• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Tonight's Inquisition--I Mean Conflict Resolution

Well, after much, much, much pleading by the Sunday evening Bible group leader, I have consented (although unwillingly) to appear before the group for a conflict resolution meeting. I am not optimistic about the results and I have already moved on in my mind.

What started the furor were two questions. Who is welcome here and who is not welcome here? Are we sending off signals that might give an outsider the wrong impression about those things?

That started off a shitstorm of activity behind my back that I was totally unaware of, led by a certain gentleman who has a reputation for making racist remarks. This is the same gentleman who was so offended by a play put on by my community theater that he jumped all over me about it. I learned later from my fellow players that he had also sent them an angry letter explaining what was wrong politically with the play (it was antiwar and he's a veteran), and I do believe that if he'd been able to find the poor playwright he would have attacked her physically. His wife told me that she had to restrain him from going up on stage during the performance. So you can see what we are dealing with here. He's a loose cannon and a liability to the church and so far they've let him slide.

Anyway the more the group leader has told me about what has been going on the worse it gets and I finally told her I do not want to talk about it anymore. It sounds like everyone has made their decision and we should all move on. I am finding out now that things are being dragged up from my defection a year ago, and that this gentleman has taken the intragroup conflict out into the church at large and saying things about me, to the point where the pastor has become involved. This, as I pointed out to the group leader, is a violation of our group agreement. Yet I am the one who is to be the focus of tonight's meeting. This is exactly why I don't want to go. I said to the group leader that it sounded like I was being scapegoated and that I am afraid this is going to turn into an inquisition. She--after some hesitation--agreed that this was indeed what was going on and that she and the other group leader have handled things very badly (ya think?). That if someone had a problem with me they should have gone to me directly. Now, it is too late. Things have spiraled out of control.

I said that it looks like I have gotten an answer to my question, which was only meant to start a discussion on group identity. It wasn't the answer I wanted or expected, but it is an answer and quite revealing. They--stirred up by this gentleman--assumed I was attacking them and closed ranks against me. Which is quite understandable. My fault was misjudging the group's capacity to understand questions like these, according to the group leader. She still thinks our theological and Biblical differences should not be a barrier to our being able to fellowship together. However, if I am dealing with people who don't have the educational level in general to understand why I don't always agree with them, then that is a sure sign of incompatibility and puts me in a position where I am biting my tongue much of the time. Especially when it seems to me that they are being taken advantage of and lied to by people like Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis. And that is not something you can say tactfully. The reason I left is the same reason an ancestor of mine who found himself in hot water with the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay Colony gave when they asked him why he wasn't in church on Sundays: "I have better things to do with my time than listen to lies." He's lucky they simply banished him from the colony. I am more of a coward than he. I have no desire to face the group's wrath.

So I said that I would come and make apology for hurting and upsetting people and we hammered out a short, neutral statement that ought to appease people, or at least the more moderate ones. However, I warned her, I am not going to discuss anything other than the two questions that upset people. My reasons for leaving and my beliefs or lack of them are not up for discussion. Period. This is not going to turn into an inquisition or a trial, and if it does, I am getting up and walking out without further ado.

Comments

S
Tonight's Inquisition:

I've had bad experiences with social conflicts and meetings at Church too. So please bear with it; you're not alone.

Although a very serious Christian believer, I also disagree with Ken Ham, the Creation museum, and a literal interpretation of Genesis. Moreover, I don't believe that the Bible is God-authored. I don't view that as necessary; I only view believing that Jesus was God and following His teachings as necessary.

Interestingly though, I'm a Creationist. I have a book on the Internet called Wowed by Truth by K C Sunbeam. In chapter 4 I expound on my Creationist beliefs; I use no Bible verses; only science, biology, and logic.

However, I must be honest with you. Your accusing Ken Ham of taking advantage of people and lying to them is slander; it's not a Christian attitude. Christians have believed like Ken Ham does for 2,000 years. Unfortunately, many believers have not advanced themselves in the science department. However, that's only their naive belief; they're not taking advantage of or lying to anyone.
 
