Dh, a new atheist, wrote this post on FB today - opinions?

[albeto.]

I see, I never implied any such thing, I stated several times that I don't know that I am right and do not feel I am more right 

 

This leads me to conclude that either you do not feel as if kidnapping, raping, and stealing land in order to coerce religious and cultural conversion is less moral than refraining from kidnapping, raping, and stealing land in order to coerce religious and cultural conversion, or you do, but will not say so either way. Perhaps you simply haven't made up your mind on the matter. It seems a generally easy moral comparison to make, thus my assumption that not doing these things today would be considered a moral improvement. 

 

but you want to grab onto that and run with it but it is actually offending me.  

 

I don't mean to be putting words into your mouth, just understand what your'e saying. It is not my intent to offend. 

 

I can understand how one might feel frustrated at this point of the discussion, however. If one believes one can weigh behaviors on a faith-based moral scale, then one exposes one's own moral claims to same criticism one applies to the faith-based moral values of others. Because these claims are founded in and defended by personal belief, and thus subjectively determined to be accurate, there exists no means by which one can determine with any reliability which claim is more accurate than another. In short, it renders this scale absolutely meaningless. Historically, we see faith claims are ultimately accepted or rejected by virtue of public approval, and history shows public approval for moral claims constantly change. 

 

If one doesn't believe one can weigh behaviors on a faith-based moral scale, then one suggests the belief of moral anarchy, rendering kidnapping, rape, theft, or any kind of terrorism on a personal or global scale really, as potentially morally righteous as any other. 

 

Either explanation exposes one of the problems of relying on faith-based claims - no accountability, no demand for self-correction and indeed, no means by which one can objectively determine what is moral, or how closely aligned to morality one might be, or even in what direction morality might be found.

 

The only way around this evasive and unreliable system is to defer to a secular scale of morality in some measure, a scale that applies objective information and rational thinking in lieu of faith-based claims. 

 

I don't know how many times I can say the same thing until I get bored with you saying the opposite. 

 

I wasn't trying to argue with what you believe, and I certainly don't want to misrepresent what you say. Perhaps I even got it right this time. I've run out of ideas so if I'm wrong [again], I apologize. It's not for lack of your trying. As I understand it, you believe A, or you believe Not A, or you haven't decided, but in any case you're not telling. I see that you've ignored the other points I've made, and so I assume frustration might be at play here. It seems frustration would be another likely response, and it seems to me that would explain the lack of attention on any other question or comment, but then, other interests do come up and vie for one's attention. 

 

I am not interested in discussing it anymore. There's no point.

 

This doesn't surprise me, but I appreciate the conversation anyway. Thank you. 

[Soror]

back to the op....

 

I'm a Christian. I wasn't horribly offended by the post because it was a bit of an old analogy. I'd probably read and scroll past. If those kind of posts kept occuring I'd probably hide him or unfriend if it got more offensive and obnoxious.

 

I'm not a fan of super evangelistic posts be it for oils or religion. I don't care how right someone thinks they are, no matter if they think they are saving the world from Hell or Christianity but if they are an arrogant jerk I will choose not to have them in my life.

[Slartibartfast]

 

I wasn't trying to argue with what you believe, and I certainly don't want to misrepresent what you say. Perhaps I even got it right this time. I've run out of ideas so if I'm wrong [again], I apologize. It's not for lack of your trying. As I understand it, you believe A, or you believe Not A, or you haven't decided, but in any case you're not telling. I see that you've ignored the other points I've made, and so I assume frustration might be at play here. It seems frustration would be another likely response, and it seems to me that would explain the lack of attention on any other question or comment, but then, other interests do come up and vie for one's attention. 

 

 

 

I didn't respond to all the questions because they are insulting, personal, or political. I am not obligated to share such personal information with someone who  isn't interested in a genuine discussion but only wants to debate, be insulting, and intolerant.

[albeto.]

I didn't respond to all the questions because they are insulting, personal, or political. I am not obligated to share such personal information with someone who  isn't interested in a genuine discussion but only wants to debate, be insulting, and intolerant.

 

I see. So when you say you are in earnest and trying to see where I am coming from, you meant only insofar as it showed your own faith in good light? I'm setting aside my personal feelings of offense with regard to the defense of what is arguably an immoral theology (and I'm being as nice as I can when I leave it at "immoral"), I'm ignoring any indignation here to discuss the topic as objectively and logically as possible because I accepted a request in good faith. It seems to do so I must be gentle, or I must be vague, or I must censor the topic in order to preserve your reserves of comfort and sense of personal justice because if I don't, you accuse me of wanting to be insulting and intolerant, and then shut down. The conversation predictably ends on the note not regarding whether or not the atheist right, but whether or not they are a jerk. Greta Christina nails it again. 

[LibraryLover]

People can post whatever they like on their own walls. No one is forced to read anything.

[Slartibartfast]

I see. So when you say you are in earnest and trying to see where I am coming from, you meant only insofar as it showed your own faith in good light? I'm setting aside my personal feelings of offense with regard to the defense of what is arguably an immoral theology (and I'm being as nice as I can when I leave it at "immoral"), I'm ignoring any indignation here to discuss the topic as objectively and logically as possible because I accepted a request in good faith. It seems to do so I must be gentle, or I must be vague, or I must censor the topic in order to preserve your reserves of comfort and sense of personal justice because if I don't, you accuse me of wanting to be insulting and intolerant, and then shut down. The conversation predictably ends on the note not regarding whether or not the atheist right, but whether or not they are a jerk. Greta Christina nails it again. 

 

It is interesting that you call my theology to be "immoral" and "personally offensive" while at the same time behaving as if you offered any sort of convincing argument.  The problem with "No True Scotman" is that there are actually quite a few rules to which  people who claim certain faiths  should be adhering. One cannot say "This religiously Jewish person eats bacon! Jewish people eat bacon and  to offer up anything contrary is using 'No True Scotman,'" Jewish people are not supposed to eat bacon. 

 

[albeto.]

It is interesting that you call my theology to be "immoral" and "personally offensive" while at the same time behaving as if you offered any sort of convincing argument.  The problem with "No True Scotman" is that there are actually quite a few rules that people who claim certain faiths to which they should be adhering. One cannot say "This religiously Jewish person eats bacon! Jewish people eat bacon and  to offer up anything contrary is using 'No True Scotman,'" Jewish people are not supposed to eat bacon. 

 

The argument is provided in the OP of the thread. I'm not trying to convince you of its accuracy, but explain what I meant by that facebook post being inspired by the desire to "wake up" friends rather than offend them, as was suggested (as requested in post 122, ultimately in response to my post 109). If you want to discuss the topic in general, I'm game, but that's not what I'm addressing in this thread.

