Can Atheists learn to speak Theist?

@izzythepush,

Well, if their desired reward is rectal bleeding, they're nearly there, since there's already what seems to be excessive discharge from the exit chute.

(hope my language isn't too crude)

((I become mighty miffed when people try hiding behind a religion-curtain.))

1 Reply

@Sturgis,

I know, they do try to hide/blame/excuse their bigotry on religion.

I think they're the worst, at least the KKK don't pretend to be anything else.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

Heaven is not an external reward. It is a spiritual state.

It is an external reward from the point of view that:
- you must do certain things (confess your sins)
- you must obtain the approval of another (God)
- the end goal is external to this life (not all of you reaches there).

Quote:

Just don't misunderstand me as pretending like you that this is sufficient for ultimate peace and happiness.

bigotry at its best

Quote:

Maybe for now, but you won't ultimately be satisfied with anything less than total salvation.

ditto

Quote:

Of course. Everything is growth. Even cancer is a form of growth.

adding nastiness to the bigotry

Quote:

Here's the problem with you rejecting salvation in Christ: you will not accept the lot of your choosing gracefully. You will continue to post angry responses to things you don't understand

Rofl....I said I take responsibility for all of my decisions, and I see heaven as unecessary, and this makes me angry and graceless? So it's not got to the stage of delusional bigotry in your post?

Quote:

You act as if you are satisfied with 'spiritual growth' absent total salvation, but then what is it the causes you to continue to be angry and combative except the struggle with sin?

So despite the absolute & evidenced fact that:
- my posts always call you on your contradictions, your avoidance of evidence, your taking posts out of context, etc; and
- I explain each time how you contradict yourself, avoid evidence etc

You think because I have to do that so often in our conversation that I am angry in my life (no evidence of this seeing as our discussions are very specific) and angry at you (our conversations have a very specific 'conflict' point, and I even point out we may have much more in common than you realise)

Mind you, if you call the struggle with sin - the struggle against dishonesty, hypocrisy, avoidance of issues, etc by a poster in this forum....maybe you have a point - though I would use sometimes frustrated as a more accurate phrase.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

. "Living in a right way by God," is what you strive to do in gratitude for salvation from sin

See - external motivation: Gratitude to God. Not any different to what I said, except I think we can do so because we want to be.

Quote:

but you can't assume you are going to become totally perfect in this life.

Don't know who you are aiming this at, seeing as I've stated a number of times we are all flawed.

Quote:

I don't have to have faith in non-Christians any more than I have to have faith in anything else of this world

Aaaaand....avoidance of an issue yet again, which is christian suspicion of non-christians. Or is that your way of saying you'r suspicious of every non-christian?

Quote:

Why do you seek honor for non-Christians except as a reward for good behavior? You claim it's not about external rewards, but what is honor to you except an external reward?

I don't particularly care about what you honour, though I do admit to being human, which all the physiological social drives that entails. No, my 'care' as you phrase it, relates to addressing your inconsistencies. This suspicion of non-christians is just one of them, seeing as you are meant to love every person as yourself (so Christian and non-christian alike), and your God is meant to be a loving God, but apparently drives wedges between peoples, according to the faith he has recorded.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

You really don't like the fact that non-christians / people, as a whole (relating to the below):
- can be happy with their own journey
- they can live by the principles they see as good in the world
- their decisions can be well thought through, and consistent
- they do these things because of who they are inside
- they can be at peace with their decisions, and their life
- and find joy, and happiness in this life
Do you.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
I don't have to have faith in non-Christians any more than I have to have faith in anything else of this world
Aaaaand....avoidance of an issue yet again, which is christian suspicion of non-christians. Or is that your way of saying you'r suspicious of every non-christian?

Not just non-Christians. Christians are also imperfect sinners. They/we are trying to do something about it by accepting salvation and the sanctification process that comes with it, but others are trying various other methods as well. In the end, however, we all remain sinners, saved or not; so who can ultimately be trusted besides God? We have to deal with and work with people to function in this world, but that doesn't require trusting them.

