Insight No. 87,643

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:35 am

Last night, safely tucked up in bed as the rain outside lashed against the window and while everyone was asleep in the deep, I read about Heinrich Himmler's theory of the universe. As some of you may know, Himmler's cosmological theory is a strange one. It asserts that the entire universe with all of its countless billions of stars and galaxies and dimensions is contained within the hollow interior of a gigantic sphere, and that if we were to travel out far enough from our position here on earth across the depths of space - which means travelling on and on past innumerable planets and suns and through silent interstellar darkness (and many such darknesses) for a very long time - then we would eventually come up against the inner surface of this unimaginably vast sphere and find ourselves walled in. It is funny to think that Himmler actually ordered a number of German astronomers to find proof for his bizarre theory. However, I immediately recognised this theory for what it is: namely, the womb fantasy of a megalomaniac.

No sooner had I grasped the true nature of the Reichsfuhrer's cosmological theory - its psychological underpinning, if you like - when another insight inexplicably flashed through my mind. I have set out this insight as follows:

Insight No. 87,643

Perhaps you are aware that insecurity and fear are two of the motivating forces which underlie the evangelical Christian's attempt to convince other people about the 'truth' of his religion. Perhaps you are also aware that the evangelical Christian's insecurity and fear stem from the doubt which afflicts him about his own religion at an unconscious level. After all, the evangelical Christian knows in his heart of hearts that because his religion is only a matter of faith there is every possibility that it is utter nonsense, that it may be nothing more than a childish delusion, a form of self-deception.

Needless to say, the doubt which the evangelical Christian feels towards his own religion is too painful to be allowed to enter his conscious awareness and so some of it becomes repressed deep in his psyche and some of it is projected onto others. By projecting this doubt onto others the evangelical Christian can avoid having to confront it in himself: thus, once this defence-mechanism is up and running, once he has shifted his doubt about his own religion onto others, once he has made his mind lighter in this way, the evangelical Christian gushes to himself with relief: "I am not the one who needs to be convinced about the truth of my religion. Absolutely not. It is them - the infidels, the heathen, the unsaved ones who need to be!" Therefore, when the evangelical Christian attempts to persuade others about the 'truth' of his religion what he is really doing is attempting to persuade himself.

~o0o~

Such was the insight which flashed through my mind last night. This insight receives confirmation from the English psychiatrist and author, Anthony Storr, who writes:

'The religious evangelist is usually convinced that he has discovered 'the truth' and the fervent certainty with which he proclaims this accounts to a large extent for his ability to persuade others of it. However, we should suspect that the conviction expressed by the evangelist is less absolute than it appears in that his apparent confidence needs boosting by others. There is reason to think that all evangelists harbour secret doubts and that this is why they are driven so strongly to win converts.'

It can be said, then, that the more fervently the evangelical Christian proclaims his religion to be 'true' the more severe are the doubts that he secretly holds about it.

Regards

James

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:18 am

flopstock;571057 wrote: Here's my problem with the entire reasoning behind your post...

If you substitute 'believe' for the 'are aware' and 'are also aware' I'd be a lot more open to listening to what you believe. As I read this post I come away with the impression that you are perhaps just as worried, if not more so... that perhaps they are right..

Perhaps they are right about what, flopstock? The truth of their religion? Yes, perhaps they are right about it. Perhaps it is true. Then again, perhaps it is not. Perhaps it is false.

Who can say? No one, of course. This is because the 'truths' which Christianity holds out to its followers are metaphysical 'truths' and, as such, their truth or falsity cannot be demonstrated. This is why there must always be an element of doubt concerning these 'truths' in the mind of not only the evangelical Christian but of every Christian no matter how much they deceive themselves otherwise.