 

I agree that the No True Scotsman defense is problematic in any religion. I understand it to be problematic precisely because it is used to defend claims that cannot, by virtue of being faith-based, present objective facts or arguments for defense. Because they are predicated on personal belief, one's own subjective reason is assumed to be the standard of measurement. As there is no objective means to confirm or correct that, it leaves the individual open to criticism by another using the same exact methodology (faith), demanding the same exact privilege, namely, that their subjective belief is accepted as the standard or correct belief against which others are measured for accuracy. 

[Slartibartfast]

Some do murder, steal, lie, hate, rape, treat the poor badly, mistreat children and many other things but saying those things are bad doesn't make me "more right" it means I am objecting to those moral failings. All sins are equal according to the rules I follow and saying that I am "more right" for opposing  them is something to which I object. I have my own sins, not those but others. Laying another's sins on my shoulders is not something I am willing to accept simply because we claim the same faith. I have my own sins, I don't need theirs too.

 

You may disagree with "sin" but the concepts of morality and virtue predate Christianity by hundreds of years. They weren't new concepts and many things in the Bible were points made by earlier philosophers. 

 

[Slartibartfast]

The argument is provided in the OP of the thread. I'm not trying to convince you of its accuracy, but explain what I meant by that facebook post being inspired by the desire to "wake up" friends rather than offend them, as was suggested (as requested in post 122, ultimately in response to my post 109). If you want to discuss the topic in general, I'm game, but that's not what I'm addressing in this thread.

 

I agree that the No True Scotsman defense is problematic in any religion. I understand it to be problematic precisely because it is used to defend claims that cannot, by virtue of being faith-based, present objective facts or arguments for defense. Because they are predicated on personal belief, one's own subjective reason is assumed to be the standard of measurement. As there is no objective means to confirm or correct that, it leaves the individual open to criticism by another using the same exact methodology (faith), demanding the same exact privilege, namely, that their subjective belief is accepted as the standard or correct belief against which others are measured for accuracy. 

 

What is an example for the second paragraph? No True Scotsman doesn't apply because while one is still a Christian they are still sinners. The Bible states we are all sinners and we are not suddenly "not sinners" by the fact that we may claim to be Christian. So...one cannot say "No true Christian would kill someone" because that isn't true. People are killed even in the Bible but it also says it is a sin. One of the thieves crucified next to Christ wasn't told he would be in heaven because he said that he was a  Christian but because he repented.

 

 

[albeto.]

You want to paint all people of the same faith with one broad stroke, of course they object. Laying another's sins on my shoulders is not something I am willing to accept simply because we claim the same faith. I have my own sins, I don't need theirs too.

 

Some do murder, steal, lie, hate, treat the poor badly, mistreat children and many other things but saying those things are bad doesn't make me "more right" it means I am objecting to those moral failings. All sins are equal according to the rules I follow and saying that I am "more right" for opposing  them is something to which I object. I have my own sins, not those but others.

 

You may disagree with "sin" but the concepts of morality and virtue predate Christianity by hundreds of years. They weren't new concepts and many things in the Bible were points made by earlier Philosophers. 

 

[Addressing what I missed pre-edit]

 

The only brush with which I'm painting all people of faith is the brush that says they accept certain claims based on faith.

 

I'm not suggesting anyone is guilty of any sins. I'm not suggesting you're claiming to be more right, and I acknowledged that you're not making any such claims. I'm talking about determining how one understands what is right when appealing to a faith-based scale such as Christianity. 

 

I reject the notion of "sin" in the first place, and fail to see the relevance of the origin of the concept to the topic. 

 

I do know there are many concepts in the bible predate the bible, like sin, and like the golden rule, death and resurrection of a son-of-god/man and his identity as "light of the world," and making way for followers to spend eternity with the father/god, the expectation of such an event remembered in a communal, commemorative dinner of bread and wine. It complicates the claim that the bible offers "truth" (whatever that means), and contributes to the OP's dh's argument that the theology is immoral, in part because the theology demands to be held above accountability despite the lack of any evidence to support such claims, despite the evidence to the contrary. 

[Slartibartfast]

[Addressing what I missed pre-edit]

 

The only brush with which I'm painting all people of faith is the brush that says they accept certain claims based on faith.

 

I'm not suggesting anyone is guilty of any sins. I'm not suggesting you're claiming to be more right, and I acknowledged that you're not making any such claims. I'm talking about determining how one understands what is right when appealing to a faith-based scale such as Christianity. 

 

I reject the notion of "sin" in the first place, and fail to see the relevance of the origin of the concept to the topic. 

 

I do know there are many concepts in the bible predate the bible, like sin, and like the golden rule, death and resurrection of a son-of-god/man and his identity as "light of the world," and making way for followers to spend eternity with the father/god, the expectation of such an event remembered in a communal, commemorative dinner of bread and wine. It complicates the claim that the bible offers "truth" (whatever that means), and contributes to the OP's dh's argument that the theology is immoral, in part because the theology demands to be held above accountability despite the lack of any evidence to support such claims, despite the evidence to the contrary. 

 

Could you explain what you mean by "theology demands to be held above accountability?" 

 

Sin is relevant because you used "no true Scotsman" and it is a concept that does distinguish transgressions against that faith. One cannot say "no true Christian" because that wouldn't be true but if they were sinning then they would be in conflict with their faith.

 

There may be some things that are not clear in the Bible but there are some things that are fundamental. 

 

 

death and resurrection of a son-of-god/man and his identity as "light of the world," and making way for followers to spend eternity with the father/god, the expectation of such an event remembered in a communal, commemorative dinner of bread and wine.

 

Clarification? 

[albeto.]

What is an example for the second paragraph? No True Scotsman doesn't apply because while one is still a Christian they are still sinners. The Bible states we are all sinners and we are not suddenly "not sinners" by the fact that we may claim to be Christian. So...one cannot say "No true Christian would kill someone" because that isn't true. People are killed even in the Bible but it also says it is a sin. One of the thieves crucified next to Christ wasn't told he would be in heaven because he said that he was a  Christian but because he repented.

 

The NTS defense also applies to the very concept that No True Christian would be a sinner once they've been born again, made in to a new creature, born of incorruptible seed, because no darkness can touch him (also claims the bible states). Or maybe NTC would deny the existence of a physical Hell. Perhaps NTC would kidnap a child, rape a woman, man, or child, steal their land, lock them up, torture them in order to produce a confession of conversion. And yet all kinds of True Christians have done these very things. The problem is that even identifying as a Christian is based on subjective standards, predicated on faith. Any time faith is the basis for a claim, NTS may be applied as a defense against challenging that claim. 