S
No, I stand by my statement. It is one thing for believers to not advance themselves in the science department as you say, it is another thing altogether when they go out and promote this lack of knowledge as truth to others who also do not have that background. St. Augustine of Hippo said hundreds of years ago that if a pagan heard Christians discussing matters that he (the pagan) knew well by his observations and that it was obvious from what the Christians were saying that they knew nothing at all on the topic, he would not be inclined to believe the Christians when they talked about faith. It does not matter how many centuries or millennia a belief has been held, if that belief is false. People have believed in astrology for thousands of years--much longer than Christianity--and some still do. Ken Ham and others like him are taking advantage of those who are not well-educated when they tell them that what they are teaching is real science. I work in a science field, and I don't even know where to begin with what is wrong with Ken Ham's teaching--yes, I've seen his videos. The scariest thing is when he waves his Bible around and says all the answers are in there. Good. Then we don't need science. We don't need research. We don't need curiosity. Because the answers are all there. Just be satisfied with what you have.
 
S
Spinning Compass,

I agree: Promoting the idea that all of life's answers are in the Bible is potentially dangerous.
I agree: Believers are guilty of being ignorant of science, and this ignorance hurts the cause of Christ.
And I agree: You have the right to be angry that your science background is discounted.

But guess what? You still slandered Ken Ham; you're certainly wrong about doing that. You cannot judge what his motivations are.

Perhaps Ken Ham has been so repulsed by the fact that the fields of science and biology are dominated by atheists and agnostics that he reacted by withdrawing from studying science altogether. Ken Ham undoubtedly views the scientific community as a threat to the Christianity as he understands it.

Doesn't it make you angry that the fields of science and biology are dominated by atheists? Why focus on KH's Creation museum? By denying the existence of God, perhaps atheistic scientists are lying to and deceiving the people? Regardless, that's extremely dangerous.
 
S
No, it does not make me angry that the fields of science and biology are dominated by atheists. But I have a question: you say that atheistic scientists are lying to and deceiving people when they deny the existence of God. Please clarify what you mean by God.

Over the course of human history there have been thousands of gods and goddesses, some very well known, some not so well known. Science doesn't have anything to say about Athena, Thor, Kali, Pele, or Quezalcoatl, either, just to name a few. But what about them?

When you start bringing "god" into the picture, then you are out of the realm of science--unless you can provide evidence that your chosen deity (or deities) exist. Why are there so many conflicting religions? Where did they all come from? What evidence do you have that your God is the only legitimate one?

Anyone can invent a god and come up with a religion; we've seen several new religions such as Scientology come into existence in the last few decades, But they don't have the burden of evidence that science requires. Science, at its best, is neutral on the existence of the supernatural realm. I forget who it was when asked why he didn't include "God" in his calculations replied, "Sir, I had no need of that hypothesis." That is why many (not all) scientists are atheists or agnostics.

What science cannot do, if it is to remain true to itself, is to promote a particular religious belief--unless the evidence is so overwhelming for that belief. What the Creation Museum is doing is taking science and cramming it into a shoe that doesn't fit. Remember the story of Cinderella's stepsisters and how they tried to wear Cinderella's shoe? When I look at what the Creation Museum teaches, I see blood running out of the shoe where toes have been lopped off, a heel has been trimmed, in order to get it to fit into a three-thousand year old book. But I see I have hit a nerve.

I am going to suggest something very dangerous. Why don't you get to know some of us horrible atheists and agnostics and find out what we are really like rather than relying on propaganda about what we are like?
 
S
Here's another question: The United States generally traces its "spiritual" history back to the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock--I've seen lots of history books that take that as a starting point. Now, suppose that you came across a textbook that said that the first permanent European colonists of any nationality in North America were these same Pilgrims that came over on the Mayflower. What is wrong with that statement?

