The Easter/resurrection rumble thread [warning: this is a free for all]

[housecat]

@Got To Be Kidding

[quote]Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

[/quote]
What a great post!

I went through a similar thing in University when I fell in love, love, love with a Buddhist and found out one of my profs, a “practicing” lesbian, was an ex priest.

My boyfriend wasn’t particularly religious; usually if he felt particularly concerned about anything, he’d ask ME to pray to MY God, because he felt like I must have some specail favor with Him because I liked to go to church. (His logic used to astound me.) But he wouldn’t ask to go to church with me, and I never felt like asking him to.

The Bible tells us not to be unequally yoked–or to marry only other believers. But this guy treated me like gold. He was extremely respectful, he valued my thoughts and opinions and saught them out, he listened to what I said and remembered it later. If I needed anything–and he knew about it–I had it. Basically, he treated me so much better than any Christian boyfriend I’d ever had. (Still true today, BTW.) I couldn’t see ending our relationship because he was a barely religious Buddhist. He was a wonderful person.

About the same time, I found out about my professor. I wanted so badly to talk to her about this because of my relationship and because I’d never met anyone else who’d left any kind of Christian faith. I felt like she could give me some insights on this matter that no one else could/would. But it was so tough to talk to her!

We were right in the buckle of the Bible belt, after all, and she was already living openly as a lesbian. But she made a remark one day in the office about giving up the priesthood for lent.

She was really angry and hostile when I first approached her because she assumed I was going to try to tell her how to live her life. I can’t blame her, I guess, because apparently so many others had already done that. But when she stopped yelling long enough to hear me out, she was more than willing to talk with me.

It was odd, in a way, because it was like counceling with a priest/pasotr–but in reverse, kinda! Anyway, talking to her really helped a lot. Basically, she left because she couldn’t reconcile her own feelings with church prescriptions. She wanted to be with a woman, kind of like I wanted to be with a Buddhist. Of course, it wasn’t as simple as all that, but she had her reasons.

In the end, I had my reasons for not leaving my faith. And I felt like my relationship with my boyfriend was between the two of us. My relationship with God was between the two of us. That relationship ended eventually, but it had nothing to do with Christianity. In fact, a few years after our relationship ended he became Christian.

But these things helped me to take stock, to realize what, and who, was important to me. I remembered why I believe as I believe, and I realized that it’s okay. My professor didn’t leave the church because she felt that faith was a product of a humble mind. (I had assumed, at first, that was part of it–it was none of it at all.) That was also important to me, because as many here have shown, that’s usually one of the first arguments any Athiest makes. That my professor, a very intelligent woman, didn’t think faith was feeble minded actually helped to give me confidence, in a way, about being who I am.

[Fortigurn]

@bob

(but no, I didn’t say they didn’t exist, I said they were deleted)

Yes, it’s clear this thread has been deleted.

[heimuoshu]

@bob

Our point (I think I can say ‘our’ point) is that we believe that we should be able to interupt the standard narrative almost anytime because the standard narrative lends a sense of normalacy to what is essentially a set of delusions. It might be interpruted as rude by some people but it is considered essential to others. .

You see two teenagers holding hands and kissing in the park. Then you overhear them talking about marriage and how great it will be to have a family.
You know that 50% (this number can be debated) of marriages end in divorce. You also know the alarming rise in cost of actually raising a child. Therefore you “interupt the standard narrative” because it leads to a set of delusions. No-one is debating with you on whether you are right or wrong. Don’t you think though that ruining what might be a special moment for that couple with you factual information is unasked for and therefore unwarranted.
It was Easter. Couldn’t we be spared the facts for one day?

[urodacus]

Allegedly so.

[Fortigurn]

@heimuoshu

It was Easter. Couldn’t we be spared the facts for one day?

They were entirely welcome to make their comments in another thread. They were only being asked to spare that thread. After being asked to spare that thread, several of them deliberately posted additional comments which they knew full well were unwelcome and were a clear breach of the guidelines quoted. This tells you a lot about who they are as human beings, and reinforces negative stereotypes about atheists and their aggressive behaviour towards those who do not agree with them.

[maoman]

@Fortigurn

This tells you a lot about who they are as human beings, and reinforces negative stereotypes about atheists and their aggressive behaviour towards those who do not agree with them.

