocre.  There's no need to make generalizations if you would simply make a point instead of trying to attack other people.

Quote
An example that has cropped up is the use of 'theologan'; some are ultra conservative while some are nearly athiests, with a colorful spectrum in between.
The problem here is that you don't seem to know what the word "theologian" means.  Being a theologian is something that you do, not something that you believe.

Quote
Regardless, it holds true that if Adam didn't exist, then a major factor (original sin) is detracted from Christ's redemptive powers.
What?  This is just absolute nonsense. If Adam didn't literally exist, original sin still does--that's why the story is there.  Claiming that parts of the Bible are metaphorical or allegorical doesn't mean that you just disregard those parts completely.  It means that you think they are a metaphor or an allegory.

Quote
Don't insinuate that I don't know anything about xianity based that my only exposure to it was from GCx.
I would never insinuate such a thing.  However, I will state outright that you don't know much about Christianity "based that" most of what you say about Christianity belies that fact.

Quote
I'm using the wrong word...
Ma nishtanah?

Quote
On this thought: Is it wrong or insulting to criticize someones religion?
It may or may not be wrong, but it is certainly insulting, as evidenced by the fact that people are insulted when you do so.

Quote
If you have been observant, I have criticized the beliefs of people in this blog and not the person itself.
The beliefs a person holds are "the person itself."  I can't think of anything more defining of an individual than the beliefs that he or she holds sacred.

Quote
The screensaver 'danrudeisevil' was indeed to spark conversation about this very idea. And it is true that I hate all of his actions that stem directly from his belief, but he isn't intrinsically evil: no one is.
But your screenname isn't "danrudebelievesevilthings" or "danrudedoesevil".  You chose "danrudeISevil".

Quote
I have enumerated elsewhere my primary goals for posting on this site and feel no compulsion to do so again (read for yourselves).
Actually, no, I don't think you have.  I still don't know what you're doing here or what you're on about.  The closest you came was in your first post, when you wrote, "If I am going to get any emotional 'healing' as it were from visiting this site..." but you then stated that "It was intellectual violation and would then necessitate intellectual discuss to remedy, no appeal to emotion or faith need apply."  So I'm still not sure.

Quote
I read books other than the bible A LOT...
What does that even mean?  Do you think there is anyone here who hasn't read any books other than the Bible?

Quote
I underline and look up any word I don't understand and memorize it. Command of your native tongue is important to me, and allows one to be more precise.
This would be a lot easier to swallow if you didn't use words improperly with such frequency.  Your logic is also abysmal.  When one tries to sound more intelligent than one actually is, one always fails and usually sounds much less intelligent.  Just write the way you talk.

Quote
If my posts run overlong, it's because there is a lot to talk about!
Or it's because you can't articulate a thought concisely.
     
Quote
Despite the incessant use of the 'no-true-scotsman' fallacy, I actually did believe very much that Christ died for me. My mistake is that I took the statement 'seek and ye shall find' a little too literally (as WCCCers would say: 'live the promises of God'). I really, earnestly appealed to God to show me he was true... and then silence, not a word from on high. I prayed, prayed, wept and prayed some more for all this to be true. But the more God collapsed in a puff of logic, the more it became obvious that I was believing something I wanted to be true, not that is true.
Seek and ye shall find: love, yes; forgiveness, yes; hope, yes; but proof?  If there were proof, you would not have the opportunity to have faith.  When you did all that Bible-reading you claim to have done, did you get to the bit where it says, "Do not test the LORD your God as you did at Massah"?  Did you get to the bit in the gospels when Jesus quotes that scripture?

Quote
I think a lot of you believe that I wanted to leave xianity because I wanted to drink, masturbate, fornicate, cuss or whatever sinful action.
What on earth would make you think that?  I feel confident that this is something that came entirely from your own head, especially because not one of the behaviors you have listed (except possibly "fornication") are mutually exclusive with Christianity.

Quote
If an opinion I have is shown to be false by means of good logic and rhetoric, I change the opinion!
I'm sorry, but no, you don't.  You get defensive and continue to argue you your point by talking incessantly without saying much of anything.

Quote
To a certain extent I admit wanting to know if any of you were capable of the same.
Of changing our faith because it isn't logical or rational?  No.  Because again, that's not faith.  I didn't reason into my faith, which is why I'll never be reasoned out of it.  As someone who appreciates intellectual honesty, I'll freely admit that my faith is irrational.  Turning the other cheek is irrational.  Forgiveness is irrational.  Joy in the face of immeasurable obstacles is irrational.  There are so many things I believe in that are irrational--but they are also the things that make life extraordinarily good and, in my opinion, worth living.
Logged
Anonymous
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 23



« Reply #2 on: June 19, 2011, 08:01:59 am »

You are one of the most arrogant assholes I have met online before. Maybe you don't realize this. Maybe you actually think you are being good intentioned when you repeatedly insinuate people here (and therefore myself included) are less intellectually capable than you are. Maybe you think being condescending is not at all insulting and conducive to people bowing before your great intellectual might. Maybe you really do think no one here is as smart as you.