Quote:

Quote:
Why do you seek honor for non-Christians except as a reward for good behavior? You claim it's not about external rewards, but what is honor to you except an external reward?
I don't particularly care about what you honour, though I do admit to being human, which all the physiological social drives that entails. No, my 'care' as you phrase it, relates to addressing your inconsistencies. This suspicion of non-christians is just one of them, seeing as you are meant to love every person as yourself (so Christian and non-christian alike), and your God is meant to be a loving God, but apparently drives wedges between peoples, according to the faith he has recorded.

You have so many fundamental misunderstandings, even at the level of words themselves, that I'm not sure it's even possible to explain them all if you were open to listening, let alone when you are hostile, as you seem to be.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

Not just non-Christians. Christians are also imperfect sinners.

It's like talking to a memory sieve.......the suspicion in full - as we discussed right at the start - of Christians believing that non-Christians are not able to be as good a Christians because they don't believe in God / don't have God / haven't invited God into their lives. That their kindness, compassion etc is suspect because of this. I would wonder why you consistently have so much difficulty following context, but the answer is so obvious - it allows you to avoid thinking about what you don't want to contemplate.

Quote:

You have so many fundamental misunderstandings, even at the level of words themselves, that I'm not sure it's even possible to explain them all if you were open to listening, let alone when you are hostile, as you seem to be.

And yet again using broad brushes when a specific one would be more appropriate - by hostile (and you paint that very broadly without qualification) you mean : Criticises your inconsistencies, avoidance, dishonesties, hypocricsies etc....which would be much more specific, much more accurate, and much more honest.

Should I be open to (ie accept) hypocrisy, dishonesty, avoidance of evidence, taking things out of context? But of course once again you use the broad brush that paints me as not being open to anything....rather than the much more accurate, more honest specific brush - that I don't tolerate your hypocrisy etc.

I am very open to people who are able to articulate their beliefs in a thoughtful, consistent, honest way that doesn't avoid evidence, tries to honestly interpret others writings, and keep the discussion in context....even if I disagree with them....and that type of genuine behaviour is very, very far from what you engage in. You need to work on your accuracy because the broad brush is blatantly dishonest in it's application here.

You continue to interpret things to your favour, continue to arrive at faulty conclusions relating to others motivations, continue to make claims beyond the bounds of what is written....despite plenty of corrections, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Quote:

You really don't like the fact that non-christians / people, as a whole (relating to the below):
- can be happy with their own journey
- they can live by the principles they see as good in the world
- their decisions can be well thought through, and consistent
- they do these things because of who they are inside
- they can be at peace with their decisions, and their life
- and find joy, and happiness in this life
Do you.

By the way, you didn't respond to this.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

As a last observation, you continue to claim that I don't understand what you are writing - I have understood everything that you have written so far:

- I do not have to accept or agree with what you say in order to understand it (you appear to think this is the case). Eg. Hearing the good word is not enough when it is so full of inconsistencies, particularly when the person is happy and fulfilled within themselves (and I've little doubt that you will find such a claim suspicious, which is sad). Put another way - that you see a need for Heaven, does not mean I must see a need for heaven in order to understand why you see a need for heaven. I've been there, but decided to choose a different path.

- pointing out it doesn't relate, when it doesn't relate, does not mean I didn't understand it. Each time I've said that, it is because you have removed part of my statement from it's context (whether through inability to follow context or otherwise), put it into an unrelated context, and said 'I disagree'.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

of Christians believing that non-Christians are not able to be as good a Christians because they don't believe in God / don't have God / haven't invited God into their lives. That their kindness, compassion etc is suspect because of this. I would wonder why you consistently have so much difficulty following context, but the answer is so obvious - it allows you to avoid thinking about what you don't want to contemplate.

I've tried to clarify, but you won't let me. Your concern is being recognized as categorically "as good" as Christians without being Christian. So, in your mind. the point of being a Christian is to attain status in the eyes of Christians. In short, you feel that Christians are judging you as less worthy than other Christians because you reject salvation, and you think that being judged as worthy by other Christians is the point of getting saved.