Since this form of doubt exists necessarily in all Christians, since it is a sentiment which they all hold in common, since it is something which is universally true about them, it can be understood as being objective in nature. Therefore, when I stated in the OP that the (evangelical) Christian feels doubt towards his religion, even if only at an unconscious level, it was a matter of fact I was stating, and not merely a belief. Accordingly, because the Christian's doubt about his religion is a matter of fact, because it is a natural corollary of his believing what he does believe (viz. metaphysical 'truths'), because it is something inevitably produced in him by his religion, this fact is capable of being grasped by all people who are rational and unbiased. In other words, there is nothing about the fact itself which prevents anyone from recognising it clearly and taking it 'on board', which is to say, from becoming aware of it. That is why my use of the word 'aware' in respect of the Christian's doubt was legitimate and appropriate in the OP, and why you too can become aware of this doubt in him, flopstock - although you might want to blind yourself to it for reasons which you find unsettling.

Given that the truth or falsity of Christianity's metaphysical claims cannot be established one way or the other it is pretty pointless to ask whether or not they are true. I think the sort of questions we should be asking about this religion are the following ones: What type of person would want to believe the stuff which Christianity teaches? Why do they feel the need to believe this stuff? How does this need come about, that is, what are its underlying causes? Etc. I think seeking answers to questions like these can provide us with some insight into what Christianity is really about. What do you think, flopstock?

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 10:27 am

Far Rider;573157 wrote: I cant count the times my father gave away all we had to support one ministry after another, and more would come in to supply our needs. Not just once, but weekly and monthly this happened, again and again.

Tell me, Far Rider: How did the money necessary to supply the needs of your family 'come in'? Did it materialise out of thin air? Was it delivered unto your family by angels from on high? What was supernatural about the way in which your family came into possession of this money 'again and again'?

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 11:03 am

Far Rider;573157 wrote: I cant count the times my father gave away all we had to support one ministry after another, and more would come in to supply our needs. Not just once, but weekly and monthly this happened, again and again.

Rational people refer to this phenomenon as a wage.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:49 am

Pardon my curiosity and don't answer if I offend. But were you brought up as a wee free? You have all the fervour of the once brainwashed let free of their chains.

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:53 pm

Far Rider;574003 wrote: What was supernatural about it? No one else knew the need, and the money was sent in to us from folks all over the world.

But if no one else knew the need, Far Rider, how did the folks you refer to know who to send the money to? Did 'God' provide them with your family's name and address details as well?

Far Rider wrote: And often it was for an exact amount.

But what about the times it wasn't? What about the times when they sent a different amount from the one prayed for? If the amount of money which your family needed was communicated to your distant benefactors by 'God' then they should have been very clear as to what this amount was. They would have been in no doubt whatsoever regarding this 'divinely' specified amount of money. They would have sent the exact amount of money 'God' commanded them to every time, wouldn't they? So why were there times when they failed to do this?

May I ask you another question, Far Rider?

I think a 'God' who answers prayers for money and yet who stood by and did nothing while babies were thrown into furnaces at Auschwitz is a God who is beneath contempt. What do you think?

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 1:17 pm

Perhaps if you start with "Insight No. 1" we can make some sense of how you got so delusional.

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 1:43 pm

gmc;574263 wrote: Pardon my curiosity and don't answer if I offend. But were you brought up as a wee free? You have all the fervour of the once brainwashed let free of their chains.

No, I was brought up by parents who were (and still are) non-religious, gmc.

Ah, how well I remember those happy years raised in a household whose atmosphere was highly conducive to my moral and intellectual development, and very pleasing to my senses! In chapter 132 of my autobiography, gmc, I describe this atmosphere as 'the atmosphere of sanity'.

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:32 pm

gmc;574263 wrote: You have all the fervour of the once brainwashed let free of their chains.

No, gmc. The fervour which you detect in me is completely different from what you think. For it is the fervour born of love. And let me tell you what the nature of this love is. It is the love of Truth - and, yes, I am hopelessly infatuated with Her.

BH672 · Post by **BH672** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 3:33 pm

Glaswegian;574543 wrote:

I think a 'God' who answers prayers for money and yet who stood by and did nothing while babies were thrown into furnaces at Auschwitz is a God who is beneath contempt. What do you think?