[Slartibartfast]

The NTS defense also applies to the very concept that No True Christian would be a sinner once they've been born again, made in to a new creature, born of incorruptible seed, because no darkness can touch him (also claims the bible states). Or maybe NTC would deny the existence of a physical Hell. Perhaps NTC would kidnap a child, rape a woman, man, or child, steal their land, lock them up, torture them in order to produce a confession of conversion. And yet all kinds of True Christians have done these very things. The problem is that even identifying as a Christian is based on subjective standards, predicated on faith. Any time faith is the basis for a claim, NTS may be applied as a defense against challenging that claim. 

 

If you are going to quote Peter one ought to quote a bit more of the  passage to get the full understanding. That was a letter to churches suffering persecution. It wasn't written to tell Christians that they can do whatever they want once they are Baptized.

 

3All praise to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is by his great mercy that we have been born again, because God raised Jesus Christ from the dead. Now we live with great expectation, 4and we have a priceless inheritance—an inheritance that is kept in heaven for you, pure and undefiled, beyond the reach of change and decay. 5And through your faith, God is protecting you by his power until you receive this salvation, which is ready to be revealed on the last day for all to see.

6So be truly glad. There is wonderful joy ahead, even though you must endure many trials for a little while. 7These trials will show that your faith is genuine. It is being tested as fire tests and purifies gold—though your faith is far more precious than mere gold. So when your faith remains strong through many trials, it will bring you much praise and glory and honor on the day when Jesus Christ is revealed to the whole world.

8You love him even though you have never seen him. Though you do not see him now, you trust him; and you rejoice with a glorious, inexpressible joy. 9The reward for trusting him will be the salvation of your souls.

10This salvation was something even the prophets wanted to know more about when they prophesied about this gracious salvation prepared for you.11They wondered what time or situation the Spirit of Christ within them was talking about when he told them in advance about Christ’s suffering and his great glory afterward.

12They were told that their messages were not for themselves, but for you. And now this Good News has been announced to you by those who preached in the power of the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. It is all so wonderful that even the angels are eagerly watching these things happen.

13So prepare your minds for action and exercise self-control. Put all your hope in the gracious salvation that will come to you when Jesus Christ is revealed to the world.14So you must live as God’s obedient children. Don’t slip back into your old ways of living to satisfy your own desires. You didn’t know any better then. 15But now you must be holy in everything you do, just as God who chose you is holy.16For the Scriptures say, “You must be holy because I am holy.â€

17And remember that the heavenly Father to whom you pray has no favorites. He will judge or reward you according to what you do. So you must live in reverent fear of him during your time here as “temporary residents.†18For you know that God paid a ransom to save you from the empty life you inherited from your ancestors. And it was not paid with mere gold or silver, which lose their value. 19It was the precious blood of Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of God. 20God chose him as your ransom long before the world began, but now in these last days he has been revealed for your sake.

21Through Christ you have come to trust in God. And you have placed your faith and hope in God because he raised Christ from the dead and gave him great glory.

22You were cleansed from your sins when you obeyed the truth, so now you must show sincere love to each other as brothers and sisters. Love each other deeply with all your heart.

23For you have been born again, but not to a life that will quickly end. Your new life will last forever because it comes from the eternal, living word of God.

[hornblower]

I just want to say I have no idea really what you guys are talking about anymore.

 

did op ever come back & tell us whether she was wanting to know about the merit of his argument or the decision to post it on fb?

[6packofun]

 

I do know there are many concepts in the bible predate the bible, like sin, and like the golden rule, death and resurrection of a son-of-god/man and his identity as "light of the world," and making way for followers to spend eternity with the father/god, the expectation of such an event remembered in a communal, commemorative dinner of bread and wine. It complicates the claim that the bible offers "truth" (whatever that means), and contributes to the OP's dh's argument that the theology is immoral, in part because the theology demands to be held above accountability despite the lack of any evidence to support such claims, despite the evidence to the contrary. 

 

Would you share a few examples of these specific concepts that you claim are found in other cultures/religions?  

 

So, for example, Bill Maher has said that the ancient god Mithras has all the main features of Christ, but when you actually study what little there is to be found about him, Mithras was born from a rock (not a virgin, sorry) and he never resurrected because the mythology seems to indicate that he didn't die at all.  Tertullian writes of Mithras followers re-enacting a death-resurrection scene of some kind, but well after Christ's lifetime so it seems borrowed from Christianity, not the other way around.  Claims that he had 12 disciples or followers seem to be based on images in art--again well *after* the time of Christ--and are more closely related to the Zodiac. Just as a popular example.  You'll see why, when someone makes claims like yours, details would be helpful.

 

Also, are you claiming that the Bible actually states that a born-again Christian would NOT still be a sinner? I was confused about your NTS post because I'm not aware of any Scripture that states a human being will not sin.

[BusyMom5]

Way back to OP :)  If I found your DH"s post on my feed, I would probably send him a message that said I understood, and that he could talk anytime he needed to or was frustrated.  Any given time on my FB feed there is a barrage of Christian messages, and I ignore them.  If the people on your DH's facebook can post Christian messages, then he can post Atheistic ones.  I agree with his sentiment, and I think he may be wanting to plant seeds of doubt, or just let others know that there are other doubters out there.  WHen I first left Christianity, I naively felt like I had found some answers to some of the questions I knew others had grappled with- but they didn't want to hear those answers, and I learned to just keep quiet unless I think said person would be understanding of where I am coming from.  From what I read on-line here, and elsewhere, I think there are HUGE number of people who are following Christianity, but don't really believe in it anymore, but they feel like if they don't follow it, they won't have the community they enjoy.  Or maybe they just go along with it to not cause strife in the family.  Or maybe they have questions, but just don't want to take the time to go over them because they know the answers don't add up! 

 

All that said, I do not post anything religious or political on FB, and I usually won't even post under anything someone else has posted.  I may, occasionally, send a PM about something someone posted that I liked, or wanted to comment on, but I don't want it all out there on FB.  I don't like to argue, debate, or incite others to debate.  I like FB to see funny memes, pics of family and their kiddos growing up, and share little tips I find.  I often find neat articles people post about various topics.  If its sounds interesting, I may read.  If it doesn't, keep scrolling!  I am NOT looking forward to 2016, and may take a long break from FB. 

[albeto.]

Could you explain what you mean by "theology demands to be held above accountability?" 