Why can't I make you understand that salvation is not about gaining status in anyone's eyes, including your own self-worth. It is literally about spiritual salvation, i.e. about being liberated from the suffering of shame of being a sinner. Jesus died for our sins, so we don't have to. We can accept His gift and move on to better things, i.e. serving God without guilt/shame and atonement.

Quote:

Quote:
You have so many fundamental misunderstandings, even at the level of words themselves, that I'm not sure it's even possible to explain them all if you were open to listening, let alone when you are hostile, as you seem to be.
And yet again using broad brushes when a specific one would be more appropriate - by hostile (and you paint that very broadly without qualification) you mean : Criticises your inconsistencies, avoidance, dishonesties, hypocricsies etc....which would be much more specific, much more accurate, and much more honest.

You see: you are asking for detailed specificity and it is just tedious. Start threads with narrower topical focus and it may be easier to keep the discussion simple and clear, but idk you may also find a way to make that discussion tedious as well.

Quote:

Should I be open to (ie accept) hypocrisy, dishonesty, avoidance of evidence, taking things out of context? But of course once again you use the broad brush that paints me as not being open to anything....rather than the much more accurate, more honest specific brush - that I don't tolerate your hypocrisy etc.

You are throwing too many giant accusations at once to deal with. There is no way to discuss each one to any satisfactory degree. It just comes across as a barrage of insults. I know you actually mean more with these criticisms than just tossing empty insults, but when you pile them all up together, there's no way to discuss them in a constructive way.

Quote:

I am very open to people who are able to articulate their beliefs in a thoughtful, consistent, honest way that doesn't avoid evidence, tries to honestly interpret others writings, and keep the discussion in context....even if I disagree with them....and that type of genuine behaviour is very, very far from what you engage in. You need to work on your accuracy because the broad brush is blatantly dishonest in it's application here.

You continue to interpret things to your favour, continue to arrive at faulty conclusions relating to others motivations, continue to make claims beyond the bounds of what is written....despite plenty of corrections, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

It seems you lost interest in the discussion of religious concepts so you are trying to shift the discussion to being about me. I guess you are better at analyzing and criticizing people on a personal level than you are at discussing thread topics, so you try to shift the thread in that direction.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
You really don't like the fact that non-christians / people, as a whole (relating to the below):
- can be happy with their own journey
- they can live by the principles they see as good in the world
- their decisions can be well thought through, and consistent
- they do these things because of who they are inside
- they can be at peace with their decisions, and their life
- and find joy, and happiness in this life
Do you.
By the way, you didn't respond to this.

Ok, here goes:

1) - can be happy with their own journey
If a serial killer was happy with their own journey, e.g. as depicted in the movie Seven, would that be reason to validate their morality?

2) - they can live by the principles they see as good in the world
Let's apply the same serial killer morality test here. Could Kevin Spacey's character in Seven live by principles he sees as good in the world? If so, how does this validate anyone's morality?

3) their decisions can be well thought through, and consistent
Again, Seven is a great example of consistency in Serial Killer 'ethics'

4)they do these things because of who they are inside
also works for serial killers

5) they can be at peace with their decisions, and their life
This one is tougher. If someone has a good moral compass, and they are at peace, then that would be an indication that they are aligned with God. But then the question is how do you know when you have just completely disconnected yourself and your conscience from true concern for seeking true righteousness? I mean, it's sort of like someone who is so good at lying they can pass a lie detector test; i.e. because they've learned to calm themselves when telling the most baldfaced lies that they don't themselves believe.

6) - and find joy, and happiness in this life
Does this one pass the serial killer test? Are serial killers incapable of finding joy and happiness? If they aren't, then it this a measure of good morality?

I don't understand the point of all this? You seem to just really be concerned about achieving status for non-Christians. Why can't you understand that Christianity is not about status and respect but about salvation? Sure, as Christians we may question the character of people who aren't humble enough to accept salvation through Christ, but that is no different from someone who values sexual expression questioning the character of someone who is sexually repressed and has negative feelings about sexuality generally.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

I've tried to clarify, but you won't let me. Your concern is being recognized as categorically "as good" as Christians without being Christian

No...I've repeatedly corrected you, informing you what I've talked about is not about the sort of people who are kind, generous etc for recognition, or reward (but the type who are kind etc because they want to be, inside). Why do you repeatedly insist that it must be about recognition & reward?