It's estimated that over 1 million unborn babies are murdered on the planet each month. IF there is a God and IF he treated humanity as we deserve, we would all be dead. What is contemptable is selective outrage.

What's your point?

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:44 pm

Glaswegian wrote: I think a God who answers prayers for money and yet who stood by and did nothing while babies were thrown into furnaces at Auschwitz is a God who is beneath contempt.

BH672;574650 wrote: It's estimated that over 1 million unborn babies are murdered on the planet each month. IF there is a God and IF he treated humanity as we deserve, we would all be dead. What is contemptable is selective outrage.

What's your point?

My point is, of course, that if God exists then He is unworthy of us.

BH672 wrote: IF there is a God and IF he treated humanity as we deserve, we would all be dead.

What a bad conscience you must have, BH672!

BH672 wrote: IF there is a God and IF he treated humanity as we deserve, we would all be dead.

But you can't blame Him for not trying, can you? I mean, for not trying to...er...take care of us in the way that you suggest. After all, look at the Black Death.

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:29 pm

koan;574552 wrote: Perhaps if you start with "Insight No. 1" we can make some sense of how you got so delusional.
"Insight No. 1" is actually an ointment I invented for the chafed penis 12 years ago, koan. And before you get any ideas - I already own the patent for it.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:48 pm

Glaswegian;574741 wrote: "Insight No. 1" is actually an ointment I invented for the chafed penis 12 years ago, koan. And before you get any ideas - I already own the patent for it.

Like your other insights, they only seem to solve problems that no one else here suffers from.

BH672 · Post by **BH672** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:21 pm

Glaswegian;574698 wrote: My point is, of course, that if God exists then He is unworthy of us.
Play the confusion artist with someone else, please. I doubted that you were overly concerned with the plight of children, past or present. Your sensationalism was no more than a stick to beat Far Rider over the head, and maybe win a few cheap debate points. And you find his God contemptable?

Glaswegian wrote: But you can't blame Him for not trying, can you? I mean, for not trying to...er...take care of us in the way that you suggest. After all, look at the Black Death.
I did not suggest a way. Are you suggesting that the Black Death was divine? Far Rider will be pleased that you acknowledge God. Now, if you could just work on that respect thing.

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 12:57 am

Glaswegian wrote: "Insight No. 1" is actually an ointment I invented for the chafed penis 12 years ago, koan. And before you get any ideas - I already own the patent for it.
koan;574783 wrote: Like your other insights, they only seem to solve problems that no one else here suffers from.

You mean, like the problem of too much sex?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:08 am

Glaswegian;574586 wrote: No, gmc. The fervour which you detect in me is completely different from what you think. For it is the fervour born of love. And let me tell you what the nature of this love is. It is the love of Truth - and, yes, I am hopelessly infatuated with Her.

I think you are flogging a dead horse here. religious belief is inherently irrational and trying to have a rational discussion with someone that is irrational about something that is in itself irrational is not likely to end up in a rational agreement to respect each others viewpoint as you each try and beat each other around the head with your own version of the club of truth.

Try getting evangelical christians to set up their stall at an old firm game. Who knows maybe both sides of the sectarian divide can find common ground beating the crap out of their fellow christians. Happy clappies vs the papes and the prods who would win do you think.

But you can't blame Him for not trying, can you? I mean, for not trying to...er...take care of us in the way that you suggest. After all, look at the Black Death.

Could have been sent by god. After all it hit all sections of society and maybe he was reminding those who looked down on others not to think themselves better than others and those living in abject misery to be grateful for what they have and with their position in life. Although since it affected non christians as well he was clearly punishing them for not being christian. Although he made them as well presumably.

If the above makes you smile well and good but as the wee frees have it laugh and the devil gets in.

