How does one get over the guilt?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

evanman
 
Reply Thu 20 Apr, 2006 12:02 pm
Correcttomundo. Go to the top of the class!

It all depends on what type of fool we are dealing with!
 
Jack 2
 
Reply Thu 20 Apr, 2006 01:58 pm
It seems every argument I have with a Christian fundamentalist (and members of The Family) follows the following format:
    1. Me: make a statement. 2. Them: angrily and defensively claim I am ignorant/claim they are not the only ones at fault. 3. Me: prove my extensive studies on the subject and/or agree with them that they are not the only ones at fault but explain how I don't feel that forgives their transgressions. 4. Them: digress into some mostly unrelated subjects backed with a deluge of fractured evidence backing said subjects. 5. Me: disappointment followed by a sarcastic response. 6. Them: agree with my sarcasm and assume I agree with them as they continue to stew in their own self importance and righteousness.
Arguing with any member of any scientific community:
    1. Me: make a statement. 2. Them: claim my facts are inaccurate/claim I am ignorant. 3. Me: explain the reason for my conclusions/show my extensive studies on the subject. 4. Them: show me their extensive studies on the subject/explain their arguments. 5. Me: combine, compare and evaluate their statements with mine. Choose to continue or go back to #3. 6. Them: gloat or further analyse the available facts. 7. Me: thank them for verifying my discoveries or correcting my erroneous way of thinking.
 
evanman
 
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 11:49 am
Could it be that you're just plain argumentative, Jack?
 
Jack 2
 
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 02:35 pm
evanman wrote:
Could it be that you're just plain argumentative, Jack?

Could it be? Yes it of course it is! I challenge people's statements and science because I am currently pursuing knowledge. Yes I'm argumentative and yes I am challenging your dumb theories and I wish you would too. If you're not always questioning everything, you have become too comfortable in your train of thought which may not always be the right one.

You seem far too content to simply quote random (sometimes off-topic) verses from a single source every as some sort of magical and mystical heal-all solution which leads me to believe that you have traded your ability to think on your own for the comforting blanket and crutch that is your religion. As I've mentioned in the past, I do harbour a hatred or even a dislike for you in any way because you are mostly intelligent and have not gone out of your way to offend me or blindly accuse me like others here have. I just simply cannot tolerate the shameless promotion of a religion which is more than partially to blame for the horrible abuses we suffered at your (the FGAs) hands.

Christianity is NOT the answer! It most certainly is not the answer to any suffering or pain anyone has as a result of time spent in The Family or any other cult. If you joined a cult you need to extract your head from your um.. comical quarters and spend the rest of your life (or at least a significant portion) trying to figure out what went wrong.. You should not follow the next God dammed cult or religion that shows up. If you were born and raised in a cult or otherwise held prisoners against your will, the last thing you need or want is a brand new set of religious burdens.
 
Day 1
 
Reply Fri 21 Apr, 2006 06:30 pm
Evanman,

When I became aware of this website and forum, there was a kind of relief I looked forward to, that is, being able to talk with others who had experienced many of the same things I had, details which only a few people in my life knew of until then. Our common tradegy (TF), I thought, provided a venue we could use to help ourselves and empower one another, maybe educate or even entertain us. (It's good to laugh at ourselves. We've all wept too much.) I'm sure that most of us have the best of intentions, but at times, it seems that our differences hinder satisfying dialogue. It would be a pleasure to be able to engage you in friendlier, more constructive conversation.

"Honorable folk can agree to differ, without jeopardy; however, willful disregard makes room for misinterpretation." Saffron Killabrew
 
Anonymous
 
Reply Sat 22 Apr, 2006 07:06 am
Christianity is not the answer.---I have been saying that for years now!

It is a terrible fact but the worst sins on Earth are the one's committed in the name of Christ!

The nexzt worst are the one's committed in the name of God, and thirdly the ones committed in the name of Religion. Then there are those committed out of our own, personal, warped nature.

Do not confuse "Fact Finding" with "Truth Seeking", and vice versa!

When dealing with me you will find that we may agree on a number of things, but on others we will clash.

People mock me at times, It generally doesn't bother me.