I agree with the first part, but not the second. I’ve never found religion or lack of it to be a common denominator of personality traits.

[antarcticbeech]

@Fortigurn

[quote=“bob”]1) How many of the belivers here actually believe, for example, that Christ literally died a biological death and then came back to life some days later?

I do.
[/quote]

This is precisely what I do not understand. Normally Fortigurn would be beating other posters around the head with scholarly literature. Yet here: nothing.

Why?

The explanation normally reserved for 10 year-olds will suffice.

[Fortigurn]

@maoman

I agree with the first part, but not the second. I’ve never found religion or lack of it to be a common denominator of personality traits.

I’m not saying it is. I’m saying that their actions are reinforcing negative stereotypes about atheists, just like one or two Christians here have an unfortunate tendency to reinforce negative stereotypes about Christians. This does not mean that those stereotypes are valid. Reinforcing negative stereotypes is something we should all avoid doing. Given I’m a Christian, I can’t behave like a Fundamentalist and then complain that people think all Christians are Fundamentalists; I’m not exactly doing my bit to help by behaving like one.

[quote=“antarcticbeech”]This is precisely what I do not understand. Normally Fortigurn would be beating other posters around the head with scholarly literature. Yet here: nothing.

Why?

The explanation normally reserved for 10 year-olds will suffice.[/quote]

Because I didn’t need scholarly literature to answer his question, and because it’s bob.

[heimuoshu]

Well if we are going to count, you can count me, my wife, my brother and his wife and a few other people I know who would also say “I do” without any doubt.

[antarcticbeech]

Well, in the original post:

@Fortigurn

* Any truth claims made in this thread make themselves vulnerable to challenge or criticism; you are advised to check your sources and present your evidence

So, you believe the story of Jesus’ resurrection to be true yet you would not claim it is true? Is that correct?

[Got_To_Be_Kidding]

Me and half my apartment building here in Neihu would say ‘I do’. (Well, it’s a small building, but very vigorous!)

[housecat]

I also believe in the resurection. If I didn’t believe in Christ’s resurection from the dead, then I would surely not bother to believe in any other bit of Christianity, or anything else for that matter. It’s kinda pivital.

[bob]

@heimuoshu

[quote=“bob”]Our point (I think I can say ‘our’ point) is that we believe that we should be able to interupt the standard narrative almost anytime because the standard narrative lends a sense of normalacy to what is essentially a set of delusions. It might be interpruted as rude by some people but it is considered essential to others. .

You see two teenagers holding hands and kissing in the park. Then you overhear them talking about marriage and how great it will be to have a family.
You know that 50% (this number can be debated) of marriages end in divorce. You also know the alarming rise in cost of actually raising a child. Therefore you “interupt the standard narrative” because it leads to a set of delusions. No-one is debating with you on whether you are right or wrong. Don’t you think though that ruining what might be a special moment for that couple with you factual information is unasked for and therefore unwarranted.
It was Easter. Couldn’t we be spared the facts for one day?[/quote]

No, and that is a principled, ethical position for the reasons I stated earlier. Actually stray dog says it probably better than I did way back…

viewtopic.php?f=110&t=98038&start=140

I am doing the new Christians I meet a huge “favor” when I ask them if they are crazy. I don’t do it with an ugly tone, I do it with a compasionate one, because that is how I actually feel toward people who are being sucked into a delusional system, frequently so that they can get ripped off finacially. Many of those people are headed for a really toxic experience I suspect. “Crazy” might be a blunt choice of words but a shock is what they need. BTW, it’s a not rule. I’ll say that if I think it’s advisable in a particular situation, that’s all.

Your analogy doesn’t resonate really because there isn’t any similarity btwn the two situations. I don’t approach random people on the street, but if someone wants to talk to me about religion I am quite willing to engage.

[Chris]

I am doing the new Christians I meet a huge “favor” when I ask them if they are crazy. I don’t do it with an ugly tone, I do it with a compasionate one, because that is how I actually feel toward people who are being sucked into a delusional system, frequently so that they can get ripped off finacially. Many of those people are headed for a really toxic experience I suspect. “Crazy” might be a blunt choice of words but a shock is what they need. BTW, it’s a not rule. I’ll say that if I think it’s advisable in a particular situation, that’s all.

