I did not say this. I don't refer to ExChristians as "failed Christians". In fact I think there are very few Christians who are Christian, as G. K. Chesterson said, "Christianity hasn't failed. Christianity hasn't been tried yet", and I would say that is true on the whole. No, I said "former Christians", meaning those who have left the religion. If Christianity itself hasn't been tried yet, then atheists aren't "failed Christians", Christians are "failed Christians". Those who have left them can in fact be on a more spiritual path, one that needs to break free from the shackles of a "failed religion".
Hmm. I am trying to figure out how you managed to interpreted my words into meaning that i inferred that you said they were "failed Christians", i most certainly did not, after all, anyone reading this can plainly see that you didn't say that, and can just as plainly see that I did not say that you thought, or said, that they were "failed christians". I assumed that i made it reasonably clear that is was my opinion, as the phrase was used by me to describe a person who has tried christianity without first preparing and then comiting themselves to follow that lifestyle first, thus failing miserably in the process.
Of course, your source is not omniscient, as God is, but just a man, a mortal being, prone to imperfections and carnality of men. His words may be very poignant to you, and that is fine, however, do not expect his poignant words to impress everyone, or, to be of an authority to mankind as a whole. In my opinion, christianity is thriving and it is a successful methodology for one to use to get closer to God. I know that it has been tried because I am a Christian, not a Catholic, a Presbyterian or a Methodist, but a Christian, striving to keep the commandments of Christ. I have tried, and I have succeeded.
I did not say, as you quote me here, that Atheists are "failed Christians", at any juncture in my post. I do not believe that to be the case. Indeed I described the true atheist as "born and bred" that way. Indeed, It is wannabe Christians who are "failed Christians, however, if you want to be pernickety, they were never Christians in the first place so they cannot be labelled as failing at it. A Christian has been trulh converted by the unique power and influence of the Holy Ghost. They have had him testify to their souls that God lives and that His son died for us, all. So enthralling is the epiphany that one recieves they can never go back. You know then that you have been truly converted by the Holy Ghost. These people have failed in even coming close to that point. As for their spiritually, well, we are all spiritual beings. Spirits having an earthly experience. You do not have to be a christian to be spiritual, or belong to any religion. As I said, my best buddy is an atheist. He is so spiritual, which ever way you are defining it, you would think that he is a Christian.
That they are more spiritual then practicing Christian's, well, it is not a competition, or a pageant. In some cases you maybe wrong and in other cases you maybe right. Spirituality is fluid and fluctuates over time. Sorry, but i believe It is a nonsensical, unnecessary and imprecise point to make.
So what you have then are those struggling to find freedom, not from morality or responsibility, but from the bondage of a failed religious system.
I don't know if that is true. I have seen no evidence to suggest it is true. I am not struggling to find freedom from morality or responsibility. I expect it to be an integral part of my mortal probation here on earth. I choose not to be apart of organised religions because I believe them to have been corrupted by mankind and cannot see God's authority in what they preach. No, our Lord did not say that his Church would be of many branches, each confessing a different faith, contradicting each other. Instead, he gave the Church the Holy Spirit, who would teach them all truth. So yes, man's modern idea of the Church is nonsense, contradictory and makes a mockery of Christ and the Holy Spirit.
I would say they are more moral, and more responsible than most of the most religious Christians I have seen.
How do you determine that. Do the walk more old ladies across the street or give regularly to charities. There is no possible way you could know that for a surety. How have you determined the religiosity of a Christian. By his church attendance or his payment of tithes and offering.
Why? Because they don't excuse themselves saying they are obeying a higher authority. They take responsibility alone, and alone stand or fall.
Well, I am a Christian and I never say that I am obeying a higher law. Why? Because oft times I am not. I am striving to live that law but my success rate is not good, hence the long periods of time I spend on my knees in prayer and supplication. What you are saying is that because they do not know the law there is no pressure for them to keep it, so they keep it anyway. A very unsound dichotomy to make, and completed unsubstantiated. Lastly, I very much take responsibility for my own actions and stand or fall on them. The whole ethos of Christianity is based on accountability of our choices. Nobody forces it upon us. The morals of Christianity are objective, we all need to refrain from adultery and murder. They are basic universal moral laws.
They love, not because they are obliged to love, but because they choose to love, not for reward from God, but the reward of simply being good. In other words, they are free to be more spiritual because they are no longer afraid of a God who threatens them to "be good or else". Without that fear, Spirit is served, if not in name, certainly in action.
I disagree slightly. The churches of men claim to love because they feel superior to there fellow congregation members by showing an increase of love. Simply put, they seek the praises of men rather then the praises of God. They draw near to Him with their mouths but are far from him in their hearts. They are like a newly whitewashed tomb. Clean and bright on the outside, however, full of filth and dead mens bones on the inside. Carnality.
Free to be more spiritual, or indeed, to be more wicked. In the UK moral decline is a major issue with the government considering reintroducing religion back into our schools for the sole purpose of stemming a greater sense of moral accountability. There actually are surveys that show that those who have no moral accountability, when put into a moral dilemma, will almost always choose the wrong. You are saying the opposite.
