thanks for choosing god.



For those who don't know, CAP is the acronym for the ChildCare Action Project, an exercise in intolerance and righteous hate in the name of "the lord."

From: Wildsong [wildsong@NOSPAMviolently-happy.net]
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 7:38 PM
To: cap@capalert.com
Subject: Your site

I love your site. It's brilliantly satirical. You capture perfectly the stupidity, and close-mindedness of the christian fanatics you're mocking, and I'm most impressed. I hope your site gets the appreciation it deserves, since you've obviously put a lot of work into it. You're doing a lot for the atheist cause with this site. Keep up the good work!

regards,
-wildsong
http://www.violently-happy.net
From: ChildCare Action Project Ministry [cap@capalert.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 8:41 PM
To: Wildsong
Subject: Re: Your site

On 5/4/02 9:38 PM, the CAP ministry wrote:

> I love your site. It's brilliantly satirical. You capture perfectly the
> stupidity, and close-mindedness of the christian fanatics you're mocking,
> and I'm most impressed. I hope your site gets the appreciation it deserves,
> since you've obviously put a lot of work into it. You're doing a lot for the
> atheist cause with this site. Keep up the good work!
>
> regards,
> -wildsong
> http://www.violently-happy.net


Glad you appreciate a good thing when you see it and glad you had a good time picking up a few Seeds! Come back for more anytime! And bring your friends. Be the first on your block to open your minds and think for yourself enough to see the Truth! By the way, since I doubt you know what Seeds are, I'll tell you. They are little thought nuggets of the living Truth. Little thought nuggets that eventually make one feel that sinful deeds really are sinful after all. Little nuggets of Truth that invade one's consciousness when, for example, in the twilight of waiting for sleep to come. Little thought nuggets that grow ... and grow ... and grow. And they crop up at the most unexpected times and places.
From: Wildsong [wildsong@NOSPAMviolently-happy.net]
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2002 1:20 AM
To: ChildCare Action Project Ministry
Subject: RE: Your site

:: Glad you appreciate a good thing when you see it and glad you had a good
:: time picking up a few Seeds! Come back for more anytime! And bring your
:: friends.

Of that you can be sure. I've directed many people to your site, christian and non-christian. I think you've helped to convince one person that christianity is pure foolishness; she finds the views expressed on your site extremist and intolerant, not to mention closed of mind. She's got a really good brain, and until now it has been stifled by religion, but the clouds are finally parting and she's starting to ask questions. I would never have pushed her to do so; she was happy in her religion and that's fine, but she's started, on her own, to ask "why..?" and to me, that's the road to recovery. Religion causes your mind to atrophy. A little exercise will do her good, I think. So your site has done some good, after all. I must thank you for that.


:: Be the first on your block to open your minds and think for
:: yourself enough to see the Truth!

Tell me, how does giving up your own moral values, your own view of reality, and instead living your life according to religious dogma considered open minded? Keep in mind that this is the same dogma that says that anyone who disagrees with it is going to suffer torment for all eternity. That doesn't seem to fit the definition of "open minded" very well. How does believing everything you're told by collection of fictional stories qualify as thinking for yourself, do you think?


:: to come. Little thought nuggets that grow ... and grow ... and
:: grow. And
:: they crop up at the most unexpected times and places.

Like cancer. Funny, that.

regards,
-wildsong
http://www.violently-happy.net
From: ChildCare Action Project Ministry [cap@capalert.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2002 10:22 AM
To: Wildsong
Subject: Re: Your site

On 5/5/02 3:19 AM, the CAP ministry wrote:

> :: Glad you appreciate a good thing when you see it and glad you had a good
> :: time picking up a few Seeds! Come back for more anytime! And bring your
> :: friends.

Great! Percentages dictate that at least some of them will no doubt be mature enough to accept that they don't know everything.


> Of that you can be sure.

Truly.

> I've directed many people to your site, christian
> and non-christian. I think you've helped to convince one person that
> christianity is pure foolishness;

Fasten your seatbelt. It's going to get bumpy for you. It is not we who are driving those people away from Jesus. It is people who situationally redefine, counterfeit, and conditionally apply His Word to suit themselves who *pull* people away from Christ (maybe like you?). People who so pitifully soften, cheapen, distort and weaken His Word. People who chagne His Truth into a lie for completely selfish reasons. People who *cause* the ones who walk away to expect practicing the Christian faith to be something it is NOT. Then, when they see the Truth BY HIS WORD, they can't handle it. It is people like them who drive people away from the Christianity of CHRIST. Practicing Christian faith and what is expected of it is being *very* intolerant ... of sin ... BY HIS WORD not yours or mine. Intolerant even our own sins. On Judgment Day, Jesus will send anyone who rejects Him into the fiery pits of Hell in a heartbeat. Without batting an eye. Now THAT is intolerance. And Righteously so. He spent three days in Hell so we would not have to spend one moment there. He gave His LIFE that we may have it -- eternally in Paradise. He is entitled to say whether we may bask in Paradise or burn in Hell for flipping Him off. Whether we believe it or not. He further will NOT excuse any single sin. He will forgive them all if we are humble enough to ask, but He WILL NOT excuse ANY sin. More intolerance -- and righteously so. I will be happy to explain that further if you have the guts to honor His Word AS WRITTEN.