I don't know. But your posts really come across that way. Your backhanded "thanks guys, BUT I am in fact better than you, I'm sorry it has to be that way!" posts are absolutely insulting. I had held some hope you were unintentionally doing this but after seeing the same trend for multiple posts, I no longer believe you are doing this by accident. I think you fully believe you are superior to all of us and think we are all inferior.

Quote
If an opinion I have is shown to be false by means of good logic and rhetoric, I change the opinion!

No, you don't. Plenty of us made arguments against things you said, and did you change your opinion or respond? No! You simply ignored posts disagreeing with what you said and posted about how hurt you were us awful Christians didn't automatically take and believe your drivel.

Quote
To a certain extent I admit wanting to know if any of you were capable of the same.


No, you wanted to know if anyone here would automatically believe what you said as true without questioning it, and when people did question it, you ran away and again posted about how hurt you were people refused your powerful "arguments" and instead disagreed!

Quote
When I encounter an argument, I don't just hold it up to holy writ and judge it by that standard.

For the record, I've actually been going through an intense period of questioning about whether or not Christianity is true over the past months. I've been evaluating a lot of things, not the least of which is the Bible or God from a more metaphysical perspective. Seeing your position - that of Christianity being false - and its reasons presented so poorly and inconsistently (from someone who is self-claimed to be superior at logic, reason, and intellect than myself) has actually caused me to be more confident in faith, simply because if your arguments are so weak and internally inconsistent and indefensible.

Quote
As christians you should know better, and I was hoping that this site could be one of rational if not heated discussion.

You never responded to anything I posted. How can a site be "rational discussion" when one party picks and chooses what to respond to - in particular not addressing anything ever said specifically, and ONLY responds in broad, not-really-related generalizations (how is this at all rational discussion?) - and gets upset and posts multiple "woe is me" posts about how awful all the posters are?


You are the reason there were not better discussions. To have a discussion, one must engage in the discussion and not post three times, then complain for three additional posts about how the people here are ebil and mean and omg they don't like it when I ignore them and make really conceited long winded posts and can't make a single solid point! If what I was saying (specifically referring to me, since you never bothered to address my posts, this also applies to others) was so irrationally based and not logical, stop whining and address my points specifically. Until I see that I will simply find every one of these self congratulatory posts to be the epitome not of evil, but of pride and self-centeredness.

And look - I realize fully well it's easier to take this route than question your own beliefs and make arguments from positions you apparently cannot support. But just because it's easier doesn't mean it is the way to rational discussion.
Logged
Innerlight
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 136



« Reply #3 on: June 19, 2011, 08:38:35 am »

 For whoever accused me of using a thesaurus, excuse my french, f*** you. You might think being illiterate is awesome, I don't. I read books other than the bible A LOT, I especially love older literature in the vein of Milton and Dumas (not to boast but I've read the KJV through twice, and in my experience in GCx very few have even read the whole OT), and I underline and look up any word I don't understand and memorize it. Command of your native tongue is important to me, and allows one to be more precise. If that makes me sound obscure and overbearing, that is your fault, not mine. If my posts run overlong, it's because there is a lot to talk about! I will admit to using spellcheck often since I can't type well. If your insult is really genuine, then maybe there is something to the stereotype that atheists are smarter.... or maybe you are just being an a**hole. Sorry for the foul language, being well educated is important. Moving on.

Wow, the great mind, debater, philosopher has resorted to name calling and swearing when his pride is wounded.  Proof positive of our fallen nature.  BTW, my dad was a US Navy combat vet....heard 'em all....you'll have to do better than that. 

As Al pacino says in "The Devil's Advocate"..."Vanity, my favorite sin"   

Best wishes to you.....I know you are still reading these, you can't help it. 
Logged
Innerlight
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 136



« Reply #4 on: June 19, 2011, 08:48:40 am »

Also, your rant about if it weren't for enlightened, logical atheists such as yourself, we would all be living in the dark ages was completely laughable.  There are no intelligent Christian thinkers...like maybe Luther, Michelangelo, Issac Newton, Galileo and Martin Luther King, etc...

Logged
AgathaL'Orange
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1181



« Reply #5 on: June 19, 2011, 07:36:14 pm »

Even your belief that all Christians believe basically the same thing about Christ's payment for sin is wrong.  I'm sorry, but Christianity is actually bigger than even that.  Some people think that Christ's death was about conquering death and they don't believe in substitutionary atonement AT ALL or that it is not the central theme of the gospel.  And they are considered relatively mainstream. 

So, I guess what I'm saying is, if you would like to argue with Christianity, that's fine.  But again, you aren't going to argue the points effectively if you aren't aware of them.

Finally, that's actually my entire belief in why it's ineffective to argue someone into or out of "the faith".  Discussions are great, they multiply the connections, they explore.  Arguments close off discussion and exploration.  They are focused on tiny points that miss the entire picture altogether. 

You don't believe there is a God.  Okay.  I do (Mostly. God, I believe, help my unbelief).
Logged

Glad to be free.
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
SimplePortal 2.1.1