When a Christian tries to evangelize you.
Offline Look at them, smile with the compassion they have beneath their guise of ego, know that their intentions are good even if their ideas are disgusting and horrible. Then respond calmly with "I do love Jesus, but not as a unique son of god, how does god exist independent of his manifestation? But rather, as my equal, worship and condemnation are two sides of the same coin. As soon as I worship something outside of me, I condemn something inside of me, and others outside of me. It is a basic principle of philosophy, there is no space between cause and effect. You cannot be running to something without running from something else. Furthermore - you are not punished for your sin, you are punished BY your sin, so if I want to avoid punishment for my sin, I should simply stop sinning.
though the semantics of this argument may be in conflict with your ideas, beneath the differences seperated by semantics lies an inherent understanding to this. "Sin" to them, is the same thing as hostility, contempt, resentment, bitterness, and anger to you.
- Login to post comments
I see your signature states that you wish to find inadequacies of the early christians, but you should know that the stupidity of christianity has been progressing, not slowing - early christians were significantly more enlightened then modern christians (on a general consensus)
That picture is awesome, I am sitting here laughing my ass off.
Those pancakes are sandwiched around red bean paste, if they're what I think they are. I bought a pack at the Japanese market once.
As for the original post, the statement is rather general. It's presumptuous to suppose I have a "different" view of Jesus, rather than no view at all, since I don't acknowledge that he's proven to have existed.
Good job Rook.
What I was trying to say is use the foundation of their own concepts to refute their evangelism. At the very least, smile, and say "I think its time for you to go back to Luke chapter 6". Use their own convictions against them.
I like you dude, you're cool. lol! This is awesome.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
So your suggestion is (once again, how many times have you made this proposal?) understood but of no use to a millitant atheist such as myself. I see no gain in twisting my words to trick someone into hearing my truth. I would rather just say what I believe is true and they can hear me or not. It's thier choice.
your militant atheism is your own undoing, it is you fighting your self. If you got rid of the 'militant' in you, you could be a lot more productive and benefitting of your own cause.
Probably.
There are many things about me that could change for the better, at least in regard to functioning better in "civilized" society. You keep making this point and I just can't get how you imagine you are coming up with some fantastic new viewpoint. My agression level has caused me a great deal of grief. Believe it or not I am MUCH more docile than I used to be. In toning down my intolerant approach to many things my life has improved for the better.
However, you must understand that you are merely expressing your own personal opinion. You do realize that don't you? You do not have the market cornered on "how to behave". You just have your own PERSONAL beliefs about which forms of interaction will likely be more affective than others.
By the way, that cat picture is high comedy.
This is all very true - I do not ever wish to express that I hold high dominion over you or anybody - all my thoughts are merely that and that alone, my own thoughts - and I would be practicing the utmost narrow-mindedness to assume that I know you better then you know your self. However - what I DO know is the evangelist vs atheism movements, I know them very well, as I have spent a plethora of time working with both of them. I listen to both sides, I play both sides, and I learn both sides. I have even taken it upon myself to join some evangelistic courses, courses that both introduce those to christianity, and that help others to be introduced to it. Naturally, I am in conflict with this very precept - but I should not allow this to hinder me from my pursuit of learning both sides. I have learned both sides very well, I have taken many classes, I have heard many sound conjectures from both sides, and I know the differences and the commonalities. To be quite honest with you, the only real conflict is dogma - and if you reciprocate their dogma with your dogma, you are then being counter productive to your own cause.
Evangelism destroyed my family, as I refused to commit myself to Christ as a high man, gods son, my spouses family used that against me, and manipulated her into splitting. I am fully aware of the destructive precepts of evangelism, however - for me to go out and be counter-aggressive, and to demand my righteousness over theres is to be no better then they. Rather, I seeked to understand to the depths of theirs, and to find the commonalities, and the differences.
In understanding their reality, I can better see into eliminating the dogma that seperates us, not even by insulting their "god" for being floating pixie dust, but rather, to give them solid questions, important questions, that their own contradictions cannot answer, once they see this, they can see clearly enough to look past the differences between the movements, and into the commonalities.
The Kingdom of God, Garden of Eden, Forbidden Fruit, and the Heavenly Father all have very real applications in real life, that do not conflict with science, though there are some very common misconceptions about them (indeed, more common misconceptions then sound conceptions), underneath the poor understanding of them lies truth - and the bible may be chock full of a plethora of hateful remarks and obvious incongruencies, there is some truth in a lot of what they are saying. It took me a long time to come to this realization, and it came largely through the help of practicing all of world religion. The help of these religions helped me see clearly, by being able to see beyond my own self - I do not even consider myself "Charlie, born in 1984" anymore, I consider my self as a part of the stream of human consciousness, carried in the body of Charlie, who was born in 1984.