 

How does one argue with "God said so"? 

 

The bible offers so many opposing ideas, many arguments can be supported with scripture, even diametrically opposing arguments. Many arguments can be supported with the history of believers. But ultimately, arguments fall back on one's belief, and when that's sincerely held and genuinely believed to be accurate, there is no possibility of accountability.

 

"It's a heart thing." "I know that I know that I know." "I've been convicted by the holy spirit." "I have a personal relationship with Jesus." How does one demand accountability from a sincerely held belief?

 

 

Sin is relevant because you used "no true Scotsman" and it is a concept that does distinguish transgressions against that faith. One cannot say "no true Christian" because that wouldn't be true but if they were sinning then they would be in conflict with their faith.

 

There may be some things that are not clear in the Bible but there are some things that are fundamental. 

 

Is there any fundamental aspect of the bible, or of the faith in general, that is predicated on objective, unbiased, evidence? Some fundamental aspect of the bible or of the faith in general that is unique to the bible or the faith in general? 

 

Clarification? 

 

Life-death-rebirth gods 

Savior gods

Buddha and Mithra both known as "light of the world"

Ritualistic communion predates Christianity

 

The history of Christian beliefs is a pretty big topic, and one I find fascinating, but am not prepared to get into quite yet. I say this not to discourage any questions, but to let you know if I don't respond quickly, it's not for lack of interest or respect. 

[Catwoman]

did op ever come back & tell us whether she was wanting to know about the merit of his argument or the decision to post it on fb?

I'm wondering the same thing.

 

I am also hoping Mary will come back and update us on how her dh's post was received by his FB friends.

 

I hope no one gave him a hard time about it. I don't agree with the things he said in his post, but he seemed like he was being genuine and honest about his feelings so I hope any comments he received were respectful.

[LucyStoner]

It sounds to me like he was and remains a bit of a proselytizer. His beliefs changed, he didn't. Pretty common. I don't think it's reasonable to expect his Christian friends to take this any better than the people he previously witnessed to/tried to convert took it.

[creekmom]

This post was on his own FB page and not in response to someone else's post. I was curious to see what responses you had about what he posted. I think most of you thought I wanted to know if you think he should have posted it in the first place. I agree with those of you who said it's his page and he can post what he wants- you can unfriend him or simply choose not to read his posts if you find them offensive.

 

As far as why I posted, I'd like to know your views on the following:

 

-Is it wrong to challenge someone else's cherished beliefs? (My dh would say you respect people - not opinions.)

-How is his argument weak (as some of you have posted). If Jesus never performed miracles (magic), would you still believe he was God's son?

-The tough question (I thought) was "How could such an elaborate con evolve to fool so many people? You already know of a few. Look at Islam. Look at Hinduism. Look at Mormonism. Why is it so difficult to imagine that your particular faith evolved similarly?"

Dan Barker put it like this - "Where did we get the idea that words on a page speak truth? Shouldn't truth be the result of investigation and analysis? If I think it is so easy for millions of people to be misled into a false religion because of a tendency to believe error, what makes me exempt?"

 

 

This is what I personally am grappling with right now - For 40 years, Jesus was my best friend. I saw God as all powerful, merciful and loving (my "father"). I knew he was holy and could not tolerate sin, sacrificed his son for us and so on. Recently, my husband asked me to stand outside the "bubble" of Christianity and see it for what it really is. It's taken more courage than I ever thought I had to put everything I believed aside and evaluate the claims of my religion.

 

What I've discovered is that the God of the Bible, if he does exist, is a monster. It's easy to miss that if you cherry pick your way through, ignoring the mass murders he commits. How could a "loving" God kill all the first born children of the Egyptians in order to convince the pharaoh to do what he wanted? How could he command the Israelites to kill every man, woman, child, nursing baby, animal - but divide up the virgins for yourselves? Really?!! I know these ancient people thought of women as property, but why would God view them that way? How could God see young girls as "spoils of war"? Why would God tell them they could beat their slaves for days as long as they didn't kill them? Why wouldn't he even mention that owning another person was wrong? Could it be because the people who wrote the Books didn't think it was wrong? How could a loving God send 2 bears out of the woods to maul 42 children for making fun of a bald man (2 kings 2: 23-24). Did you know he commanded girls to marry their rapists?! And the punishment for the rapist was a small fine and a new wife to care for. This is insane!! (I've heard some people say that he did this bc no one would marry her after that, and she would be forced to find a way to care for herself. So, God can provide for his people wandering in the desert for decades, but he can't manage to take care of a girl who's been raped?).

 

Moving on to the New Testament - Jesus is the "New God", which is a good thing bc he seems a whole lot more loving. The problem is that he starts talking about hell. So, why keep people alive forever to be tortured? Why not just obliterate them into nonexistence? Can you even imagine a man who kidnaps people and keeps them alive just so he can torture them day after day for the rest of their lives? This is what the Bible tells us we deserve for eternity for being the sinful people we are. ***Of course we can avoid all that if we can pass his test where he puts us in a world full of liars and makes us guess which priest is telling the truth!**

 

You know what really doesn't make sense? God created galaxies, but he can't write the Bible? The very fact that men wrote the Bible is HIGHLY suspicious!! He makes the eternal salvation of our souls dependent on whether or not we "believe in" Jesus, but he doesn't bother to have Jesus write any of it down or leave even a shred of evidence. He doesn't even have any eyewitnesses write it down. He waits 40 years and has some anonymous people (who don't even claim to be eyewitnesses) write it down -for every generation to come. It just doesn't. make. sense.

 

 

**Sorry if I rambled! It's late!

[Catwoman]

I thought this thread was about your dh becoming an atheist, but now it appears that you are considering the same? :confused:

 

Perhaps you might want to consider starting a new thread asking your questions, as you seem to be starting a new topic and I think you would get more responses if people knew you were now discussing your own beliefs rather than your dh's FB post.

 

I hope you find the answers you are looking for and that you come to a conclusion that makes you happy, Mary, whatever that conclusion turns out to be. :)

[Ipsey]

**Sorry if I rambled! It's late!

 

It's ok, Creekmom. You're in a painful, challenging spot. Many of us have been there. I admire you for having the intellectual curiosity and bravery to "stand outside" and view your faith in a different way.

 

There are lots of us here who have done the same. Feel free to PM if you ever want to chat.

[Joanne]

 

 

This is what I personally am grappling with right now - For 40 years, Jesus was my best friend. I saw God as all powerful, merciful and loving (my "father"). I knew he was holy and could not tolerate sin, sacrificed his son for us and so on. Recently, my husband asked me to stand outside the "bubble" of Christianity and see it for what it really is. It's taken more courage than I ever thought I had to put everything I believed aside and evaluate the claims of my religion.