Well, apart from the fact that Jamestown is older, you also have the French settlements in Quebec and the Spanish settlements in Florida and the Southwest. Now maybe the author wasn't aware of these places when he or she wrote that book. But, suppose he or she kept right on issuing uncorrected editions after repeatedly having it pointed out that there are European settlements in North America that predate the Pilgrims by a century or more? What then are we dealing with? Is it fair to say that author is counting on his or her readers not to be aware of these facts and therefore is taking advantage of their ignorance? Is it slander to say so?

That is why I am so hard on Ken Ham and his kind. Because they are doing the same thing as our hypothetical textbook author. And our author could say the same thing, that people from Santa Fe and Quebec and St. Augustine, Florida, people whose ancestors helped settle those towns, are a threat to what he or she believes. It doesn't change the facts, however.
 
S
Spinning Compass,

Whoa! Please note that I don't have home Internet, and that I'm typing from a coffee shop. So this puts some reading and responding constraints on me.

Okay, now you misquoted me. I said that PERHAPS atheistic scientists are lying to and deceiving people. I cannot know that, anymore than you can say that Ken Ham and other Fundamentalists are lying to and deceiving people. And I'm not mentioning any specific names, so I'm not slandering anyone, as Ken Ham is being slandered.

Now you surprise me: You claim to be an atheist or agnostic who is seriously involved in Church. For most of my life, I thought such people didn't exist. I've been a serious churchgoer for many years; numerous churches. If atheists and agnostics were going there, they had opportunities to reveal that to me; none ever did.

Horrible? Every last one of us is horrible in some sense; we're all dirty sinners. And in some sense, every last one of us is dear and precious.

Interesting comments, but the shop will close soon. I will continue our conversation when I have more time.

Have a nice day/evening
 
S
Spinning Compass,

My father, Uncle Bill, and friend Jeff were agnostics. Uncle Bob was an atheist. Per conversations with atheists on the web, I ran into four problems:

1) Throwing the OT & Modern Preachers in my Face: My authority is NOT the OT; it is an elephant trying on Cinderella's slipper. My authority is NOT religious leaders or churches from 1600-2014; they can go fly a kite. My authority IS the NT. No, I don't consider it God-authored. My authority IS the early Church fathers (AD 90-800). Also, my authority IS logic, correctly applied.

2) Ad Hominem Attacks: The only things that matters are the strength of my arguments. Criticizing me as a person is fallacious.

3) Straw Man Attacks: My positions are distorted into a weaker or ugly version. The distortion is then "burned down" or disproved.

4) Assumptions: If I hold to one position, never assume I hold another; unless there's no other option. For example, if I'm over 40, assume I'm over 30. And never read into what I'm saying; I never communicate through subtleties or nuances; only direct statements.

If you'll refrain from the four aforementioned foolish and disrespectful behaviors, let's continue our dialogue.

Per your question on how I define God: I believe in the triune Father, Son, & Holy Spirit, none other. My God is a personal, almighty God with qualities of a father, mother, lover, friend, and the Law.

Having many different ideas about God or gods before Christ or without Christian influence seems extremely understandable. If not, why not? However, Jesus, claiming to be God, clarified the notion of one almighty God and the Trinity concept.
 
S
I think that perhaps there might be more of us "agnostics" in the pews than you think. There is a LOT of social pressure, especially in a small town, to go to church and otherwise act and talk like a Christian. Admitting to not believing frequently leads to social suicide. There are many, many, many ex-Christians who have found themselves the target of intense hate once they told their family and friends that they were actually atheists or otherwise did not believe. So I am not surprised that no one revealed that they were atheists or agnostics in the churches you attended. It's simply not a safe thing to reveal. A lot of things aren't in that environment.

There is a growing category of people who call themselves ex-Christians or deconverts. These are the people who may be sitting next to you but who keep silent about their lack of belief. They haven't found the courage yet to break with the church for the reason I describe, but they are active on the Internet--and there they speak to each other, just as you and I are now. There is a video called "Deconversion, Belief and the Power of Silence" by Prpl Fox, who was VERY active in his church. He was a youth leader. There are pastors who no longer believe. Dan Barker is probably the most famous. He's very candid about how he continued to preach long past the time he realized he no longer believed in what he was saying. His congregation was no wiser. So you do not know, really, who is a believer and who is not when the penalty for admitting nonbelief can be quite severe.