When i joined CoG/TFI was already convinced of the existance of God and the ressurrection of Jesus Christ. My years in there did not diminish my belief, inspite of it screwing my head up and turning me into almost a clone of Berg. I absolutely hate what I allowed myself to become.

I yeilded to berg's ramblings and very quickly I was taken over by something I had no control over. Some would say that we were "brainwashed", I don't know, seems that there is always a deal of coersion with brainwashing. What is it that drives us to do what we do?

What would persuadfe young men and women to strap explosives round themselves and blow themselves and others up in the name of some god?

Then, what would cause someone else to allow themselves to be taken, beaten, and finally put to death so that others may be spared from such a fate?

As I was pointing out, we should not reject God and Jesus Christ out of hand simply because of what people do in their name.

Remember the story of the woman who was caught red-handed having sex with someone other than her husband? She was dragged before Jesus. "No forgiveness--put her to death--stone her!"

"Let him that is without sin among you cast the first stone!"

Berg used this to justify adultery, but he always overlooked what Jesus said to the woman afterwards--"Go, but don't sin again!"

The very fact of Berg and Zerby proves to me the truth of the Bible. The fact that so many were suckered by them proves it also.

Read what Peter wrote 2 Peter chapter 2

There is a particular reference to women like Zerby in Revelation 2:20
Quote:
'But I have {this} against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit {acts of} immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.
New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation
 
Monger 1
 
Reply Sat 22 Apr, 2006 10:06 am
Anonymous wrote:
The very fact of Berg and Zerby proves to me the truth of the Bible. The fact that so many were suckered by them proves it also.


Really? How exactly does thier existance, or the fact that some people are stupid/gullible/easily coerced/etc. "prove the truth of the bible"? That's a pretty outrageous claim.
 
Day 1
 
Reply Sat 22 Apr, 2006 07:38 pm
Perhaps Anonymous is only referring to what he believes, "The very fact of Berg and Zerby proves to me the truth of the Bible..." and that he thinks Berg's and Zerby's infamy is an example of end-time prohecy fulfilled or the result of ignored Biblical warnings.
 
evanman
 
Reply Sun 23 Apr, 2006 11:25 am
Anonimous was me, don't know why it posted me as "Guest" as I was signed in when I posted.

Yes, I do believe because of the warnings that the new testament writers gave concerning the kinds of teachers that would come along.

I don't know what happened. I apologise if my posting caused confusion.

After all my protesting about people who don't give an identity too!!! Confused
 
Monger 1
 
Reply Sun 23 Apr, 2006 01:49 pm
Day wrote:
Perhaps Anonymous is only referring to what he believes, "The very fact of Berg and Zerby proves to me the truth of the Bible..." and that he thinks Berg's and Zerby's infamy is an example of end-time prohecy fulfilled or the result of ignored Biblical warnings.


Qualifying something as a personal belief doesn't make it off limits to being challenged.
 
Day 1
 
Reply Sun 23 Apr, 2006 04:58 pm
Absolutely. Any belief that will not tolerate scrutiny would seem to be quite a feeble one. Thinking, feeling or believing something doesn't make it so. Former members, in particular, should understand this.
As for Evanman's remark, there are many Christians who do believe the Scriptures to be inspired, who try to follow the teachings and heed the warnings contained therein. As much as I may, or may not, agree with their religious perspective, I support their right to speak freely of their personal faith (short of malicious badgering and judgemental accusations), without fear of recrimination or condenscension. What makes us think anyone would be interested in what we think, if we dismiss their thoughts and faith as merely "outrageous claims"?
 
Jack 2
 
Reply Mon 24 Apr, 2006 05:20 pm
evanman wrote:
Do not confuse "Fact Finding" with "Truth Seeking", and vice versa!

Ugh! What?! Okay. You win. That's clearly where I went wrong. I somehow confused the truth with facts.
 
Monger 1
 
Reply Mon 24 Apr, 2006 08:13 pm
Day wrote:
As much as I may, or may not, agree with their religious perspective, I support their right to speak freely of their personal faith (short of malicious badgering and judgemental accusations), without fear of recrimination or condenscension. What makes us think anyone would be interested in what we think, if we dismiss their thoughts and faith as merely "outrageous claims"?

Evanman's claim is outrageous. I am using the term accurately and appropriately, in the sense that it is both extremely unusual and preposterous. As the person who made the outrageous claim, the onus is on Evanman to back it up, not on anyone else to disprove it.