> she finds the views expressed on your site
> extremist and intolerant, not to mention closed of mind.

Since you introduced it to her, I really wonder whom it was that gave her such an impression.

> She's got

"She has a ..."

> a really
> good brain, and until now it has been stifled by religion, but the clouds
> are finally parting

Just to find more obstruction of the Truth in the name of entertainment by your hand.

> and she's starting to ask questions.

Just like you want to her to do, right?

> I would never have
> pushed her to do so; she was happy in her religion and that's fine, but
> she's started, on her own, to ask "why..?"

You just admitted it was because of you.

> and to me, that's the road to
> recovery.

That is the road to Hell. Just like Satan wants of you. You sure can be manipulated easily.

> Religion causes your mind to atrophy.

Yours, maybe. But not mind and not of those who can be strong enough to humble themselves to the Truth. Y'see, I am not a "religious" man. I am Christian. Too much "chrurchianity" in organized religion. "Churchianity" is that which might be described as a system of worship and obedience doctrines which satisfy man but any adherence to the teachings and expectations of Jesus is coincidental, superficial, or counterfeited.

> A little exercise will do
> her good, I think.

You have been wrong before.

> So your site has done some good, after all. I must thank
> you for that.

It was not our site that drove her away from Jesus, pal. Re-read what you wrote and even you will see who it was who LED her away. And you'll answer for that. Whether you believe it or not.

> :: Be the first on your block to open your minds and think for
> :: yourself enough to see the Truth!
>
> Tell me, how does giving up your own moral values, your own view of reality,
> and instead living your life according to religious dogma considered open
> minded?

Experiencing things of others. Being strong enough to know that others just maybe be smarter than you, know more than you, be happier than you.

> Keep in mind that this is the same dogma that says that anyone who
> disagrees with it is going to suffer torment for all eternity.

Shows how ignorant you are. The ONLY thing that will cause anyone to burn in Hell for eternity is to reject Jesus. And that you can mask that Reality with fine-sounding argument and smooth talk means nothing to the Truth of it.

> That doesn't
> seem to fit the definition of "open minded" very well.

I can see why if you are closed minded to the Truth.

> How does believing
> everything you're told by collection of fictional stories qualify as
> thinking for yourself, do you think?

By being wise enough to know the difference between the Truth and lies.

> :: to come. Little thought nuggets that grow ... and grow ... and
> :: grow. And
> :: they crop up at the most unexpected times and places.
>
> Like cancer. Funny, that.

Like peace and joy. But you have to be humble to know these things through Jesus. You can be -- as soon as you lose that adolescent know-it-all attitude.

> regards,
> -wildsong
> http://www.violently-happy.net

Now, if you think you can raise your diatribe above the level of a juvenile spitting contest, I'll be happy to continue this. Otherwise, don't bother. Your next mail, if any, will determine whether you are mature enough to learn or whether you will become blocked. It is your choice. We'll see if you can be open minded and free thinking. I doubt it. But I have been wrong before, too.
From: Wildsong [wildsong@NOSPAMviolently-happy.net]
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 2:49 PM
To: ChildCare Action Project Ministry
Subject: RE: Your site

:: > :: Glad you appreciate a good thing when you see it and glad you had a good
:: > :: time picking up a few Seeds! Come back for more anytime! And bring your
:: > :: friends.
::
:: Great! Percentages dictate that at least some of them will
:: no doubt be
:: mature enough to accept that they don't know everything.

I'm not certain why you're responding to your own quoted message here, but to each her/his own.
Scientific thought dictates that we don't know everything. That's the whole purpose of science. It's about the search for answers. There's no book that claims to know it all. There's no supreme being. There's only the search for a theory that fits all of the facts. Something that makes sense. And that theory changes as new facts are uncovered. That's how science works. You look at the facts. You form a theory that fits those facts. You try to disprove that theory. If you cannot disprove that theory, it holds for the time being. As new facts are uncovered, the theory is either scrapped or revised to fit those facts. The difference is that facts are solid. Theories are flexible or they are of no use. So, compare the scientific approach to the religious approach.

Religion: Man kind was created by god. We know this because the book tells us. Fossils of primitive humans have been found that disprove this. They are not real, but rather lies created by the devil. We know that the devil exists because the book tells us. We know that god exists because the book tells us.