What about the anger and vitriol then? 'That's not good', you will say. I consider that actually a normal and healthy reaction that one goes through when they've managed to break free from an unhealthy relationship. It's normal for people to be angry as part of the stages of grief one goes through with any extreme loss in their lives. And when that anger is expressed, often times it's just irrational. Think of their having rejected a religion that has failed them miserably like someone leaving an abusive relationship. Yes, they're going to be mad as hell once they are able to be free from it and start to heal! That anger is part of the healing process.
Are you speaking for yourself here. Ìf you are, then why haven't you demonstrated this behaviour. You are defending the abuser here by blaming the abused. There is no excuse for a husband to batter his wife, regardless of what she might say. You are saying that she deserves it because she didn't shut her mouth.
The above is normal, and healthy. What is not healthy however is what I said before that when all that remains, year and year after year is bitterness and cynicism. Think of it in terms of any human relationship. If after a divorce a man spends the rest of his life "hating women" (or a woman hating all men), that is in fact a failure in them to let go and take advantage to grow. It's no longer about the religion, in this case, but about them and their own bitterness. You find them too with the freshly out of religion atheists, trolling forums endlessly bashing believers, trying to bring them down. It's about them at this point, not about the religion. They are the ones who when presented with reasonable points of view demonstrate their own brand of irrationality against all religions, very much the way in my former example someone spends their whole life irrational seeing all men, or all women as the same. In summary, there is a difference between being angry and becoming bitter and irrational.
Well, you have to know that I cannot disagree with that. Yes, that is true, however, it is not an excuse for bad behaviour. There is no excuse for that. Yes, I sympathise with their dilemma but I do not want to be a victim of it. We all have the ability to practise self control. It is morally wrong to berate others as a result of their own inadequacies, however they may have arisen.
There are distinctions to be made in how those who are atheists may apply here as well. There is no one size fits all, atheists, religionists, men, women, etc blanket categories. I'd be careful not to broad-brush others the same as you feel they do you. As Gandhi once said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". Wise words.
That is just another version of the parable that Jesus gave on judgement. That is not to judge others when we to walk imperfectly. I tend not to judge the individual as much as I do the congregation, who do all act like sheep, following each other to the den of wolves. Atheists on here are a certain type of person. In the real world it is hard to find them, other then those who seek notoriety, like Richard Dawkins, the lake Christopher Hitchens, Brian Cox and Lawrence Krauss. Most atheist fit into another pigeon hole unassociated with the odious attitudes of the angry atheists
What I have not heard from you was what I was hoping to was to hear where you feel the religion failed them.
Organised Religions do not act in the name of God. Would you pay a speeding fine that was issued to you by a taxi driver?
Can you try that? Can you try to see from the others point of view and maybe understand their complaints, setting aside both their angry statements and your natural self-defensiveness to them? It's hard to do, but quite amazing what happens to you when you do. It's the first step to truly being self-responsible, looking at yourself through others eyes.
Aren't we doing that right now? Do you detect any hostility from me, i sense none from you. You are being candid, yes, but i expect that in a debate. Surely, you too should wonder why you can debate in an amicable manner, yet, the angry atheist cannot. But I would love to have a constructive debate with them, however, for the most part, they are hostile from the getgo, they are to angry to reason with. The guy, on here, with the blog full of lies and deceit, who likes to report me, is on a mission to insult as many converted christians as he can. Some people just cannot see the wood In a forest, that is full of mixed trees. So, in response to your request "can you try that" I do.
Or maybe they are trying to heal and become a better person away from a religion that failed them? Isn't this possible too?
Yes, of course, however, there is no excuse for such hostile behaviour. It is a choice. We know when we are being nasty, regardless of the cause.
Isn't making it personal what you complain about them doing? To me a true Christian response would be compassion, which requires seeing their hurt and what is behind it and taking responsibility
We are on a forum exchanging words. We are not chatting over a pint. We do not see their pain or the anguish on their faces, or in their eyes. We are usuallh immediately confronted on here with immediate vicious denegrations. We then tend to act as we find, rightly or wrongly, and retaliate. Remember, to be a Christian is not to be perfect, it is to strive to be perfect.
if it is appropriate, or offering a healing response, rather than passing judgment on them and returning like injury for injury.
Yes, responding like with like is unacceptable, but hey, i am not perfect, i am still trying to be. It is something that i need to work on. Isn't it normal, like being angry at losing your faith, to retaliate against those who besmirch you?
Judgement is based on opinion, or circumstantial evidence, it is not based on facts, because facts are knowledge that require no judgement. I have no need to judge anyone who openly and publicly berates me. It is there, in their post, an absolute fact, requiring no judgement.
Why do you assume they have failed themselves?
I don't, they have failed at their attempts at being a Christian. I don't know them and their history to be able to say that the failed themselves or not. They failed God.