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:57 am

AMERICAN 'CRASS-TIANITY'

The astute Christian evangelist will readily grasp the lesson to be learned from the fact that once upon a time the natives of Greenland declared that they did not want to go to Heaven after naive Christian missionaries informed them that there were no seals there. The lesson to be learned is, of course, that the Christian message must be tailored to fit the cultural needs and mindset of its target audience otherwise it will be rejected. Thus, in the United States the Christian message has been made more alluring by re-packaging it in such a way that it is consistent with the rampant materialism of American culture. What is now on offer to believers in the land of opportunity is a burgeoning form of Evangelicalism known as the 'Prosperity Gospel' which, as one writer puts it, is characterised by the doctrine that 'the Christian has a right to obtain material satisfaction through the prosperity won for believers by Christ'.

Therefore, it shouldn't surprise us that many Americans like Far Rider do not see anything crass about praying to God for money. For, in their eyes, petitioning God for more 'bread' is just part of the American way. Similarly, many of these Americans do not see anything crass about 'shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money ('God wants you to give till it hurts').* Nor do they see anything crass about the hundreds of millions of begging letters systematically issued by Christian churches to the American public offering salvation in return for cash. I will try to provide you with an example of this type of begging letter later in this thread. For it will show you the level to which American 'Crass-tianity' can sink far better than I ever could.

* This is Richard Dawkins' description of American televangelists in the Preface to his magnificent book The God Delusion.

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 4:59 am

gmc;574871 wrote: religious belief is inherently irrational and trying to have a rational discussion with someone that is irrational about something that is in itself irrational is not likely to end up in a rational agreement to respect each others viewpoint

I agree very much with what you say here, gmc. As I've stated elsewhere in this forum:

Debate should proceed on the basis of rational argument. But this is precisely why debating with religious believers is always problematic. You see, religious believers haven't reasoned themselves into their beliefs. Religious beliefs are not based on reason. They are based on emotions, feelings, sentiments, needs, wishes, yearnings, longings, etc. Trying to reason with these things is like trying to reason with toothache or hunger or sexual desire. Such things are not amenable to reason.

gmc wrote: you each try and beat each other around the head with your own version of the club of truth

What I actually try to do is offer the believer reasoned arguments in support of the view that his religion is a delusion. But what does the believer offer in return? He tends to chant scripture or fabricate idiotic tales about 'miracles' (e.g., managing to find an empty parking space downtown; the 'miraculous' appearance of the Lord's face on a walnut; receiving gifts of cash through the post; etc.).

gmc wrote: I think you are flogging a dead horse here.

I agree with you here too. But when it comes to religious believers I let compassion override my good sense. I refuse to give up on them, gmc.

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 5:44 am

BH672;574793 wrote: Are you suggesting that the Black Death was divine?
Not at all, BH672. It is Judaeo-Christianity which suggests this. Remember: according to this religious tradition God created everything and 'saw that it was good' (Gen. 1: 21). This means that God not only created puppies and kittens but mosquitos, tapeworms and, yes, even the bacterium which caused the Black Death as well.

Who do you think caused the Black Death, BH672? Let me guess - the Germans?

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:55 am

flopstock;575006 wrote: Do you mind if I ask something really stupid here? What is a 'wee free'? I've never heard that term before..although to be honest I don't read much on religious stuff so it's probably my own fault.
A 'wee free' is the nickname given to a member of the ('Wee') Free Church Of Scotland. I'm sure that gmc will tell you more about them, flopstock, but here's my take:

The ('Wee') Free Church Of Scotland is a rabid Christian sect who are so fanatical in their religious beliefs that they make the Taliban look like The Partridge Family. Apparently, Charles Manson tried to join this church in the sixties but he was turned downed as being 'too moderate'.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:15 am

flopstock;575006 wrote: Do you mind if I ask something really stupid here? What is a 'wee free'? I've never heard that term before..although to be honest I don't read much on religious stuff so it's probably my own fault.

It's not stupid at all. .

In the 19th century the church of scotland-which is stoutly presbytarian had a schism and the break away group formed what was known as the free church of scotland. there was a subsequent breakaway from the free church that became known colloquially as the wee frees. They are notoriously dour and unforgiving and completely lacking in humour of any kind, which naturally makes them the butt of many jokes. Not so long ago they excommunicated one of their high heid yins for attending a catholic funeral. Think amish without any redeeming qualities and no sense of humour.

Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it. It's a cultural in joke peculiar to scotland that I knew glaswegian would get

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:05 am

Far Rider;574787 wrote: The fact that it was a supernatural occurance makes it unexplainable

I would suggest that there was nothing supernatural about this occurrence at all, Far Rider. The occurrence only appeared supernatural in your eyes because you misinterpreted your experience of naturally-occurring phenomena (viz. the generosity shown by people towards your family after they heard about its financial plight.) But it's okay, Far Rider, I understand. You need to misinterpret your experience in this way in order to prop up your delusional belief system.

Now let me ask you this, Far Rider:

Did your father or any other member of your family (or any individual or group acting on your family's behalf) ever attempt to solicit money from other persons for any reason or cause that could be construed as religious in nature?

BH672 · Post by **BH672** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:07 am

Glaswegian;574996 wrote: Who do you think caused the Black Death, BH672? Let me guess - the Germans?
The Germans were too busy throwing babies into the furnaces of Auschwitz because there was no one left to speak up for them, remember? Blaming God for man's indifference to his own cruelty is so . . . . . delusional. Don't you agree?

Glaswegian;574959 wrote:

I agree with you here too. But when it comes to religious believers I let compassion override my good sense. I refuse to give up on them, gmc.
Demonstrating compassion, rather than just talking about it, requires a measure of grace, mercy and tolerance. In this regard, you have failed to establish the superiority of your worldview over Far Rider's. Have the good sense to apologize to him.

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:31 am

Glaswegian wrote: Who do you think caused the Black Death, BH672? Let me guess - the Germans?

BH672;575225 wrote: The Germans were too busy throwing babies into the furnaces of Auschwitz because there was no one left to speak up for them, remember?

I do believe you're out by about six centuries here, BH672.

BH672 wrote: Blaming God for man's indifference to his own cruelty is so . . . . . delusional.

It is God's indifference which is at issue here, not Man's cruelty. God's utter indifference to suffering humanity was the point I made earlier with regard to the Holocaust. How easily you forget this, BH672! (But I know it's more convenient for you to forget this, isn't it?) Regarding the Holocaust, God was guilty of a crime of omission on a breath-taking scale - a failure to act when it was within His power to act so as to prevent the most appalling human suffering imaginable. We humans have devised systems of justice to deal with crimes of omission. Indeed, individuals have been executed for this type of crime. So why should God be let off the hook over his indifference to the Holocaust? And the Holocaust is just one of God's crimes of omission. The crimes of omission which God is guilty of are more numerous than all the grains of sand on all the shorelines of the world.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 5:01 pm

flopstock:-6

Your last post was excellent and right on. Thanks.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 5:47 pm

almostfamous;574819 wrote: IMO believing in God and the ways of Him are as easily explained as the wind.

In that case, almost famous, can you explain to me why He wiped out the dinosaurs?

PS

If that's too easy for you, try explaining it while you juggle oranges at the same time.

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 5:52 pm

flopstock;575254 wrote: I do believe this is where the concept of 'free will' comes into play.

So how does it come into play, flopstock?

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:21 pm

Ted;575510 wrote: flopstock:-6

Your last post was excellent and right on. Thanks.

Shalom

Ted:-6

I see that you've decided to...er...'start' reading my posts again, Ted. :yh_giggle

Why is that?

BH672 · Post by **BH672** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:02 pm

Glaswegian;575250 wrote: I do believe you're out by about six centuries here, BH672.
I gave you too much credit, that went over your head. You blame God for the suffering of the holocaust, but not for the suffering of the black death, and now excuse your inconsistency with the time line. Have your ointment in hand, G, I'll aim lower next time. My premise is simple: man's depravity is the cause of his suffering, and history backs me up. Your premise is not only more complicated, I'm not even sure you are qualified to make it:

Glaswegian;574698 wrote: My point is, of course, that if God exists then He is unworthy of us.
IF? Do you believe that he exists or not? If not, quit screwing around and let's talk about something else. If so, how will you be responsible to him for the suffering you have caused? You want his justice for others, but I know what you want for yourself: the grace, mercy and tolerance that you do not demonstrate toward those who do not share your views. My point is, of course, that IF there is a God, we do not want him to give us what we deserve.