 

What I've discovered is that the God of the Bible, if he does exist, is a monster. !

OP, I had the same questions. Eventually, even a very figurative "metaphor" written by men in a certain date and time wasn't sufficient for me. The typical Christian answers were predictable and insufficient as well.

 

I find your questions and concerns more engaging than your DH's analogy, but that is likely a matter of personality and style.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

:grouphug:  :grouphug:  :grouphug:  Creekmom, I don't have any answers for you, because I have never really believed in God, the Bible, etc. But I agree that you are in a painful place, and I'm so sorry you're struggling. I hope you can start to find some answers that satisfy you. 

[J-rap]

Most thinking Christians that I know eventually reach a point where they need to stand apart from their bubble of faith and really question it;  otherwise, it's never really their own.  I think this is a good and healthy place to be.   And yes, it can be challenging and painful, as you try and strip away what's real and what isn't.   What is truth can be misinterpreted or even twisted, as in anything.  But, that doesn't necessarily mean that the pure kernel of truth at the very core is therefore wrong.  A lot of people have been at the place you're at, and have come back to Christianity with a stronger, purer, more rational, and hopefully more honest understanding of God and Jesus Christ, but without all of the very twisted cultural add-on's and interpretations.   However, it's not an easy answer or quick read.  As others have said, you can PM me if you'd like to chat more on this. 

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

As far as why I posted, I'd like to know your views on the following:

 

-Is it wrong to challenge someone else's cherished beliefs? (My dh would say you respect people - not opinions.)

 

This is really the only question I can answer.  I can answer the others, but no good can come of it.  Anyhow, I don't think it is wrong, but it might not be welcome.  The only people I don't feel bad challenging are those who have no respect for those around them who don't believe the same things.  I don't tend to challenge people who are respectful because their intentions aren't nasty. 

[LucyStoner]

I don't think it is wrong to challenge people's beliefs but I do think, that in many places and contexts it is a form of hubris to appoint yourself to try to change people's minds about private beliefs. if it is part of a discussion, maybe. Apropos of nothing? dicey.

 

Again, people who are seeing Facebook as a platform with "personal pages" you "post to" aren't really understanding how FB works. Posting things to challenge people's beliefs on Facebook is like standing around a party passing out your religious tracts. Not wrong per say but not gracious either and unlikely to win you friends, even the ones who agree with your tracts. Yes, people can ignore him. But if they are his friends, why does he want to put thim in a position where they feel like they want to ignore him? You don't treat your friends like that. Maybe he needs a blog. The new evangelical Athiest dot com.

[EmseB]

I don't think it is wrong to challenge people's beliefs but I do think, that in many places and contexts it is a form of hubris to appoint yourself to try to change people's minds about private beliefs. if it is part of a discussion, maybe. Apropos of nothing? dicey.

 

Again, people who are seeing Facebook as a platform with "personal pages" you "post to" aren't really understanding how FB works. Posting things to challenge people's beliefs on Facebook is like standing around a party passing out your religious tracts. Not wrong per say but not gracious either and unlikely to win you friends, even the ones who agree with your tracts. Yes, people can ignore him. But if they are his friends, why does he want to put thim in a position where they feel like they want to ignore him? You don't treat your friends like that. Maybe he needs a blog. The new evangelical Athiest dot com.

 

To illustrate this concept.  :)

 

(if anyone knows how to embed a video, let me know)

[Anne in CA]

Am I the only person who is curious what discussion DID happen after her dh posted his post?

 

I have questioned my faith, and my beliefs, and the Bible. I will be the first person to admit that it is not impossible that I am prone to believe Jesus Christ is the son of God because it was the first belief system I was exposed to. I notice that most people gravitate toward the first belief system they were exposed to, so it is not impossible that my brain is wired to accept certain things or to bend facts until they line up with what I already believed.

 

That said, I still believe the God of the Bible to be merciful, both Old and New Testament, and I believe He is just. The reasons I believe that are too complex to put in posts, but to boil it down, the things that bothered me the most about the Old Testament make a lot more sense when I look at them with adult logic as someone who has been around a longer time. They will make more sense the older I get, and of course, they make perfect sense to God, who understands all of humanity, not just my corner of it. There would be no point in believing in a God who was so small I could understand Him. That doesn't mean don't try to understand God. The Bible tells us to seek wisdom. But it means that I don't need to understand everything right now to have peace. 

 

 

[LucyStoner]

FWIW, in case anyone missed it, I am an athiest. So I am definitely not offended by his or your new beliefs.

 

I am, however, not evangelical in my "belief orientation" so to speak. I was a Christian for most of my life but I was never an evangelical one so that probably colors my opinion.

[Carol in Cal.]

Not to go through your entire post, but it's to some extent not the whole story to say that God sacrificed His Son for us.  That is part of the truth but there are other facets to it as well that I find very helpful.  One is that Jesus sacrifices Himself for us.  That's really quite remarkable, and it's a different feel than someone saying, 'OK, you go on now.'.  KWIM?

 

Additionally, there is an aspect of this that is much bigger than that.  It is the victory that Christ wins over sin, over death, over Satan, again for us, but much more generally.  That's the overall picture of which the sacrifice is a subset.  

 

"This is the feast of victory for our God" is sung in heaven, right?  It's bigger than us.  It effects everything, cosmically.  And to some extent it is a battle that has gone on 'over our heads', kind of like watching two titans duke it out, and mostly staying out of the way, but maybe helping just a tad.  It's beyond us, to a large extent.  And yet it is for us, which is quite amazing.

[Slartibartfast]

How does one argue with "God said so"? 

 

The bible offers so many opposing ideas, many arguments can be supported with scripture, even diametrically opposing arguments. Many arguments can be supported with the history of believers. But ultimately, arguments fall back on one's belief, and when that's sincerely held and genuinely believed to be accurate, there is no possibility of accountability.

 

"It's a heart thing." "I know that I know that I know." "I've been convicted by the holy spirit." "I have a personal relationship with Jesus." How does one demand accountability from a sincerely held belief?

 

 

 

Is there any fundamental aspect of the bible, or of the faith in general, that is predicated on objective, unbiased, evidence? Some fundamental aspect of the bible or of the faith in general that is unique to the bible or the faith in general? 