If you were to have a better understanding of the Kingdom of God, the Heavenly Father, the Garden of Eden and the Forbidden Fruits, then you can help others to see that as well, but so long as you keep demanding that those things are absurd fairy tales, you will keep alienating the very people and communities you wish to help, seperating from them further, and creating a larger gap, more divisiveness in a country that is already way too divided. Richard Dawkins claims that "Religion is divisive", but this assesment is disturbingly short-sighted. Most world religion seeks to unite the people, not divide them. What creates the divisiveness is conviction, certitude, dogma, and people wanting to hold monopoly over "truth", by demanding that they have a better understanding of it then others do. So, indeed, by even making such a broad brushed remark, he was actually being the divisiveness he so condemned.
And right now - just as you disregarded my very sound conjecture to 'prove god' as quazi-new-age pixie dust, you have continued to BE that divisiveness that you so wish to eradicate.
So yes - I do not have monopoly over truth, and I do not have dominion over how to behave, what I DO have however, is a lot of experience not only with world religion and science, but with Christianity and Evangelism as well. In this light, I can see action and reaction, and cause and effect, on both sides. If you reciprocate their condemnation towards you, then you enlarge, and perpetuate it. If you give them kind understanding, and you can have your own personal understanding of things such as the Kingdom of God, then they will actually see to it to listen to you. Their condemnation to you, depends on your reverse condemnation to them - they will be baffled and perplexed as how to handle it when they condemn you, and you smile in return and bless them. You can then transform their outward hostility and condemnation, into inward introspection, just by not being a receipent to them.
I submit to you that learning of Christ, and understanding what he was, you can help his followers to see more clearly. Christ was not a deluded man, he was a brilliant man and a wonderful teacher. Gandhi says it well - "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
You must resist their movement with Gandhi-like wisdom if you wish to be effective. Resist their oppression like Gandhi resisted the British Regime.
Since this thread is now about funny pictures...
I've been waiting to use this one:
You did indeed "prove god" contingient upon the agreement that consciousness binds all matter together. Which, I do not agree with you on. There is no sound evidence to suggest such a thing.
Martin Luther King had the same belief set. He went about his work in this way because he realized that the two communities would have to live together once his work was done. He felt that if he gave in to his violent impulses (and don't let anyone tell you that he didn't have them) then he would sacrifice the long term good for short term satisfaction.
I agree that his approach was correct for what he was trying to accomplish.
I do not personally practice this philosophy. I recognize it's merit, but I have no intention of turning the other cheek. I'd rather kick the one that hit me in his throat
But hey, that's just me.an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. You must BE the change tht you want in others. I really doubt that Gandhi or Martin had much of any violent thoughts - their insights into the communities were too deep to come from that of superficial violent minds.
The sound evidence that consciousness binds all matter, is you. You are right now transforming matter, and circulating it constantly throughout your body, as do plants, and as does dirt, and as does everything else. The matter circulates, through a decompositional transformation. not even the tiniest iota of your body is still, at any moment, it is going through constant decomposition and recirculation. The way matter maintains itself, is the energy of consciousness, no mathematical formula can be infinitely adaptable, consciousness can. What is your reason for disbelieving the analysis? Seeing this - I beleive that all matter must exist dependent on a conscious host, because it is the source of its transformation. All things come from nothing and return to nothing, as well as all of us, a sun is born, a sun dies. We are born, we die.
The evidence is profound... How else could you possibly explain the phenomena?
See, you were expressing an opinion right up until you claim that your idea is somehow fact.
did i say fact? I was just expressing personal observation. are you just refuting my beliefs because i have them and I also believe in the word "God"? my "belief" can stand up to scientific hypothesis, but it wouldnt be "truth" or "fact" because of the subjectivity of experience.
Oh, I misunderstood.
So you admit that your whole point is a personal observation that is purely subjective.
Well then.
Carry on
hmmmmmm.... I dont think I ever intended to state it was anything but subjective and my own. I only wished to express to you the experience of observation I had, that actually would have a serious leg to stand on in scientific hypothetical pursuits, and it is (somewhat) within our means. Certainly we could even find a way of verifying it, much of it has been verified in science - like I said, comparing the First law of Thermodynamics, and combining it with the theory of flux, the Scientific observation that all matter is constantly decomposing, and circulating itself through life, for example, in earth, it does it through carbon, but how does it do it in the sun, how does it do it in mars, how does it do it in our atmosphere, and our dirt? how does the matter outside of our bodies maintain itself in this decomposing sense? How does matter react in space in its decomposition? What gases effect what. Really, it is a very deep observation that could only be very superficially observed within our own means of scientific research.
So, it's personal opinion and totally subjective?
Or it's provable via scientific means?
You're trying to make opposite points at the same time here.
Or am I just too ignorant / idiotic / ego[centric] to "get it"?
Then you don't know much about King's later life, before he was shot and died. King became more militant later, and this is generally glossed over or completely skipped when we talk about him in history class.
Martin Luther King Jr was never violent, and still critiqued the US as being extremely violent, but his frustration and criticism became often scathing later on, and anyone with the kind of passion that he had would have to suppress, even if only occasionally, violent impulses.
Again, what evidence?