I’ve asked some brand-new converts here a simple question: “Why?” Some simply haven’t questioned it, and have just taken what they were told as gospel. Some were shocked to see a Westerner who is not a Christian or a Mormon, or who questions it. Seems some are dabbling with Christianity in a similar way that Westerners dabble in Buddhism: the exoticness of it.

I reserve “crazy” for new converts to Scientology.

[Chris]

@heimuoshu

It was Easter. Couldn’t we be spared the facts for one day?

Nobody made any extraneous comments on that thread until the day after Easter, if that’s what you’re referring to.

[heimuoshu]

@bob

[quote=“heimuoshu”][quote=“bob”]Our point (I think I can say ‘our’ point) is that we believe that we should be able to interupt the standard narrative almost anytime because the standard narrative lends a sense of normalacy to what is essentially a set of delusions. It might be interpruted as rude by some people but it is considered essential to others. .

You see two teenagers holding hands and kissing in the park. Then you overhear them talking about marriage and how great it will be to have a family.
You know that 50% (this number can be debated) of marriages end in divorce. You also know the alarming rise in cost of actually raising a child. Therefore you “interupt the standard narrative” because it leads to a set of delusions. No-one is debating with you on whether you are right or wrong. Don’t you think though that ruining what might be a special moment for that couple with you factual information is unasked for and therefore unwarranted.
It was Easter. Couldn’t we be spared the facts for one day?[/quote]

No, and that is a principled, ethical position for the reasons I stated earlier. Actually stray dog says it probably better than I did way back…

forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopi … &start=140

I am doing the new Christians I meet a huge “favor” when I ask them if they are crazy. I don’t do it with an ugly tone, I do it with a compasionate one, because that is how I actually feel toward people who are being sucked into a delusional system, frequently so that they can get ripped off finacially. Many of those people are headed for a really toxic experience I suspect. “Crazy” might be a blunt choice of words but a shock is what they need. BTW, it’s a not rule. I’ll say that if I think it’s advisable in a particular situation, that’s all.

Your analogy doesn’t resonate really because there isn’t any similarity btwn the two situations. I don’t approach random people on the street, but if someone wants to talk to me about religion I am quite willing to engage.[/quote]

Just to confirm. We are talking about Christianity, right? The way you said it made it sound like Network Marketing. In that case the Christ we refer to is not Jay van Andel. That is the christ you seem to be referring to.
Your opinion is based on fact right? Meaning you have read literature that represent both sides, like lets say…have you read “A critique of pure reason” by Kant?

[Fortigurn]

@antarcticbeech

So, you believe the story of Jesus’ resurrection to be true yet you would not claim it is true? Is that correct?

No. I believe it to be true and I would claim it is true. I would not claim there was proof it was true. bob asked who here believes in the resurrection. That question didn’t require a lengthy answer citing the scholarly literature, it only required me to say ‘I do’.

If your ‘Why?’ means ‘Why do you believe in the resurrection’, not ‘Why didn’t you cite scholarly literature in your answer to bob?’ (which is what I thought it meant), my answer is that I find the Bible as a whole convincing as an explanation of the universe I see around me, and for that reason I am predisposed towards credulity when it comes to its historical claims (such as the resurrection). For more details on why I believe what I believe, see here.

heimuoshu, I suggest you are leading bob into deep waters unnavigable by him. When you meet someone who declares themself incapable of comprehending you, any discussion will be an exercise in diminishing returns.

[urodacus]

So how is that not covered in MT’s original (now deleted) comment about the Alleged resurrection?

Surely that’s what alleged means, isn’t it?

And as for bob’s anti-Christian persuasion messages, how is that any worse than an evangelist’s pro-Christian persuasion attempts?

I am not sure if the discussion in this forum really has reached a middle, balanced point since I relinquished the reins of moderation to our learned friend Fortigurn.

[jimipresley]

I believe in coyotes, and time as in abstract…

[housecat]

@urodacus

I am not sure if the discussion in this forum really has reached a middle, balanced point since I relinquished the reins of moderation to our learned friend Fortigurn.

I didn’t realize that was the aim here. “Free For All.” That’s what it says up there at the top of the page.

Chris, what would give you, or anyone else, the impression that as long as you don’t say anti-Christian things in a Happy Easter thread on Easter, then it’s free game after that? Where’s the logic there?