Growing Hostility Toward Christianity... from Evangelicals

[R.Abanes]

hello unrepentant!

yep, m. sherman is okay by me. he and i disagree on various issues -- obviously, -- but he's an alright dude, in my book. we can disagree and not hate each other's guts, for goodness sake. i've come to see over the years that so much animosity is so unnecessary -- by everyone. maybe i'm just getting old. i never knew this board existed. interesting.....


Oh, and Wally -- yes, yes, yes, I know, sometimes, you are absolutely right, that can indeed be a rather embarrassing admission to make in light of the shenanigans of so many so-called "Christians" (and believe me, as an insider, I know a lot more than you do about that).

RA

 

[R.Abanes]

Hey Alan (unrepentant),

Did you know according to wiki: "Alan Smithee is a pseudonym that has been used since 1968 by film directors who wished to be dissociated from a film. Until a policy change in the year 2000, it was used when a director proved to the satisfaction of a panel of members of the Directors Guild of America (DGA) and Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers that he or she was not able to exercise creative control over a film. The director was also required to keep the reason for the disavowal a secret."

Please tell me you're Oliver Stone......

RA

 

[Wally]

Oh, and Wally -- yes, yes, yes, I know, sometimes, you are absolutely right, that can indeed be a rather embarrassing admission to make in light of the shenanigans of so many so-called "Christians" (and believe me, as an insider, I know a lot more than you do about that).

RA

Thanks for the pleasant reply. I was actually referring more to the conservative part.

My extended family on my mothers side would label themselves as Conservative Christians and I dearly love all of them, but it's hard to reconcile the nice people I know them to be with some of the terribly regressive and xenophobic policies they espouse.

From my experience, conservative definitely does not always (rarely)= good, and Christian does not always = ethical.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

hello unrepentant!

yep, m. sherman is okay by me. he and i disagree on various issues -- obviously, -- but he's an alright dude, in my book. we can disagree and not hate each other's guts, for goodness sake. i've come to see over the years that so much animosity is so unnecessary -- by everyone. maybe i'm just getting old. i never knew this board existed. interesting.....

I remember the row with Dr. Laura back in the mid-90s. Glad to see some of the directors from back then are still around and active.

Hey Alan (unrepentant),

Did you know according to wiki: "Alan Smithee is a pseudonym that has been used since 1968 by film directors who wished to be dissociated from a film...

You can call me US. The credits for such movies would roll with something like "A film by Alan Smithee" or "John Smith starring in an Alan Smithee film" and I thought it was funny because of a movie that you can read about in my signature "Alan Smithee explained".

 

[Scazon]

We've got a venue for it now- I say they should do 15 rounds, 3 falls, a knockout or or a submission, in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

 

[Ladewig]

I'd like to punch all of these people in the throat.

I'd like to live in a world where people are not subject to physical violence for their beliefs.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I have a sterling reputation as a conservative Christian

Richard Abanes

Why do people say things like this like it's a good thing?

Because it often is. (See Billy Graham and his sterling reputation.) He may not be your cup of tea, ideologicaly, but that doesn't make him any less of a man.

DR

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Goodness. What at first looked like a rather mundane thread has become a tad more interesting.

Mr Abanes, I take issue with your claim there is such a thing as "a Christian manner". If there is such a thing, then the range of behaviors is so broad as to make the terminology moot. But this claim of your definition of what is "Christian-like" is especially ironic:

accurately, carefully, kindly, respectfully, and NOT by use of lies, misrepresentation, half-truths, out-of-context quotes, concealment of information, or other sorts of cult-like, mean-spirited, unChristian tactics.

From all I have read in the New testament, Jesus fluctuates from, kill them all, to turn the other cheek.

Bible contradictions by Book

 

[R.Abanes]

skepti girl: I take issue with your claim there is such a thing as "a Christian manner".

RA: Well, you can take issue with it, but there's certainly enough in the New Testament about how to love people, stand against injustice, take care of others, and pursue truth in order to prove you in error. And as a Christian, I've lived by the "Christian manner" for many years -- at least I've tried. Certainly, I have not always succeeded, but there is certainly a standard and moral/ethical instruction.

I'm a bit surprised that you would not even say one exists. That's an altogether different thing than saying, "I see it, but don't agree with it" -- which is something I could accept and wish all the best to you.

skepti girl: From all I have read in the New testament, Jesus fluctuates from, kill them all, to turn the other cheek.

RA: Hmm. Well, you might have the wrong book. I can't seem to find Jesus ordering anyone to kill anyone, let alone kill them all. Are you sure you're not reading the Koran?