I'm not trying to turn you away from being a Christian. I just want you to realize that there may be a very good reason why you have not encountered anyone inside the church who will admit to being atheist or agnostic. If I were sitting next to you on Sunday morning I might not tell you that either.
 
S
Spinning Compass,

I hear you about fear of social ostracism stopping people from revealing their atheism/agnosticism.

And if you're saying that most believers are crap, then I agree with you! Yes they are!

But I must tell you; I've had a lifetime of social ostracism. My becoming very religious completed my problem; I committed social suicide. Now besides a poor relationship with my parents and no brothers or sisters, I have no cousins (they disowned me), no wife, no children, no friends, no church family (I walk in, listen to the sermon, and walk out), and no job.

So now what can you make of that?????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And again, atheists/agnostics have treated me in a less than ethical, honest, and fair manner; invariably!

Actually, it doesn't matter in which camp are the biggest A-holes. What matters are the facts. Either there is a God or there is not. And by following the line of logical reasoning...............................

Until tomorrow,
"K. C. Sunbeam"
 
S
Spinning Compass,

I've read two complete books by atheist Matthew Chapman. From there, I became convinced that the Bible is not God-authored; rather, it's man-made. As far as Dan Barker and the guy who wrote the God Delusion, and others, I've skimmed through some books. A lot of their material doesn't apply to me: Attacking the idea of a God-authored Bible (I already agree, so this is redundant). And attacking the religion of Islam. So if you have any different points you can enlighten me on, please do so.

To clarify myself further: We can't argue that since God did not author a book, God doesn't exist. This would be as valid as arguing that since God didn't invent the automobile, God doesn't exist.

Here are some suggested subtopics of discussion: 1) Free Will 2) Supernatural Events 3) Evolution/Creationism 4) The Person of Jesus Christ 5) Standards of Morality

If atheism/agnosticism is more than just people with an axe to grind against believers, or an attempt to escape moral constraints, I expect to hear back from you.

Have a nice day/evening
 
S
Yes, I have known at least one person who lost family and friends when they became a Christian, but it wasn't so much Christianity in general that was the problem, it was the TYPE of Christianity they converted to. This person ended up alienating their spouse and child because neither one was Christian enough for them. But they counted that cost gladly--after all, that was what Jesus demanded, that He be put first before family. The trouble was, He was not only put first, He was put second, He was put third, He was put fourth--and family and friends came way, way, way down the line, maybe about hundredth on the list. Few people have that kind of devotion that allows them to understand and accept that sort of thing. So when I hear of people being ostracized for Christian beliefs I have to ask, is it the specific Christian beliefs about Jesus that is causing the problem or could there be other factors involved. This person, if you were to ask them, would unhesitatingly tell you that it is because and only because of their beliefs about Jesus and God that they encountered rejection. But if you were to talk to family members and former friends you would hear another story.

If your logical reasoning has led you to believe certain things about God's existence then more power to you. Not all of us are equally convinced by that logic.

There is however, one thing I am waiting to hear that will go a long way towards convincing me that there is something out there called God. No, I am not going to tell you what it is. I am waiting for God to tell you (or anyone else) what it is. It's very specific, it involves something that happened when I was alone, and it is something I've never shared with anyone. What I am waiting for is someone to tell me what happened, where it happened, and what was its significance. Was what happened a bridge between heaven and earth, or simply coincidence? Until then, we can go around and around with words.
 
S
Spinning Compass,

Christianity doesn't ask us to push away family and friends. Christianity requires us to take care of our family (if we have one), and be friendly.

Modern Christianity is perverted. But that is not my fault, and it's not Jesus Christ's fault. Without the free will to screw things up, we'd all be robots without the ability to love.

Per your last paragraph: You seem to have had some type of unusual experience. I don't know if it was a supernatural experience, an unusual physical experience that you feel refutes the supernatural, or something else.

God won't tell anybody what it is. However, in some sense we are all brothers and sisters on Earth; we are here to communicate with one another.

