Why do so-called believers need my approval or that of any atheist?

by Band on the Run 47 Replies latest jw friends

  • cofty

    are you nuts? cofty lovable - lmao - Ruby 456

    Good morning to you Ruby from your cuddly atheist :)

  • Laika

    Everyone needs to be validated sometimes. That's why atheists from the US bible belt complain about how they can be treated. It's not unique to Christians.

    Telling us we don't need approval is easier said than believed.

  • jhine

    Laika , I personally meant that I did not come onto this site to find aproval from either the atheists or Christians on here , which is what I think BotR meant . ( tell me if I am wrong please ) .


  • Laika

    Sure Jan, and I love discussion/challenges. But I think a lot of people also come here to validate their choice to leave the society.

  • KateWild


    I haven't read any other comments yet. I just wanted to respond to you first.

    Cofty is not your father. I am not your mother. Why does it bother you so much that we disagree with you?-BOTR

    I love cofty's objections, it's great he actually helps me to feel good about why I have a different belief to him. You may not be my mother, but you endorse me in other ways on different threads. I love Adam to bits also.

    I don't see posters with labels. They are all individuals to me. They are my new circle of friends, and part of my exit plan. When I read these God vs Atheist threads it helps me get to know posters. Many are recovering, upset, and young too. We are all at different stages emotionally and spiritually.

    BOTR Good thread thank you

    Kate xx

  • Stand for Pure Worship
    Stand for Pure Worship

    Something I don't get is, and I'm asking question from neutral position not taking sides with the atheist or believing crowd here on JWN. My question, why do atheists feel the need to jump into every discussion clearly not meant for them to take part of? I realize that it's hypocritical of me to ask that question considering I'm on an apostate forum, but I don't believe it invalidates my question. It's a given, that if a believer initiates a thread requesting feedback from other believers, one of the non-believers on this forum will feel obligated to throw their two cents in, thereby ensuring a flamefest. Often when the non-believer abruptly enters the discussion, they'll say something snarky and condescending towards the believer in a conscious or possibly unconscious effort to belittle the believer personally, or their beliefs. I just don't entirely get that. Why jump in a thread or discussion clearly not meant for you and then feel offended when they don't agree with your position? It makes me wonder if some of the atheists on this forum are going above and beyond in an effort validate their own beliefs, or lack of belief.

  • LucidChimp

    SFPW: bohm started a thread for atheists to answer a question... Believers got involved = I remember reading NO whining about it from atheists... Jus' sayin'.

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    Wikipedia and other enyclopedias discuss Christianity. There is a chart that amazed me given the bloody and constant warfare in European history between different popes, competing religious orders, etc. When one analyses core beliefs, 98% of people calling themselves Christians share about five or six beliefs concerning Christ. A key component is the Christology of the Trinity. True, these are broadly worded. All the bloodshed in England over whether to stand or kneel during communion seems perverted. Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox churches share the same central ideas. Against this group, are a small minority of people calling themselves Christians, such as the Witnesses and Mormon. I need to get going. Perhaps I will try to find the chart and import it here.

    As an academic matter, I would state that Christianity is self-idenitfying. Well, there is a small group of members here who believe no one should challenge that hearing voices is a sign of love from Christ, the subordinate. They are wedded to JW analysis. Jews do not allow others to self-identify as Jews. The rough idea is Judaism is genetic through the mother's line or extreme study. Jews make it very hard to convert.

    I find it unfair for others to impose their vision on others. Perhaps I swing too far to provide an alternative. One idea is when you call yourself Christian, state what you mean by Christian. From my viewpoint, anyone who has the JW conception of Jesus as no more than God's son does not share the basic tenets of Christianity. It is my litmus test as a Christian. For me, all else is secondary. Salvation, grace. Christology sums it up. I would like clarification.

    I am not here as a religous history professor. Tammy strikes me as nice and silly. I do respect her. We are here to discuss. I am entitled to state that what you are pushing is not a basic idea of Christianity as 98% of Christians view it.