 

 

Life-death-rebirth gods 

Savior gods

Buddha and Mithra both known as "light of the world"

Ritualistic communion predates Christianity

 

The history of Christian beliefs is a pretty big topic, and one I find fascinating, but am not prepared to get into quite yet. I say this not to discourage any questions, but to let you know if I don't respond quickly, it's not for lack of interest or respect. 

 

But there is accountability and that is made clear, actions do still matter and I don't think anyone believes they get a free pass just because they declare themselves Christians. If people are just saying things because they have been "convicted" or "it's a heart thing" and it isn't in scripture then I don't believe in that. Some people might say such things but it doesn't make it true. I don't believe anyone is infallible. 

 

Without studying every ancient religion I cannot be certain about what may be unique but not all ancient religions predate Christianity, Mithra was after Christianity.

[albeto.]

But there is accountability and that is made clear, actions do still matter and I don't think anyone believes they get a free pass just because they declare themselves Christians. If people are just saying things because they have been "convicted" or "it's a heart thing" and it isn't in scripture then I don't believe in that. Some people might say such things but it doesn't make it true. I don't now believe anyone is infallible. 

 

Being accepted by other adherents to the same belief as being more or less right isn't the same as being held accountable for the claims made. You may or may not accept another person's explanations, but others certainly will. In the same way you maintain your belief when other Christians discredit your claims, you discredit theirs and they go on. You may not agree with certain beliefs or ideas or the use of the Christian faith to support a behavior, but that doesn't mean you are right. It only means you don't agree. And therein lies the problem. There is no way to determine who is right. There is only [personal and popular] opinion. 

 

Compare that to any objective claim of fact. Fact: Water boils at 212F. It requires no belief to check if the claim is true or false. One need not read any texts, pray or submit to any divine authority, or humble oneself to get the right answer. One's language, culture, social class, economic standing, political affiliations or religious beliefs will never change this fact. When the credibility of that fact is threatened, say by high altitude, the pertinent variables can be identified, accounted for, and thoroughly tested for proof of concept. Nothing like this exists with faith-based claims. Or, if there is a faith-based claim that can be verified through objective means, I'd like be interested in knowing what it is. 

 

Without studying every ancient religion I cannot be certain about what may be unique but not all ancient religions predate Christianity. 

 

Historians do this for us. That's how information works best, I think. People can afford to explore minute details, and share them with the rest of the community of those who are most familiar with these kinds of details. As these details are collected, a picture forms. Pictures are always changing because new details are uncovered, but my point is that we don't have to be the expert in all fields to accept with some level of confidence that certain information is accurate. 

 

Mithra was after Christianity.

 

Arguably, so too was the concept of the Trinity. 

[Slartibartfast]

 Heracles is considered a "savior" because he killed monsters. Bernardo  Carpio only a savior to  the Philippines, not the world. Susanoo killed a dragon.  The classifications are fairly simplistic.

 

I would say the story itself is  unique but certain aspects are also found elsewhere such as one story mentions a virgin birth but the lady in question was impregnated due to swallowing an emerald.

[Slartibartfast]

Being accepted by other adherents to the same belief as being more or less right isn't the same as being held accountable for the claims made. You may or may not accept another person's explanations, but others certainly will. In the same way you maintain your belief when other Christians discredit your claims, you discredit theirs and they go on. You may not agree with certain beliefs or ideas or the use of the Christian faith to support a behavior, but that doesn't mean you are right. It only means you don't agree. And therein lies the problem. There is no way to determine who is right. There is only [personal and popular] opinion. 

 

Compare that to any objective claim of fact. Fact: Water boils at 212F. It requires no belief to check if the claim is true or false. One need not read any texts, pray or submit to any divine authority, or humble oneself to get the right answer. One's language, culture, social class, economic standing, political affiliations or religious beliefs will never change this fact. When the credibility of that fact is threatened, say by high altitude, the pertinent variables can be identified, accounted for, and thoroughly tested for proof of concept. Nothing like this exists with faith-based claims. Or, if there is a faith-based claim that can be verified through objective means, I'd like be interested in knowing what it is. 

 

 

Historians do this for us. That's how information works best, I think. People can afford to explore minute details, and share them with the rest of the community of those who are most familiar with these kinds of details. As these details are collected, a picture forms. Pictures are always changing because new details are uncovered, but my point is that we don't have to be the expert in all fields to accept with some level of confidence that certain information is accurate. 

 

 

Arguably, so too was the concept of the Trinity. 

 

 As for additional information supplied by people making claims I can only offer this line of scripture.

 

Revelations 22:18

 

 

 

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

[justasque]

-Is it wrong to challenge someone else's cherished beliefs? (My dh would say you respect people - not opinions.)

 

 

 

I don't think it's wrong to gently, kindly, raise questions about a good friend or loved one's beliefs.  But respecting people means that it should be a very careful conversation, with a whole lot more listening than talking, and the wisdom and attention to know when it's time to stop and let the conversation sit a while so it can be digested and mulled over - days, months, years even - before continuing.  That's the "respect people" part.  Planting gentle seeds goes a long way.

 

[albeto.]

 Heracles is considered a "savior" because he killed monsters. Bernardo  Carpio only a savior to  the Philippines, not the world. Susanoo killed a dragon.  The classifications are fairly simplistic.

 

I would say the story itself is  unique but certain aspects are also found elsewhere such as one story mentions a virgin birth but the lady in question was impregnated due to swallowing an emerald.

 

Yes, the classifications are broad, without a doubt. And they transcend cultures. The idea of a dying/rising god isn't unique to the Near Middle East, or even the northern hemisphere. The details will no doubt change from one community to the next. Even the gospels have different details, suggesting the stories might have derived with variations. Of the 200 (?) some odd gospels of Jesus, only four are accepted as legitimate. The others sound so strange to us, but I suspect it's because we don't live in a culture where those stories are taken for granted as being true. We have Christmas decorations up in every city, town and village across America, we have Easter decorations every spring in every community, but nowhere does anyone depict a giant cross talking, or gigantic angels whose heads reach the clouds. That sounds so bizarre, don't you think? The idea that a god/man can float up through the clouds isn't bizarre though, because "everyone knows" that really happened. Well, based on what, precisely? The same communities of believers that came up with the giant talking cross. That story was perfectly believable to an unknown number of genuine believers who sincerely believed they had the right faith. The OP's dh (and OP now) is asking, by what evidence do we know any of this is true? We discount Heracles and Carpio because their claims are not believable, and more importantly, they're not supported by any evidence. So where's the evidence for the claims of the bible? "I believe" doesn't count as evidence for Heracles and Carpio, but it does for Jesus and Moses? Can you think of any other context in which "I believe" is sufficient to ignore evidence? 