If you'd like to post a statement from Jesus saying kill them all, please do so. And I would ask that you post that remark exactly as you declared it. For example, "And Jesus saith unto them: 'My disciples, you are my followers indeed, if you will go to the Samaritans, and kill them all."

Here's what I found: "Jesus replied: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:36-40)

And this is what James stated: "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world" (James 1:27).



R.A.

 

[R.Abanes]

Skeptic girl,

Those Bible contradictions???

These things are as old as the hills and have all been refuted. I could give you alist of books if you care, but I doubt you care, which is fine. But please don't think they amount to some kind of irrefutable collection of "AH HA - Gotcha" questions. Most of them are actually kind of silly, complete with category errors, misapplication of languages, failure to take into account Hebrew and/or Greek figures of speech (not to mention imagery), and an utter lack of knowledge regarding Judaism and Christian theology. Sorry, but it's true.

It amazes me, and actually is rather sad, TBH, that skeptics still use some of these worn out "contradictions." Seriously, they're just sad.

How many Gods are there? (read a systematic theology book on Trinitarianism). How many creation days? (study a bit about Hebrew ancient literature). Do Christians sin? (goodness, try hearing at least one teaching about what the language says in these passages and the scope of teaching on sin, redemption, forgiveness, and human nature per Christian soteriology).

I mean, dear skeptic girl, most of this stuff could be answered by first year Bible students with only a modicum of biblical knowledge, not to mention how seasoned Christians and pastors would answer them.

They remind me of why Oprah Winfrey said she left Christianity -- i.e., because her pastor said God is a jealous God and she thought if God were jealous of her, then he couldn't be God!! (What is the world coming to).

R.A.

 

[Wally]

Because it often is. (See Billy Graham and his sterling reputation.) He may not be your cup of tea, ideologicaly, but that doesn't make him any less of a man.

DR

Describing yourself as a conservative Christian doesn't make you a bad person (I don't know where you got "less of a man" from) but it sets up a thought process that allows you to do bad things.

From the god delusion:
"Physicist and Nobel prizewinner Stephen Weinberg describes religion as an insult to human dignity. 'Without it,' he says, 'you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."

Adding conservatism only makes it worse.

 

[R.Abanes]

Wally: but it sets up a thought process that allows you to do bad things.

RA: I think if someone wants to do something bad, they can always find ANYTHING to help them set up a thought process. Being religious does indeed allow one access road open to do bad things for specific reasons. But that is hardly the only access road available to the masses -- otherwise the only bad things done would be done by religious people who choose to use that access road.

To me, as a Christian, because I truly want to follow the tenets of my faith and I am not looking for an access road to do bad things, I actually try to follow what is being taught, rather than simply picking and choosing key little things here and there that justify sinful actions. (And yes, they are sinful).

Personally, I find doing bad things under the guise of religion is worst of all -- because to the actual bad deed is added hypocrisy, as well as the tainting of something that s supposed to be pure, lovely, honorable, good, just, and kind. That's horrible and I hate it. Like when people use religion to justify racism (e.g., the Christian Identity religion of hate).

R.A.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Skeptic girl,

Those Bible contradictions???

These things are as old as the hills and have all been refuted. I could give you alist of books if you care, but I doubt you care, which is fine. But please don't think they amount to some kind of irrefutable collection of "AH HA - Gotcha" questions. Most of them are actually kind of silly, complete with category errors, misapplication of languages, failure to take into account Hebrew and/or Greek figures of speech (not to mention imagery), and an utter lack of knowledge regarding Judaism and Christian theology. Sorry, but it's true.

It amazes me, and actually is rather sad, TBH, that skeptics still use some of these worn out "contradictions." Seriously, they're just sad.

How many Gods are there? (read a systematic theology book on Trinitarianism). How many creation days? (study a bit about Hebrew ancient literature). Do Christians sin? (goodness, try hearing at least one teaching about what the language says in these passages and the scope of teaching on sin, redemption, forgiveness, and human nature per Christian soteriology).

I mean, dear skeptic girl, most of this stuff could be answered by first year Bible students with only a modicum of biblical knowledge, not to mention how seasoned Christians and pastors would answer them.

They remind me of why Oprah Winfrey said she left Christianity -- i.e., because her pastor said God is a jealous God and she thought if God were jealous of her, then he couldn't be God!! (What is the world coming to).

R.A.

So... you're saying the bible is errant then?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

skepti girl: I take issue with your claim there is such a thing as "a Christian manner".

RA: Well, you can take issue with it, but there's certainly enough in the New Testament about how to love people, stand against injustice, take care of others, and pursue truth in order to prove you in error. And as a Christian, I've lived by the "Christian manner" for many years -- at least I've tried. Certainly, I have not always succeeded, but there is certainly a standard and moral/ethical instruction.