Ask them if they are more happy now, if they feel they have become better people for having left the religion.
Irrelevant, they might think they are, however, but that is because the failed at christianity. But they could not say that for a definite, Why? Because they have never been a converted Christian to be able to say he was not happy. He never made it that far, he failed, therefore, he doesn't know what it is like to be a Christian. If he did then he would not leave.
Would that be something you'd be willing to accept is true for them?
Of course. Their personal choices are none of my business. I do not think that you understand what Christianity is about. You keep confusing it with regions. It is a personal journey, through mortality, to be tried and tested in the flesh. If I can help anybody up the cliff face of happiness and purpose, on my journey, by offering them down a hand to help pull them up, then I will. It is their choice to either stretch out their hand and except my help, or not. I cannot force them. But, you are right, they may well think they are happy exactly where they are and do not want to entertain Christianity. They may resent your hand, that is trying to lift them up, in which case you are helpless and must allow them to be what they want to be and do what they want to do, it's their choice. They will be judge by their works, as we all will, accordingly, by God, not me. I am not evangelising to them or anybody else. It is to late for that.
You have to ask yourself that question with all sincerity to judge your own motivations.
Do you realise that Christians have no alternative but to be introspective. How do you know that you have sinned if you do not examine your own behaviour. You can't. What do you think my motivations are?
My motivation is to put myself in a position where I stand a better chance of gaining entry into the Kingdom of God, thus making it possible for me to help others whilst in that position. That is my priority. If I do not put myself as a priority then what hope do I have of helping anybody else. My motivations are honourable, and, let me assure you that if you knew me personally, you would not ask that question.
Do others have to believe like you do religiously in order for you to be happy for them? If so, is that really Love?
You forget that I am an individualist. I attend to religious establishment as a congregationalist. I do not even have that many religious friend, most of my friends are atheist, but I am equally happy for them both in their chosen lifestyle. Besides, I rarely talk about religion to anybody off of these forums and I certainly do not expect anyone to believe as I do, something that I have said on here many times. I just take great exception to the behaviour of the angry theist turned atheists who blames christianity for his failure and not himself.
No everyone's departure is uneventful. Some, like yours may have been, or it could also be being repressed, which happens too. For a lot of people, it all comes out in a gush and they have to get it out of them, they have to reclaim what was stolen from them. Be care not to do what is easy to do, and assume your experience is how everyone else's should be. It's perfectly normal for different responses at different times for people.
Yes, I know, but again, we all have self control. I either chose to me amicable or I chose to be nasty. Nobody forces me to do either. The only person accountable for those choices is me. I am the only one you can point a finger at. I would be an angry Serenity. It is not normal to be abrasive and caustic with your communication. It is plain and simple wrong, whether you are a theist or a atheist. It is morally unacceptable under any circumstances
Well, that's not true at all! Other Christians inflict great harm on others. Some of the very worst sorts of harm in fact, far worse than breaking your bones in a biking accident! Psychological damage if far worse than physical. Spiritual damage is even deeper! My God, the church has imprisoned and damaged countless beautiful souls, trying to force them to fit into a system under their control. I could fill pages talking about this. Psychotherapists earn the greatest percentage of their incomes because of the damage inflicted on youth in so many of these religious schools. It's incalculable.
No, you could fill pages on what man made religions has caused men to do. Atrocious stuff. You could not do the same for Christianity. They are two very different and distinctive things that you keep confusing. One is a lifestyle and the other is a social club. You are confusing man and God and then blaming God for what man does.
No, they do in fact have religion to blame, and themselves to take credit for the almost unimaginably heroic efforts and drives to be able to break themselves free from it. I honestly believe that for most atheists who have broken free from religion it is because they have what you could call, greater faith, than those who merely toe the line of doctrine. They respond to that which harms the soul at all cost, breaking from friends and family, security and acceptance, etc. This is in fact very much what early Christians did! Imagine that one, if you will!
Was Jesus mad at the the Pharisees of his day? Would Christians consider Jesus an atheist today? I tend to imagine they might.
You say broken free, but what have they broken free from. When I went to church nobody was compelling me to be their. I was under no kind of control by the clergy. As doctrinally wrong as they were, I never felt controlled by them, so, when you say break free, you really do need to qualify it.
No Christians did not do that, religion did.
Jesus demonstrated righteous indignation, he was not mad.
Yes or no to what? Being part of a religion, or yes or no to breaking free to become truly alive
Yes, I choose God. No, I do not choose God. A simple yes or no. Nothing to do with individual religions. Everything to do with Christianity.
In my opinion, being alive is the result of being a truly converted Christian. So you think that I am not truly alive then? I really thought that I was. I have been both an atheist and a Christian. I have tasted them both. As a christian I have an eternal prospective, and believe that I will be with my wife and family after I die. If i am wrong i will not care as i will be dead, but i have had a happy life. As an atheist I believed that I would live for approximately three score and ten years, after which I would die and cease to exist. Which belief system do you think made me the happiest?[emoji39]