 

 As for additional information supplied by people making claims I can only offer this line of scripture.

 

Revelations 22:18

 

This doesn't solve a problem, it presents one. If you're a Protestant, that counts against the Catholics. If you're Catholic, that counts against the Protestants. What does it mean for those who follow the the Ethiopian "narrow" canon, which includes 81 books? What about the Syrian Orthodox Church that, until modern times (and even now, officially) includes only 22 books in their new testament? Are they in trouble, or you? How would one know? To what source would one look for evidence to confirm their hypothesis? 

[albeto.]

I don't think it's wrong to gently, kindly, raise questions about a good friend or loved one's beliefs.  But respecting people means that it should be a very careful conversation, with a whole lot more listening than talking, and the wisdom and attention to know when it's time to stop and let the conversation sit a while so it can be digested and mulled over - days, months, years even - before continuing.  That's the "respect people" part.  Planting gentle seeds goes a long way.

 

 

Do you think the respect is a subjective quality, or objective?

 

Do you think these men showed due respect, or that they kindly raised questions, or listened enough, or knew when it was time to stop for decent people to have the time to mull over their points?

 

source

 

What about these women?

 

source

 

 

Can you think of any oppressive ideology or regime that was voluntarily abandoned by those privileged to gain from it solely due to polite, patient conversation?

 

 

ETA: Reading back, I can see how this might sound "in your face" with the short, choppy questions. I don't mean it that way! I promise! I'm just asking really short questions.  :)

[hornblower]

 

Again, people who are seeing Facebook as a platform with "personal pages" you "post to" aren't really understanding how FB works

I SO disagree. I shut down my blog ages ago & use fb instead. Most of my friends do the same.

[Lady Florida.]

I'm still having a hard time with code not working for me (I can't use the new spoiler tags - wah!), so I'm going to do a combination of responding both within an outside your quote.

 

 

 

As far as why I posted, I'd like to know your views on the following: I'm responding to that set of questions outside the quote.


This is what I personally am grappling with right now - For 40 years, Jesus was my best friend. I saw God as all powerful, merciful and loving (my "father"). I knew he was holy and could not tolerate sin, sacrificed his son for us and so on. Recently, my husband asked me to stand outside the "bubble" of Christianity and see it for what it really is. It's taken more courage than I ever thought I had to put everything I believed aside and evaluate the claims of my religion. It does take courage, and wherever you end up, good for you for being willing to try and look at it from the outside.

What I've discovered is that the God of the Bible, if he does exist, is a monster. It's easy to miss that if you cherry pick your way through, ignoring the mass murders he commits. How could a "loving" God kill all the first born children of the Egyptians in order to convince the pharaoh to do what he wanted? How could he command the Israelites to kill every man, woman, child, nursing baby, animal - but divide up the virgins for yourselves? Really?!! I know these ancient people thought of women as property, but why would God view them that way? How could God see young girls as "spoils of war"? Why would God tell them they could beat their slaves for days as long as they didn't kill them? Why wouldn't he even mention that owning another person was wrong? Could it be because the people who wrote the Books didn't think it was wrong? How could a loving God send 2 bears out of the woods to maul 42 children for making fun of a bald man (2 kings 2: 23-24). Did you know he commanded girls to marry their rapists?! And the punishment for the rapist was a small fine and a new wife to care for. This is insane!! (I've heard some people say that he did this bc no one would marry her after that, and she would be forced to find a way to care for herself. So, God can provide for his people wandering in the desert for decades, but he can't manage to take care of a girl who's been raped?).  Also, if a woman is suspected of cheating one must try and find out the truth by giving her a drink that will abort the baby. And it's better to give your daughter to a bunch of thugs to be raped than to hand over an angel of God to them. And it's perfectly fine for God to ruin a man's life, kill his entire family and destroy his livelihood just to win a bet with his arch-rival (see the story of Job). And there were zombies (really, look it up). And giants. And if a snake isn't a sentient being who knows right from wrong why were all snakes punished for the actions of one that didn't understand what it was doing? And if snakes are sentient beings and that garden snake had the ability to say no to Satan when he possessed it, what makes humans so special? And if snakes were condemned to crawl on their bellies does that mean they used to have legs? Did they evolve to not have legs then, or did the legs instantly disappear from all existing and future snakes? It goes on an on. It's a bit easier when one reads metaphorically (which my family's religion did/does) but even then it's hard to explain away the actions of this so-called loving god.

Moving on to the New Testament - Jesus is the "New God", which is a good thing bc he seems a whole lot more loving. The problem is that he starts talking about hell. So, why keep people alive forever to be tortured? Why not just obliterate them into nonexistence? Can you even imagine a man who kidnaps people and keeps them alive just so he can torture them day after day for the rest of their lives? This is what the Bible tells us we deserve for eternity for being the sinful people we are. ***Of course we can avoid all that if we can pass his test where he puts us in a world full of liars and makes us guess which priest is telling the truth!** Also, family is important unless they don't believe. Then you should abandon them.

You know what really doesn't make sense? God created galaxies, but he can't write the Bible? The very fact that men wrote the Bible is HIGHLY suspicious!! He makes the eternal salvation of our souls dependent on whether or not we "believe in" Jesus, but he doesn't bother to have Jesus write any of it down or leave even a shred of evidence. He doesn't even have any eyewitnesses write it down. He waits 40 years and has some anonymous people (who don't even claim to be eyewitnesses) write it down -for every generation to come. It just doesn't. make. sense. There is so very, very much that doesn't make sense. The God Virus (link below) explains in simple (to me) terms why people continue to believe. There are more scientific books that give scientific theories but this is one I could relate to. We understand how viruses work and by using that analogy the author helped me understand people in my life who just won't, IMO, see reality.


 

 

I'm sorry you're having such a hard time with this right now. Please consider joining the public group for non-believers and those questioning their beliefs, also known as Ask an Atheist/Agnostic.

 

.

 

-Is it wrong to challenge someone else's cherished beliefs? (My dh would say you respect people - not opinions.) - No I don't think it's wrong but I do think there's a time and place for it. I don't think posting on one's own facebook page is wrong either. Some people post their opinions on facebook and it can be a way to have a conversation. I agree with "respect the person not the belief", and I think religion has gotten a pass for far too long. It should not be off limits, yet it is. I do think (even though I said FB is fine) it's better to have face to face discussions about religion unless people have expressed a desire to have one online. No matter what your dh (or you) say, you are likely to offend someone. When religious belief is such a part of the person it's hard to call out the belief without the person feeling offended. I don't think that's a reason not to speak up though. It's why we atheists have been told to shut up for years, but I think we need to start speaking out. Why? Because the time has come to point out that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes.