I'm a bit surprised that you would not even say one exists. That's an altogether different thing than saying, "I see it, but don't agree with it" -- which is something I could accept and wish all the best to you.

skepti girl: From all I have read in the New testament, Jesus fluctuates from, kill them all, to turn the other cheek.

RA: Hmm. Well, you might have the wrong book. I can't seem to find Jesus ordering anyone to kill anyone, let alone kill them all. Are you sure you're not reading the Koran?

If you'd like to post a statement from Jesus saying kill them all, please do so. And I would ask that you post that remark exactly as you declared it. For example, "And Jesus saith unto them: 'My disciples, you are my followers indeed, if you will go to the Samaritans, and kill them all."

Here's what I found: "Jesus replied: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:36-40)

And this is what James stated: "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world" (James 1:27).



R.A.

The SAB picks cherries as well as you do:

Here's a start

Matthew

#1 Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned "with unquenchable fire." 3:10, 12

#2 Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17

#3 Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29-30

#4 Jesus says that most people will go to hell. 7:13-14

#5 Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 7:19

#15 Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) So, does Jesus think that children who curse their parents should be killed? It sure sounds like it. 15:4-7

Acts

#50 Peter claims that Deuteronomy 18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all non-Christians) must be killed. 3:23

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Skeptic girl,

Those Bible contradictions???

These things are as old as the hills and have all been refuted. I could give you alist of books if you care, but I doubt you care, which is fine. But please don't think they amount to some kind of irrefutable collection of "AH HA - Gotcha" questions. Most of them are actually kind of silly, complete with category errors, misapplication of languages, failure to take into account Hebrew and/or Greek figures of speech (not to mention imagery), and an utter lack of knowledge regarding Judaism and Christian theology. Sorry, but it's true.

It amazes me, and actually is rather sad, TBH, that skeptics still use some of these worn out "contradictions." Seriously, they're just sad.

How many Gods are there? (read a systematic theology book on Trinitarianism). How many creation days? (study a bit about Hebrew ancient literature). Do Christians sin? (goodness, try hearing at least one teaching about what the language says in these passages and the scope of teaching on sin, redemption, forgiveness, and human nature per Christian soteriology).

I mean, dear skeptic girl, most of this stuff could be answered by first year Bible students with only a modicum of biblical knowledge, not to mention how seasoned Christians and pastors would answer them. ...

R.A.

I've seen the refutations, they are unconvincing. I am no first year Bible student.

 

[Coffee]

Skeptic girl,

Those Bible contradictions???

These things are as old as the hills and have all been refuted. I could give you alist of books if you care, but I doubt you care, which is fine. But please don't think they amount to some kind of irrefutable collection of "AH HA - Gotcha" questions. Most of them are actually kind of silly, complete with category errors, misapplication of languages, failure to take into account Hebrew and/or Greek figures of speech (not to mention imagery), and an utter lack of knowledge regarding Judaism and Christian theology. Sorry, but it's true.

Present evidence that those contradictions have been refuted. This is a skeptics forum more than just you saying "it's true" is required before anyone here will be swayed by your argument. You alluded to a "list of books" then failed to provide the list. You try to justify this failure by speculating on skeptigirl's caring about it. Skeptigirl's caring is irrelevant. You made a claim - back it up with evidence.

It amazes me, and actually is rather sad, TBH, that skeptics still use some of these worn out "contradictions." Seriously, they're just sad.

Once again show evidence that these "worn out" contradictions have been refuted. It's sad that you make claims that you either- can not or will not - back up with evidence.

They remind me of why Oprah Winfrey said she left Christianity -- i.e., because her pastor said God is a jealous God and she thought if God were jealous of her, then he couldn't be God!! (What is the world coming to).

R.A.

Provide evidence that Oprah left christianity because she thought god was jealous of her. A direct quote would be good. Someone saying that she said it is nothing but hearsay and will not cut it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

For the record, Coffee, the religious apologists have many long winded explanations for how black is really white in the Bible and there are no real contradictions as long as you suspend reality and use your imagination. I've read many of the arguments and have yet to find one that is credible. It's typical for the apologies to include such claims as RA makes,

category errors, misapplication of languages, failure to take into account Hebrew and/or Greek figures of speech (not to mention imagery), and an utter lack of knowledge regarding Judaism and Christian theology.

These claims however, do not hold up to scrutiny at all.

 

[Egg]

Present evidence that those contradictions have been refuted. This is a skeptics forum more than just you saying "it's true" is required before anyone here will be swayed by your argument. You alluded to a "list of books" then failed to provide the list. You try to justify this failure by speculating on skeptigirl's caring about it. Skeptigirl's caring is irrelevant. You made a claim - back it up with evidence.