Glaswegian wrote: It is God's indifference which is at issue here, not Man's cruelty.
Why, because you say so? I see that 'free will' has been brought up, and that it has triggered another question from you. That you are shaking your fist in defiance of a God that you may or may not believe in should allow you to answer your own question about free will. You choose. I choose, we all do. Humanity has a history of choosing poorly, place your blame and bitterness there.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:13 pm

I must say that I am in agreement with the intent of Far Rider's post. Many folks, today, have a very narrow view of what Christianity is about. i.e. The church is out to make money; or the church is only out to control people. Those and many others are so far from the truth as to display a complete lack of knowledge of Christianity in the 21st. Cent.

Where I do have a disagreement is in the judgment about who is and who is not a "true Christian". One can give the impression that if one does not think just like the person making the judgment then they are not true Christians. It seems to me that the only one who can make such a judgment is God alone. Who in this world is able to judge the heart of another? It seems to me that we ought to be very careful in judging others since we have no right to make such judgments.

I am also in agreement with Far Rider's feelings about the threads started by old glassy eyes. I've read none of his words in this thread only those of the responders. He has absolutely nothing whatsoever to say to me that I care to read.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:53 am

flopstock;575595 wrote: Please note that you are the first off topic in this thread... why is that?

It always ruins a conversation..

bye

Don't be so anal, flopstock.

I was justified in saying what I did to Ted. (As you are about to see.)

Come back to me.

I'm missing you already.

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:10 am

Ted wrote: I've read none of his [Glaswegian's] words in this thread only those of the responders.

That is untrue, Ted, and you know it.

Now I am going to demonstrate why you weren't telling the truth when you made that statement. This involves looking at three posts made earlier in this thread in addition to yours above: namely, a post by me; a post by flopstock; and a post by you, Ted.

Here are those three posts in the order that they appeared in this thread:

1.
Glaswegian;575250 wrote: It is God's indifference which is at issue here, not Man's cruelty. God's utter indifference to suffering humanity was the point I made earlier with regard to the Holocaust. How easily you forget this, BH672! (But I know it's more convenient for you to forget this, isn't it?) Regarding the Holocaust, God was guilty of a crime of omission on a breath-taking scale - a failure to act when it was within His power to act so as to prevent the most appalling human suffering imaginable. We humans have devised systems of justice to deal with crimes of omission. Indeed, individuals have been executed for this type of crime. So why should God be let off the hook over his indifference to the Holocaust? And the Holocaust is just one of God's crimes of omission. The crimes of omission which God is guilty of are more numerous than all the grains of sand on all the shorelines of the world.
2.
flopstock wrote: I do believe this is where the concept of "free will" comes into play.

3.
Ted wrote: flopstock :-6

Your last post was excellent and right on. Thanks.

Shalom

Ted :-6

Let's take a closer look at what you said in the foregoing post, Ted. Specifically, at this statement:

Ted wrote: flopstock :-6

Your last post was excellent and right on.

Now, flopstock's post had to be 'right on' in relation to something. I mean, it couldn't be 'right on' in relation to nothing, could it? So what was flopstock's post 'right on' in relation to, Ted? In your eyes, his post was 'right on' in relation to a post made by me. This one:

Glaswegian wrote: It is God's indifference which is at issue here, not Man's cruelty....etc., etc., etc...

Now, in order for you to know that flopstock's response to the foregoing post of mine was 'right on' you must have read my post, Ted. Otherwise you could not have known whether flopstock's response to it had been 'right on' or not. It was only by comparing what flopstock wrote in his post with what I wrote in mine that you were able to form the judgement that you did: that you were able to say that flopstock's response was 'right on'.