Presumably it's because you think non-christians being kind etc, is such a suspect concept, that you can't get your head around it.

Quote:

In short, you feel that Christians are judging you as less worthy than other Christians because you reject salvation, and you think that being judged as worthy by other Christians is the point of getting saved.

Keh...I've repeatedly said what I am talking about has nothing to do with non-christians being saved...why do you keep insisting it must do?

How many times must a person repeatedly state they are not talking about people who do things for reward before you understand that?

Again more evidence relating to how suspicious you are of non-christians.

Quote:

You are throwing too many giant accusations at once to deal with.

Keh - I was talking what it means to have an open mind - and that not accepting hypocrisy etc does not mean you have a closed mind - it means you don't accept hypocrisy etc

Quote:

You see: you are asking for detailed specificity and it is just tedious.

The excuse of all who engage in poor logic "I can't throw 2-3 words in to qualify, it's tedious'...even while those 2-3 words of qualification (sometimes in amongst hundreds of words) make conversation much more honest, accurate and better for rational conversation.

Quote:

It seems you lost interest in the discussion of religious concepts so you are trying to shift the discussion to being about me.

Not about you - about your behaviour, which is what has been the root of the problem all along. If you don't engage in inconsistency, there's not an issue, other than a difference of opinion. You consistently engage in inaccuracies (by not qualifying broad statements), and are now even defending the 'right' to be inaccurate, but you want to claim you engage in logical debate.

You consistently misrepresent what the other person is discussing...but want to claim that you engage in logical debate.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

You really missed the Gist of that post - those points were posted as a whole - that one person can experience all of those. It was a simple question, requiring a simple answer "Yes I do", or "No, I don't mind at all"

Which one is it?

But the simple fact that you chose the serial killer version for most of your replies, where you would never do so for a Christian claiming the same thing...continues to illustrate your suspicion of happy, kind, and compassionate non-Christians (the kind that are that way for no sort of external reward)

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

No...I've repeatedly corrected you, informing you what I've talked about is not about the sort of people who are kind, generous etc for recognition, or reward (but the type who are kind etc because they want to be, inside). Why do you repeatedly insist that it must be about recognition & reward?

That's what you keep saying. You keep saying that Christians think non-Christians are generally not as good of people. If that's not what you are saying, then what is it?

And have you yet understood the concept of salvation from sin?

Quote:

Presumably it's because you think non-christians being kind etc, is such a suspect concept, that you can't get your head around it.

Kindness is good, but insufficient to save you from sin. How many times do I have to say that?

Quote:

Quote:
In short, you feel that Christians are judging you as less worthy than other Christians because you reject salvation, and you think that being judged as worthy by other Christians is the point of getting saved.
Keh...I've repeatedly said what I am talking about has nothing to do with non-christians being saved...why do you keep insisting it must do?

Salvation is what Christianity is about. Not kindness. Christians are also called to be kind, treat others as they would be treated, forgive enemies, etc. but none of those things are sufficient to attain salvation from sin, which is the main issue.

Quote:

How many times must a person repeatedly state they are not talking about people who do things for reward before you understand that?

It is unclear why you are concerned about what Christians think of non-Christian except because you see positive social regard as some kind of reward for good behavior.

Quote:

Again more evidence relating to how suspicious you are of non-christians.

And what does it matter to you if Christians trust non-Christians except as a reward or status?

Quote:

I was talking what it means to have an open mind - and that not accepting hypocrisy etc does not mean you have a closed mind - it means you don't accept hypocrisy etc

An open mind can't make wrong right and false true. A truly open mind will only lead to stronger awareness of why things are true that are true, i.e. because truth has reasons. E.g. 2+2 = 4 because XX + XX = XXXX. You can open your mind to count instead of taking the sums for granted as you memorized them, but an open mind should never lead you to believe that 2+2 = 5 or some other number, because it doesn't.