 

-How is his argument weak (as some of you have posted). If Jesus never performed miracles (magic), would you still believe he was God's son? - I can't answer this because if I don't believe in God, I can't believe that Jesus is his son. 

 

 

-The tough question (I thought) was "How could such an elaborate con evolve to fool so many people? You already know of a few. Look at Islam. Look at Hinduism. Look at Mormonism. Why is it so difficult to imagine that your particular faith evolved similarly?" I found The God Virus to be a good layman's explanation of how people can be fooled by religion. By likening religion to a virus that must survive and replicate I was able to see why intelligent people are blinded by religious beliefs.

 

Dan Barker put it like this - "Where did we get the idea that words on a page speak truth? Shouldn't truth be the result of investigation and analysis? If I think it is so easy for millions of people to be misled into a false religion because of a tendency to believe error, what makes me exempt?" There is also the statement that " They can't all be right but they can all be wrong." When trying to figure out which one is the "right" religion, in most cases the others must be discounted as the "wrong" beliefs (I am aware that this is a generalization and that not all religions claim to be the one and only right path). Which one is right? Mine? My neighbor's? Why is one right and all the others not right? For the most part if you are on board with your religion's beliefs you have decided the others are the wrong ones.  How do we decide? My neighbor and I can't both be right. Islam and Judaism and Buddhism and Christianity and Paganism can't all be right. Which brings us back to the second half of my first statement - But they can all be wrong.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

I SO disagree. I shut down my blog ages ago & use fb instead. Most of my friends do the same.

 

I disagree as well. I know several people who use their FB feed as their personal platform. They have hundreds of friends, many of whom are supportive of these FBers' rant-y or cause-oriented or political or evangelizing posts. I completely agree that people can use their FB feed as whatever kind of microphone they choose.

 

However, I have unfollowed all but one of those people, because that's not what I want my FB feed to look like. I don't want to be bombarded with vaccine posts and posts about Monsanto and pit bulls and what's wrong with Christians today. So I've exercised my own prerogative for hiding people from my feed. It makes me sad that then I miss the posts they make that I DO want to see, but otherwise checking in on FB is too stressful for me, and I'm trying to eliminate stressors right now. 

 

I think most of the people I'm thinking of are aware of how they come off on FB, because they've posted things to the effect of "If you don't like it, don't read my posts." So I don't. It is what it is. I'll avoid them on FB, just like I'll avoid the strident people at the party as well. Then we're both happy!

[LucyStoner]

If one wishes to be impactful in their activism, Facebook is of limited utility. There are exceptions to that, but on the whole activism or fundraising/marketing of good causes on FB becomes invisible. I am very active in causes that I care about. Facebook doesn't facilitate that in any meaningful way. Facebook has an important but very limited role to play in the postive work that my clients do. I've managed the social media presence of several organizations over the years with scores of fans/likes/interactions, having what was applauded as sucess and in hindsight I don't think it was that important to the overall cause.

 

In some ways I think Facebook based activism gives people a why to feel good about themselves without being on the line for getting up and getting out there and actually doing anything. That's just my opinion, but that is how I see it. I can share a meme about DV. And I have done that, infrequently. Or I can go semi weekly to my volunteer job with a DV legal program and meet face to face with legislators, lobbyists and others about changing a specific area of the law that pisses me off and puts DV victims at risk. I think the latter is more substantive. There are positive things that can be done on FB, even that are unpopular and uncomfortable. Private screeds are not, IME or IMO one of those things.

[plath]

There are many freethinker groups on FB (including some homeschooling ones) I find extremely helpful. I've recently crossed over to the atheist side after being agnostic for many years. I'm not "out yet" on Facebook, but I can definitely see the benefit in being so. I also see the benefit in sharing such posts on fb. Not trolling other's pages, but sharing on your own page or engaging in discussions on other's pages if they offer it for debate.

My own ideologies *have* been persuaded by fb posts.

[LucyStoner]

I disagree as well. I know several people who use their FB feed as their personal platform. They have hundreds of friends, many of whom are supportive of these FBers' rant-y or cause-oriented or political or evangelizing posts. I completely agree that people can use their FB feed as whatever kind of microphone they choose.

 

However, I have unfollowed all but one of those people, because that's not what I want my FB feed to look like. I don't want to be bombarded with vaccine posts and posts about Monsanto and pit bulls and what's wrong with Christians today. So I've exercised my own prerogative for hiding people from my feed. It makes me sad that then I miss the posts they make that I DO want to see, but otherwise checking in on FB is too stressful for me, and I'm trying to eliminate stressors right now.

 

I think most of the people I'm thinking of are aware of how they come off on FB, because they've posted things to the effect of "If you don't like it, don't read my posts." So I don't. It is what it is. I'll avoid them on FB, just like I'll avoid the strident people at the party as well. Then we're both happy!

This underscores why Facebook rants are not effective activism in any real, let's get off our asses and change the world sense.

[LucyStoner]

There are many freethinker groups on FB (including some homeschooling ones) I find extremely helpful. I've recently crossed over to the atheist side after being agnostic for many years. I'm not "out yet" on Facebook, but I can definitely see the benefit in being so. I also see the benefit in sharing such posts on fb. Not trolling other's pages, but sharing on your own page or engaging in discussions on other's pages if they offer it for debate.

My own ideologies *have* been persuaded by fb posts.

I ended up unfollowing a freethinker homeschooling group because I found the dogma simultaneously hilarious and tedious.

[cintinative]

I posted something here that was poorly worded and hurt people. I am sorry that I did that.

[plath]

I ended up unfollowing a freethinker homeschooling group because I found the dogma simultaneously hilarious and tedious.

To be fair, freethinker does have a different meaning from atheism so I can understand that some would have issues with it.

[Ipsey]

My belief is that if you are a Christian, you cannot "unbelieve" and not become one. You just weren't one to begin with. Those who God calls are His for eternity.

 

 

Yes, that was my belief too, when I was a Born-Again Christian for 20 years. It's what I also taught during my 8 years as a missionary.

Then, I found that it was just one more of those things that was wrong about the belief-system of Christianity.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

This underscores why Facebook rants are not effective activism in any real, let's get off our asses and change the world sense.

 

I'm with you on that!

[cintinative]

It must be all kinds of special to think God chose YOU as a baby to be part of his crew, and all those who 'fell away' just were left in the crib to start with. 

 

From the outside, it's a fairly narcissistic belief.

 

.