Once again show evidence that these "worn out" contradictions have been refuted. It's sad that you make claims that you either- can not or will not - back up with evidence.

Provide evidence that Oprah left christianity because she thought god was jealous of her. A direct quote would be good. Someone saying that she said it is nothing but hearsay and will not cut it.

I think it's possible to take this kind of skeptical approach in a discussion too far. It can kind of get to the point of winning an argument by insisting that your opponent must go to unreasonable lengths. Perhaps we could call it argumentum ad ni (after Monty Python's Holy Grail - "we demand a shrubbery!").

It certainly seems often in danger of showing double standards.

Skeptigirl pasted a section of the SAB to back up her position, but you appear to take no notice of the lack of evidence presented supporting the accusations, that no reference is made to the context of the text and no argument is made as to the implied meanings of certain metaphorical speech, but you are quick to demand evidence when R.A. suggests they've been refuted. Surely the onus should be firstly on demonstrating the SAB is reliable in its claims?

To turn the same kind of approach to your post here, we might get something like...

Present evidence that more is required before anyone here will be swayed by R.A.'s argument. Present evidence and a reasonable argument to show that R.A. can not or will not back up his claims with evidence and that those are the only two possibilities available given the information we have.
Justify your philosophical position that R.A. should be the one to back up his anecdote about Oprah when for anyone interested, typing "Oprah god jealous" into Google will give you all the information you might want.

That said, there's nothing wrong in asking for evidence for claims. Perhaps my reaction was more to the demanding of evidence and with overtones of assuming R.A. was somehow being dishonest or slippery.

 

[Coffee]

I think it's possible to take this kind of skeptical approach in a discussion too far. It can kind of get to the point of winning an argument by insisting that your opponent must go to unreasonable lengths. Perhaps we could call it argumentum ad ni (after Monty Python's Holy Grail - "we demand a shrubbery!").

Certainly it's possible but that's not the case here.

It certainly seems often in danger of showing double standards.

I have not witness any danger of showing double standards on this forum. Perhaps you could start a new thread and point out where this has happened. To do so here would send this thread into further derail.

Skeptigirl pasted a section of the SAB to back up her position, but you appear to take no notice of the lack of evidence presented supporting the accusations, that no reference is made to the context of the text and no argument is made as to the implied meanings of certain metaphorical speech, but you are quick to demand evidence when R.A. suggests they've been refuted. Surely the onus should be firstly on demonstrating the SAB is reliable in its claims?

Skeptigirl did not simply paste a section of the SAB. She provided a link (see post #28)and if one were to follow the link they would find other resources that support the "accusations". That being the case there was no need for me to "demand" evidence from her.

To turn the same kind of approach to your post here, we might get something like...

Present evidence that more is required before anyone here will be swayed by R.A.'s argument..

You got me there. I should have said something other than "anyone". Perhaps I should have said, "before I am swayed".

Present evidence and a reasonable argument to show that R.A. can not or will not back up his claims with evidence

If RA presents evidence to back up his claim then I'll gladly retract my statement concerning "can not or will not provide evidence".

and that those are the only two possibilities available given the information we have.

I never said that those were the only two possibilities. They were the only two I mentioned. Only mentioning two does not mean I do not think there are others.

Justify your philosophical position that R.A. should be the one to back up his anecdote about Oprah when for anyone interested, typing "Oprah god jealous" into Google will give you all the information you might want.

RA made the Oprah claim. The burden of proof is his. As for using "google" - no kidding anyone can do that and I did. I found plenty of things about Oprah and jealous god but nothing that shows Oprah saying "I left christianity because god is jealous of me." which was the gist of RA's claim.

That said, there's nothing wrong in asking for evidence for claims.

Oh good. We agree on that.

Perhaps my reaction was more to the demanding of evidence and with overtones of assuming R.A. was somehow being dishonest or slippery.

Oh, so this all boils down to your perception of the tone I used in my post? Perhaps I was demanding but that is sometimes my posting style when dealing with people who make claims without providing evidence. I cannot help if you don't like it. Also You read way too much into my post and saw things that weren't there (note what I have bolded above).

I think we have derailed this thread enough. If you wish to continue this line of discussion then it should be done elsewhere.

 

[Coffee]

For the record, Coffee, the religious apologists have many long winded explanations for how black is really white in the Bible and there are no real contradictions as long as you suspend reality and use your imagination. I've read many of the arguments and have yet to find one that is credible. It's typical for the apologies to include such claims as RA makes, These claims however, do not hold up to scrutiny at all.

I have encountered the same as you, however, I was giving RA a chance to provide something new and different or at least interesting.