The evidence I've seen seems to point to the fact that consciousness is completely dependent upon a specific type (or set of types) of material structure, not the other way around.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
You couldn't be more correct. To assert that MLK didn't have violent impulses is absurd. MLK of all people never claimed that he was above human emotion, he merely suggested that we have to rise above it if we want to make our actions lasting and meaningful. Once the Black Power movement and the Viet Nam conflict came into the picture his movement lost a great deal of its momentum. Before his assassination he knew that his ideas were no longer winning out with the community. MLK was no fool.
Claiming that a person (even MLK) is above even thinking violent or unkind thoughts is 1. unprovable and 2. very unlikely. It is just an attempt to raise someone to messiah status and say "see, he is proof".
well I dont know much about MLK But I certainly think Gandhi was above that in character.
and its both, man, its both subjective, and provable in scientific hypothesis. Nothing is objective just because its gone through a scientific process, all things remain subjective, even through empirical observation.
you guys really do have such a blind faith in science. You guys convict yourselves to science like chrisitans do to the "innerent perfect word of god".... its actually scary to see this in our culture. both sides of it. You guys are the exact same as them, the opposite side of the same coin.
segregate everybody by their belief in god, cause even though their is a huge variation on the conceptual understanding of god, all of them are WRONG AND WE ARE RIIIIIIIGGGGHHHT! you are fanatical just like they.... why, even here you have "theist vs atheist", and your "freethinkers" group is for "atheists alone". You have practiced segregation here and, well, you guys are idiots to stay committed to such a disgusting movement.
I don't have faith in science. Science is repeatable, demonstratable, etc. therefore, it is based upon evidence, not the lack of it.
It is true that I will lend more credibility and trust I the scientific method and community than theology, but that is because of the peer-review process. Science tries to disprove a hypothesis, thus one that stands is held to be a fact. Theology does have a peer-review method as well in some cases, but when it comes down to it, all religious claims ultimately come down to accepting on faith--that is, without evidence or (sometimes) the possibility of evidence--that are often at odds with other tenants from other groups.
Science is not built on premises of faith, but of induction, deduction, and testing of hypotheses. And no matter how problematic induction is, it is infinitely better than believing something by fiat.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
Purely a matter of personal opinion. I only doubt that is the case since I consider emotional response to be a "natural" condition for humans.
When somebody wishes to physically attack me, my emotional response is compassion. Why would I simply be a reflection of their violence? Why would I want to be their violence? Rather, I see the root of their violence, and I see along the whole chain of their actions suffering. Suffering is the only thing that can create violence, how can i condemn a suffering person for suffering? Superficially it is hateful violence, underneath it all, its just some poor kid crying and trying to break free from the bondage of the ego, and that fighting is the man clinging to the ego.
But I can only respect those who respect themselves. So long as you keep that inner hateful kid inside of your being, you will bear the fruit of a hateful kid trying to break free. so long as you condemn all people who dont believe the same thing as you do, without first seeking to understand why they believe it, you are a kid trying to break free......
You have not seen the depths of psychology, you have not seen the depths of introspection and self-examination. You have not explored the recesses of your mind where this hate grows inside of you.
I have stopped suffering my self when I gave up the illusion of self, I now suffer for others when I see suffering in others. I see a group of kids who are suffering right here, and at the same time wishing to cause suffering unto others... you must first stop being the cause, before you wish to stop having the effect.
Same old thing eh?
You really need some new material.
haha.
The way out is through, little man. You are a slave to society by remaining a slave to your self. You think this movement is "the right one"? youre an idiot when you think in rights and wrongs, only an idiot thinks in absolutes.
Little man eh?
I'm fascinated with you. You've been a hate slinging, judegmental, small minded turd non-stop ... yet at every corner you declare your own intellectual superiority.
Are you so crazy that you can't even see that intellectually superior people probably don't feel the need to be hateful and condescending? I think you probably are, but I thought I'd ask.
I came here with a scientific conjecture to express god, and i got some hate-filled mud-slinging in return. Now, I only wish to show you the turds that you flung, by flinging them right on back to you - and now you proclaim im the originator of the turd flinging? how selfishly absurd.
Like ive said many times before, I play both sides of the whole, I am for christianity, and i am for atheist, i am against neither. but you guys are the hardest people to actually comprehend that piece of information, i submit to you that you may even be more closed minded then those of blind faith.....
I responded to your novel in the other thread.
So, if you can manage to stop insulting me for a minute maybe you should go read it. Then you can start insulting me again. That'll be fun, won't it.
Prick.
Sorry for the off-topic post. It's just that your signature bugs the crap out of me. For a bunch of rational thinkers, you sure say some irrational things.
"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18
Fascinating.
Did you actually read the entire quote? Do you really believe that it is a plea to behave like animals or use them as role models?
Read it again. It is a statement about mans intelligence; that mans higher functions are a compliment but as yet still a detriment. It is a statement that while we are more intelligent than animals, they have one thing in common that we would do well to learn from. It is a play on the fact that we are so clever, yet still not quite clever enough to stop deluding ourselves into believing in santa claus.