Hi Sabrina,
:: I think you're missing the point: the critics I've seen post on this thread are not calling on Christians to be tolerant. They're pointing out that the claim by certain Christian apologists that the Christian faith is inherently tolerant is wrong. I've reread pages 4-7 of this thread and I see nothing that would support your claim that, by some unspecified posters, "Christians are called on to be tolerant". This is a good example of what can produce frustration in us critics: you somehow invented a claim that was never made (i.e., "Christians are called on to be tolerant ..."), and then implied that the people doing the calling are hypocrites, further implying that all critics are hypocrites. Perhaps that's not what you really meant, but it certainly reads that way to me.
: You're right I worded that poorly but not because I was trying to invent something.
I realize that you weren't trying to invent something, but nevertheless, you did invent a claim by virtue of ascribing words to critics that they had not said. I'm sure you also realize why it's frustrating dealing with a poster who claims you said something you never did.
: That was simply how I felt after Norm's post claiming that Christianity's claim to be the only true religion automatically made it intolerant.
Precisely my point. You didn't respond to what was actually said, but to a feeling you had -- a feeling that doesn't represent the attitude of anyone I'm familiar with who has posted to this thread.
: I tried to show that was not the case with all churches and all Christians.
I understand that very well. In fact, I'm quite happy that many of my Christian friends are extremely tolerant. Nevertheless, I don't consider them proper Christians, because they don't go along with the intolerance that the New Testament so clearly teaches.
: But when someone, Christian or non-Christian, wants to prove a point or insists on defending a position no amount of proof or discussion will make a difference.
That's simply not true. I myself have changed strongly held opinions many times, when sufficient evidence has been presented. That's why I'm no longer a JW or a Christian.
: He and I will always disagree on that point. No big deal though. Neither of us is above being wrong, well, I know I'm not.
From what I've read of this thread up to now, it seems to me that you and Norm (I think you're referring to him; correct me if I'm wrong) actually do agree that Christianity is basically intolerant. I'm sure that we all agree that a religion that teaches that people who don't go along with it will be killed by its God is inherently intolerant. If not, then the definition of intolerance means nothing. Norm stated that Christianity is like that, and you agreed by saying that Jesus pointed "the way, the only way". So it's possible to find agreement after all.
: Yet, while I agree that my wording was poor and you're right no one has "called" for Christians to be more tolerant I do believe that a great intolerance towards exJW Christians exists here.
You're right, but let's note for the record that you're changing the subject. That's fine; I enjoy eclectic discussions. Several posters have explained in part why Christians come under fire fairly often; I'm sure you understand their reasoning. However, I wouldn't necessarily call criticism intolerance. I criticize Flat-Earthism but I doubt that you'd characterize me as being unfairly intolerant of Flat-Earthers. Indeed, as long as they don't try to argue that I'm a wicked person because I don't believe in a flat earth, I probably won't try to convince them otherwise. But should a Flat-Earther try to peddle his foolishness on this forum, you can bet that I'll criticize his views. In view of this, because Christianity is inherently condemnatory of unbelievers, any discussion whatsoever that promotes it is inherently condemnatory of critics. Thus, critics' hackles are usually up from square one when an apologist pops up.
: Yet, AlanF, we too have left the Watchtower and we too have suffered just like everyone else here.
I'm fully aware of that.
: Is it really so bad that we still believe?
That's a loaded question, frankly. My personal opinion is that anyone who still subscribes to Christianity after quitting the JWs probably hasn't done all the homework she should. I might be wrong, but that's my opinion.
: I understand the preaching aversions I feel the same way. I do not like to be preached to especially by some who feel they have a direct connection to God etc. But that is very different from merely discussing a Biblical event like the flood.
Yes, it is, but such discussions inevitably lead to differences of opinion. Such differences ought to be backed up by solid evidence and argumentation.
: "A Christian" did not start this thread, he merely posted his thoughts on it. Yet, AlanF, I must say he was treated by some as if he were a rabid dog. So people disagree with him, okay, that's fine. But why the ridicule and all that?
There has been some ridicule, to be sure, but a Christian responded to almost all questioners in the same way -- with evasions. Evasions automatically bring ridicule from intelligent ex-JWs, no?
: Superior attitudes and arrogant words are I suppose today the right of those who have become Bible critics? Okay, that's fine.
I think that some posters could tone such attitudes down a bit and have better discussions, yes.
: But don't expect the target to continue to stick around for target practice. You mentioned no Christian responded to one of your posts. I got half way through a response to it until I realized it serves no purpose to so when all some people are looking for is a fault for taget practice not a genuine discussion.
You're making an unfair judgment here, much like JWs who hear a criticism of their cult and automatically assume that there's no way the critic would ever listen to 'reason', or judge that the critic is a hater of God simply because he criticizes the cult. If you have a genuine, well-reasoned response, then let's hear it. But if I disagree with your reasoning, then I'll point it out, just as you've pointed out where you disagree with mine. I'm certainly not getting bent out of shape just because someone disagrees with my views.
: These discussions sometimes become, as you say, in part just a game. Well, for me, it is not a game.
I already pointed out to you that our 'game' has a very serious side, so my calling what I do a 'game' is partly tongue-in-cheek.
: If you and others want to war with Christianity please go to it!
Ok!
: God knows there are many filthy hypocrites and false brothers there. I wish you well in your quest. But to war for wars sake or to destroy anothers faith to save him is serious business.
I view a lot of my criticisms more as spurs to get people to think beyond the narrow confines of their childhood learnings. Until people do that, they have absolutely no idea what amazing things there are to be learned and new modes of thought to explore.
: The GB thought they knew better than us and we followed. If you think you have found a better way and know better than Christians that's fine but that is your way, not mine.
Again, my goal is to get people to explore beyond where they are, to think outside the box, not to tell them where to explore or what to find.
: That is your belief, not mine. That is your stand, not mine. Please allow exJW Christians the dignity of their own mind and conscience by simply treating them as you would anyone else not as something to be shot at and changed towards what you believe is a better way. We did that enough as JWs don't you think?
Well that depends on just what you want to have dignity. I'm certainly not going to dignify the ludicrous ideas of young-earth creationism by verbally 'allowing' that its adherents have every right to believe what they want. They do have that right in a free society, of course, but not to be free from criticism. And I'm not going to verbally allow that JWs have much dignity of mind and conscience when I know perfectly well what kind of mind control they're subjected to and how that affects their ability to reason, and even to recognize the truth when they see it. So why should I not be consistent in everything else that comes up for discussion on this board?
AlanF