Proof, truth, fact .... one should expect claims of these sorts to be held up to scrutiny.
 
evanman
 
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2006 02:17 am
Quote:
Evanman's claim is outrageous. I am using the term accurately and appropriately, in the sense that it is both extremely unusual and preposterous. As the person who made the outrageous claim, the onus is on Evanman to back it up, not on anyone else to disprove it.


The onus is primarily on the person who makes the accusation to state how this is so?

Simply denouncing a statement as being outrageous and preposterous does not establish whether a thing is so!

Problem is, if a person rejects the bible anyway, it really won't make a hapeth of difference because they'll never accept any argument to the contrary! (And vice versa)!
 
Day 1
 
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2006 07:54 am
A public forum is just that, a public forum.
Evanman's remark "The very fact of Berg and Zerby proves to me the truth of the Bible. The fact that so many were suckered by them proves it also.", is not at all "extremely unusual and preposterous" to most contemporary Christians. Orthodox theologians may, or may not, agree with his Biblical timeline, but I would venture to say they would agree that Berg and Zerby do fall into the catagory of false prophets and apostates who seduce well meaning individuals.
As to the truth or fact controversy, both of the words are often used synonomously, however the meaning that truth encompasses is much more than simply a factual statement. A true friend is not just a friend, but one who is genuine and faithful.
Speaking factually, there are people who have contributed to this forum previously, who have dropped out of sight because of the caustic, counterproductive and personally insulting comments directed not only at them, but others as well. It's a shame to lose their valuable insights because of the venomous, belittling and misconstrued remarks of a few who prefer to "strain out gnats," and is a tendency that serves humanity poorly.
 
evanman
 
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2006 01:43 pm
Thanks Day.

For most people it is a fact that an unreformed alcoholic would be a dangerous person to be leading a country during an international crisis. We accept the fact that someone who is sober is more suitable to lead than a drunk.

The truth sometimes does not always support facts.
 
Monger 1
 
Reply Sat 29 Apr, 2006 01:28 pm
Day wrote:
Evanman's remark "The very fact of Berg and Zerby proves to me the truth of the Bible. The fact that so many were suckered by them proves it also.", is not at all "extremely unusual and preposterous" to most contemporary Christians.

Regardless of whether or not this is true, I made no attempt to qualify my opinion as representing "contemporary Christians".

Day wrote:
As to the truth or fact controversy, both of the words are often used synonomously, however the meaning that truth encompasses is much more than simply a factual statement. A true friend is not just a friend, but one who is genuine and faithful.

There was a specific context in which Evanman made the truth vs. fact claim. This logomachy doesn't change Evanman's argument, or the apparent illogicality of it.

Day wrote:
Speaking factually, there are people who have contributed to this forum previously, who have dropped out of sight because of the caustic, counterproductive and personally insulting comments directed not only at them, but others as well. It's a shame to lose their valuable insights because of the venomous, belittling and misconstrued remarks of a few who prefer to "strain out gnats," and is a tendency that serves humanity poorly.

This comes across to me as rather patronizing. I do not perceive my comments in this discussion as having been "personally insulting", "venomous" or "belittling". Disagreement, vehement or otherwise, is not innappropriate on these forums.
 
Monger 1
 
Reply Sat 29 Apr, 2006 01:32 pm
evanman wrote:
We accept the fact that someone who is sober is more suitable to lead than a drunk.

Whether or not someone drinks is not the most important factor in determing their ability to lead. Bush does not walk around every day in a stupified state, at least not as a result of alcohol abuse. This poorly supports your argument on truth versus facts.
 
evanman
 
Reply Sat 29 Apr, 2006 03:58 pm
I did not say "someone who drinks" I said "someone who is drunk"!
 
Monger 1
 
Reply Sat 29 Apr, 2006 06:14 pm
That's true. However, it doesn't explain your truth vs. fact argument any better. Is your statement about the leadership abilities of someone who is drunk a truth, a fact, both, or neither? Wink Of course, someone's level of inebriation is not the only determining factor in whether than can lead better than the next guy (as opposed to when they are not drunk). But this is neither here nor there.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 08/09/2020 at 08:51:01