    Believers. True believers may have doubts. I can not view the Bible as a good idea. Too much in both the OT and NT is morally reprehensible. Millions of people around the world lives diminished or short lives b/c of Christian doctrines or the debasement of Christianity by political and economic power. As a teenager, I confront these concerns. Should I have no believe? I considered myself an existentialist in the tradition of Camus and Sartre. Yet someplace in my brain good Jesus remained. Studying the Bible, I saw beautiful passages in Paul, which shocked me after the Witnesses. I wept reading the gospels. I am what I am. There has always been a Christian intelligentsia. Intellectuals standing apart from the church or critquing it from within.

    I've repeated this story so many times. One day the subway was out at the Columbia subway stop. Since it was nice weather, I decided to walk down to the next stop on a street students rarely use. As I walked, I passed this church that seemed to be no big deal. There was a sign stating that Cesar Chevas (one of my heroes. the migrant worker organizer) and Geraldo Rivera, a local TV reporter were giving a sermon. I drove ino hear Chavez. Rivera would not make me take one step). The church was the largest cathedral in the world. It was an ecumenical center with visitors from around the world. The music was heavenly. People debated the merits of the provoking sermons. No one wanted confirmity. There was a liturgical dance group. Sculptors and textile artists were in residence under the main part of the church. Must I throw good Jesus out with the bad Witness water? No.

    Over much time, I joined a community where Dan Berrigan and other Woodstock Jesuits broke the rules and celebrated mas with Anglican priests. It was an intellectual hotbead. People actually knew Dietrich Bonhoffer before his execution. Paul Tillich and theologians such as Hans kung came to preach. Shinto priests came. Rabbis came. I learned deep in my soul that Christians could be literate and witty. We must doubt. Questions were encouraged. Sometimes I felt as I swoon away when I thought of the Witness culture. Christians can get good grades at elite schools. We can write wonderful works of fiction. We can seek common cause with Jews, Hindus, and others as faith communities.

    Many here know what I mean. This works for me. I will not be shamed b/c people cannot read or research. All this does not mean a good heart is useless. Good hearts and kindness are more important. Intellectuals are not bad people. One can say I love reading books. I was a Witness. Learning was bad. Questions were bad. Because I dared to say these things are possible, a few people make rude comments. I am now an adult woman. My profession is law. There is nothing wrong with discussing these things. If others cannot keep up, they don't have to do so.

    I refuse to accept rule from the Witness Taliban or the Voices Taliban. Am I a bitch? No! I feel very fortunate that through some lucky breaks but mostly damn hard work that I was able to study at Columbia and one of the very top law schools. I never thought I would see any college. Unlike many lawyers, I feel that people in other fields should understand how our system works. TV paints a false picture that I believed. Stupid me thought if I explained First Amendment law or the challenges of law suits, members here might understand how to handle their private campagins against the WT. People pay a lot of money for such information. I worked on Supreme Court cases. My intention was to educate. Suing the WT is rarely a good idea. When others have expertise in any field that I do not, I am grateful. I would not call a plumber I need a bitch or a bastard.

    There are class wars here. I will not dumb down. First, members here strike me as very sharp --with some exceptions. The science threads amaze me. Mention a book here and a certain segment takes offense. Most do not. Christians have a reputation for ignorance. One can be educated, sophisticated, and a Christian. If I must choose sides in the class wars, I will choose atheism over narrow minds. When I arrived here, not knowing anything about ths forum besides that other former Witnesses posted here, my first post was pulled apart viciously by Shelby. Since her whatchamacallit voices were so intensely personal and scripture had deep meaning or no meaning b/c whatchamacallit told her to ignore it, one could not debate. No, I was not entitled to a view. Now everyone else besides Shelby's inner circle was welcoming. I will resist the Taliban.

  • KateWild

    LC, yeah that was me on Bohm's thread. Threads are not exclusive to anyone, it's a free for all. Kate xx

  • Stand for Pure Worship
    Stand for Pure Worship

    Ok, so I missed Bohm's thread, and so it shows that it goes both ways. What I've seen since I've been on here as of late, is an almost compulsive like need for non-believers to get involved in discussions involving believers clearly for believers. So, the believers do the same to the non-believer threads. I don't get the why? I mean it's understandable if the thread is designed for debate between both believers and non-believers, but why does one side feel the need to get involved when it's not supposed to involve them? It's like showing up for a party you clearly weren't invited to.

Share this