Therefore, you have in fact read one of my posts in this thread after all, Ted. So when you said that you had read none of my words in this thread you weren't telling the truth, were you? What this reveals about you most clearly, Ted, is that you do not take the Ninth Commandment seriously. And that's very sad - you supposedly being a Christian and all.

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:56 am

Far Rider;575594 wrote: Glas I do see your problem now¦.

So far I’ve read from you only the negative aspects of mans religious (and mostly false) attempts to do the holy pure work of the Lord God almighty.

But you’re looking and recording the examples of men who merely play at religion. The Elvis headed evangelists are not Christians, and the money grubbing ‘preachers’ aren’t true Christians.

The examples you give portray a false Christianity. So called ‘Christians’ have done more damage to the cause of Christ than non believers ever could have. So in many ways it appears Christains deserve it.

But you can’t judge Christianity by the acts and motives of non christians or by folks who claim christianity but don’t consistently follow Christ

And that’s pretty much all you’ve done here.

To further explain the money situation in my family lest you think we sought it for pure joy of being able to ‘take’ advantage of the generosity of man¦

My family grew up farming, as did my father’s father and his father before him. My father never had a pay check persay. We operated by cash and cash only. We never borrowed money and my father also refused to be granted any help from the government. He’s never used any form of government assistance. Not because of pride, but because he didn’t want the government controlling what he believed God wanted him to grow.

When my brother took over the livestock of the farm and my father retired from the farming and went into full time missionary work we estimated that more than 2.5 million dollars had come through our little farm. 90% of it was as gifts. Now. we NEVER under any circumstances revealed any needs we had and we NEVER asked anyone for money, I mean NEVER ever.

My father made it simple, ‘what God orders he pays for’¦ simple as that. In the 17 years I lived on the farm we never went hungry and we never went high on the hog, no one in my family ever went hungry and there are eight kids born to my mother and we often had regular visitors, mostly wayward or children of missionaries living with us. We lived a very simple, frugal life¦ we didn’t over spend. We payed cash for the doctors and medicines we needed, we never had health insurance, and the list goes on and on. Many, many times we simply gave to other families in our community through what my father called the plate method. That is he’d wrap the name of an individual around a wad of cash and drop it in the plate at offering, and one of the elders would deliver it to the person who’s name was on it. My father would spend hours in prayer, and God would lay on his heart an amount and a name. We ( my father and bothers) spent hours and hours of labor helping other in our community for no other reason than they needed help. I can't count the number of times I recived a direct answer to prayer that nobdoy could have possibly known. In my Army years I saw God work amazing things due to prayer, so many infact I can't recal lall of them, I have mnay written down in my journals and have posted some here and there on FG.

Now I already know what you’re saying, that we did it only out of our own generosity and there is no God.

But your forgetting that I know my own heart, I am greedy, I know alone I’d never have participated in any of that stuff, I still do things like that today that I learned from my fathers example who learned it from God, and its laid on my heart because God reminds me in my soul that it is right and good and that, sir Glas, is true religion.

Far Rider Insight #6 True Religion is:

When out of pure motives and a love for God and man that one is compelled to love others in action, by giving up ones own comfort and time to serve others.

So I would say to you that you’re only scratching the surface of false Christianity and claiming it is ALL like that, and you’re missing the truth of it.

Part of me is ashamed that the majority of the typical ‘christianity’ that is prevalent in this is indeed false. It makes me shake my head.

On the other hand you’re propagandizing and exploiting the opportunity, taking some mighty cheap shots at some good folks on here, and pushing the false christianity on them and me too. And I’m about sick of it to be honest.

You’re still a scorner, so I’d like to know why now. You’ve laid out statement after statement that God is nothing more than a figment of the christians imagination¦ so why does it bother you so? What’s it to you? I ask you again What has God done to you?

Thanks for providing details about your family's circumstances, Far Rider. There's a couple of things in your post which I'd like to discuss. Unfortunately, I can't do this at the moment. So bear with me and I'll get back to you later.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:05 pm

flopstock:-6

Just to be clear about one thing. I have never said, nor implied that Far Rider is not a Christian.

Shalom

Ted:-6