You must communicate your experience to me and fully explain. This is an anonymous forum; moreover, I don't think that anybody in the world is reading this thread except you and I.

I'm open to telling you anything personal about myself that you want to know. I'm an open book.
 
S
It would be easy to communicate my experience; however, if I did that, I would never know if the person (whether you or someone else) was guessing or really had insight into what happened. You say God won't tell. Well, maybe God won't. Maybe then I will never get an answer. In that case nothing changes.

But if God DID choose to tell, then I can tell you it definitely would be a game-changer. I am willing to wait as long as it takes. But no, I am not free to say anything more, not even anonymously. The whole point is, this is knowledge about me that no other person on earth can possibly know, and even if I let it slip anonymously that screws up the whole deal. People can and do connect the dots, we had a very high profile missing persons case here where ALL of her supposedly private and anonymous tweets and emails were made public by a bunch of amateur sleuths. I'm not taking that chance! If I don't even hint at what it is, then the ONLY way another person can know is supernatural. They cannot get at it online, they cannot research my family, they cannot get at it at all. So this is where I stand. If someone, whether you or someone else, claims to be in touch with God or the supernatural and wants me to accept their claims, this is the challenge I put forth. It's easy to say God won't. See Daniel Chapter 2. That was the argument that the priests gave Nebuchadnezzar when he challenged them to produce both the dream and interpretation: no one can do that, great king. No one can do that. What you ask is impossible. But--that is not where and how that chapter ends.
 
S
SC,

Okay, I won't pry. But here are some things to think about:

Why are you using Old Testament stories as your absolute standard??!! Did we not previously agree that the Old Testament is NOT the standard, and it is NOT reliable? (rhetorical questions).

Also, of all the billions of people who ever lived, perhaps only a couple hundred ever claimed to have God speak to them directly. Now Daniel was supposedly a chosen prophet of God who had great faith. Nebuchadnezzar was the most powerful king on planet Earth. Now what makes you so special? Isn't this your pride talking instead of sensible reasoning?

Now I, my mother, and numerous others claim to have had direct contact with spirits; their appearing before us in full body manifestation and speaking to us. By you denying that we've had these experiences, you are essentially calling us all pathological liars, or are essentially calling us all crackpots; we should be in insane asylums. There are only 3 options dude! So unless 100% of us are liars and crackpots, then the supernatural exists. Ta da!

Going back to Ken Ham and his Creationist museum: They want to believe that God created Earth in six 24 hour days 6,000 years ago; they want to believe in Noah's ark; they want to believe that people put saddles on dinosaurs and rode them around; especially children. They don't want to believe that we evolved from one-celled amoebas, monkeys, or whatever! And anyway, you can't prove that their scenario never happened, as you cannot prove that yours did. None of us are thousands or millions of years old; we weren't there when it all started.

So why rock the boat, and impede the joy of so many people? You have no proof that that stuff hurts anyone. I have no proof that belief in Evolution hurts anyone either, but I have evidence. Hitler used Evolution to promote his agenda.
 
S
I think it is time to call this conversation off.

If you want to convince me that a divine being (or beings) exist and are interacting with this world (as opposed to starting it up and walking away to let it run itself), then tell me what happened to me and why I think it significant. That should be a fairly easy thing for an all-powerful, all-omniscient being to communicate to you. But it is a fairly good bet that this being can't or won't. Until then, we are just discussing hypotheses and I am tired of discussing hypothesis.

The ONLY thing I want to discuss from this point on is, what is the experience that I am asking about and why is it significant. Period. Either your God can produce the goods or He can't or won't. If it's can't or won't, discussion is ended.
 
Brent
If you can not debate without emotions getting the best of you then step away.
 
IContainMultitudes
Just for the record, I was the one who deleted the comments, not SC. Attacking someone for their AS-related traits is not acceptable.
 

Blog entry information

Author
Spinning Compass
Read time
3 min read
Views
2,151
Comments
17
Last update

More entries in Everyday Life

More entries from Spinning Compass

Share this entry

Top Bottom