Quote:

Quote:
You see: you are asking for detailed specificity and it is just tedious.
The excuse of all who engage in poor logic "I can't throw 2-3 words in to qualify, it's tedious'...even while those 2-3 words of qualification (sometimes in amongst hundreds of words) make conversation much more honest, accurate and better for rational conversation.

I don't see you as honest, accurate, or rational. I think you abuse these terms to try to leverage legitimacy for manipulative and thus false logic.

Quote:

Quote:
It seems you lost interest in the discussion of religious concepts so you are trying to shift the discussion to being about me.
Not about you - about your behaviour, which is what has been the root of the problem all along. If you don't engage in inconsistency, there's not an issue, other than a difference of opinion. You consistently engage in inaccuracies (by not qualifying broad statements), and are now even defending the 'right' to be inaccurate, but you want to claim you engage in logical debate.

Talking about me and/or my behavior is a deviation from the thread topic. This is proof that your logic is perverse. I told you that you're deviating from the thread topic by talking about me and your response is that you're not talking about me but about my behavior. That is false logic, because either way it is still a deviation from the thread topic.

Quote:

You consistently misrepresent what the other person is discussing...but want to claim that you engage in logical debate.

I don't, but you can't see that because you lack the clarity of thought necessary to understand the relationship between things you say and my responses.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

You really missed the Gist of that post - those points were posted as a whole - that one person can experience all of those. It was a simple question, requiring a simple answer "Yes I do", or "No, I don't mind at all"

Which one is it?

But the simple fact that you chose the serial killer version for most of your replies, where you would never do so for a Christian claiming the same thing...continues to illustrate your suspicion of happy, kind, and compassionate non-Christians (the kind that are that way for no sort of external reward)

Why can't you understand that it was just a clear logical test for the traits you listed? If a serial killer could answer yes to having those traits, then they aren't a good measure of morality, ultimately, are they?

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

You consistently misrepresent what the other person is discussing

Apparently not bearing false witness is another one of Jesus' sayings they like to ignore.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

Why can't you understand that it was just a clear logical test for the traits you listed?

It's not the issue because it was not the question I asked you. I asked if it bothered you that non-Christians can possess such things without expecting reward.

Why can't you answer the question?

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

That's what you keep saying. You keep saying that Christians think non-Christians are generally not as good of people. If that's not what you are saying, then what is it?

And even here....you can't bring yourself to put the words 'without expecting reward / for who they are inside'....but you can , frequently add 'for recognition'...

...so yet again evidence of your suspicion of non-christians

Quote:

And have you yet understood the concept of salvation from sin?

I understand it. I said I don't think it necessary. You apparently can't get your head around that.

Quote:

And what does it matter to you if Christians trust non-Christians except as a reward or status?

Rofl...you really don't understand? This conversation is not about genuinely kind, compassionate people wanting your recognition - it's brought up because of the hypocrisy in your beliefs.

In Christianity:
- Members are meant to love others as they do themselves - they can't do this if they are more suspicious of the Goodness of non-christians than they are of Christians (purely because they are non-christian)...You are applying a different standard of love and acceptance to one group than the other
- Members are not meant to Judge. That is for God....but your greater suspicion of non-christians than christians IS judgement. If you weren't engaging in judgement, you wouldn't be more suspicious of their motives for kindness etc than Christians.

Funnily enough, it's also become an extended conversation because you can't be honest about your suspicion and just say that you are more suspicious of the kindness,compassion etc done by Non-christians (who do so for no external reward, but because that is what they want to be), than you are of the same kindness etc coming from Christians....your writing consistently shows it, but you haven't been able to bring yourself to be honest and actually admit it.

...just like so much other avoidance you engage in.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Apparently not bearing false witness is another one of Jesus' sayings they like to ignore.

Well this one. I've met plenty of very honest people from many religions. Quite frankly I think most of the issue is that he lies to himself so habitually he can't see what he's doing...I'm sure a part of him understands it, but much of his writing seems to be very reflexive.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Apparently not bearing false witness is another one of Jesus' sayings they like to ignore.

You are referring to the 10 commandments, which precede Jesus, as far as I am aware.

1 Reply

Can Atheists learn to speak Theist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know