Science: Human kind and ape kind are very similar, in physical structure, genetic makeup, observed behaviour, and so on. Fossils have been found that demonstrate a gradual change from an ape-like creature into human kind, as well as from an ape-like creature into ape kind. Therefore, the working theory is that human kind and ape kind developed from a common ancestor.

Of course, this is massively over-simplified but the point, I think, is made.

:: > I've directed many people to your site, christian
:: > and non-christian. I think you've helped to convince one
:: person that
:: > christianity is pure foolishness;
::
:: Fasten your seatbelt. It's going to get bumpy for you. It
:: is not we who
:: are driving those people away from Jesus. It is people who
:: situationally
:: redefine, counterfeit, and conditionally apply His Word to
:: suit themselves

Hang on a minute. I have mentioned before that I have said nothing to affect their beliefs. I don't feel that attacking their beliefs is the action of a friend. I've directed them to your website, providing no preconceptions. Anything they get from your website is only that which is therein presented. I've made no comment on the content whatever when directing friends to your site.

:: who *pull* people away from Christ (maybe like you?). People who so

As mentioned, I don't believe that this would be an appropriate behaviour. I don't feel that forcing my beliefs on my friends would be acceptable. I don't pull, I don't lead, I don't do anything that would shake their faith because as I see it, if they're happy, they're happy. And hard though it may be to accept, some people find their own way out. It might help if you read Losing Faith In Faith (http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif.html) to understand the reasons behind this. Some people start to find cracks, and start to ask questions. They find a loose thread, and when they pull, the wool over their eyes unravels. You'd be amazed to hear what ex-christians have to say about christianity. If your faith is strong enough, understanding their loss of faith might help you to be a stronger christian. Those of us seeking truth, searching for reality, go to a great deal of trouble to find people with differing worldviews, and test their beliefs against our own. If their beliefs don't disprove mine, I continue as I was. If theirs do disprove mine, mine were clearly mistaken, and I'm closer to finding the truth. It can only be good, therefore, for christians to read the words of ex-christians.

:: pitifully soften, cheapen, distort and weaken His Word.
:: People who chagne
:: His Truth into a lie for completely selfish reasons. People

Facts are facts, my friend. You can hide them, but you can't change them. If truth is based upon facts, it cannot be changed into a lie. When you try to do so, when you try to hide the facts to make your version of the truth seem plausible, you create cracks, loose threads, and so on. It's these flaws that cause people to lose faith in faith. Further, even if that were true, and atheists were leading christians away from their faith, what would you say is the selfish reason behind such actions? What could we gain? Please try not to use 'the devil' as a motive. Remember that atheists don't believe in such things. Conscious action for selfish reasons requires selfish motives, so 'the devil' is not valid. Please provide a selfish motive for leading people away from christianity in order to validate your point.

:: who *cause* the
:: ones who walk away to expect practicing the Christian faith
:: to be something
:: it is NOT. Then, when they see the Truth BY HIS WORD, they
:: can't handle it.

Do you know what is the truth according to the bible? I strongly recommend that you go here: http://www.ffrf.org/bquiz.html and take the bible quiz. It just tests your knowledge of the bible. There's nothing in there that isn't straight out of the bible. All answers are illustrated by biblical references. You can confirm them at the online bible here: http://www.htmlbible.com

I notice that in your reviews, you condemn violence, among other things. I very much encourage you to take the quiz. How can it hurt? It's pure bible. Open mindedness... remember, you don't know everything. You probably won't take it. But then, if it is truth, it won't shake your faith, will it? If your belief in absolute biblical truth cannot stand up to a simple online quiz based upon that truth, do you think it's a sound basis for living your entire life? Something to consider, I think.

:: It is people like them who drive people away from the Christianity of
:: CHRIST. Practicing Christian faith and what is expected of
:: it is being
:: *very* intolerant ... of sin ... BY HIS WORD not yours or
:: mine.

Indeed, and throughout history people have been killed in the most horrific ways to placate this bloodthirsty god. How many women were burned because they were accused of the sin of practicing witchcraft? How many innocents were slaughtered because they were raised with the sin of Islam rather than jesus, through no fault of their own? The list of atrocities committed in accordance with your bible goes on and on. Do you believe that people who have never heard of jesus are less people than those raised with the bible? If not, how do you justify the killings? See, the bible presents a leader figure. It then defines beliefs and behaviours that are considered wrong by this leader figure. It goes on to describe an intangible essence that each person contains (a soul). Then, it defines a state of torment in which that soul will suffer in eternal torment for breaking rules set down by this leader figure. The entire thing is self-referential. If you start to question the validity of any of those points, the whole thing falls apart. So questioning is a sin. Ex-christian friends of mine often mention that questions were met with answers like "god moves in mysterious ways" and various other chastising responses. Questions were not encouraged. Blind faith alone was encouraged. Faith, it seems, does not require justification. How, then, are you to know that it is true? The book tells you. The book tells you that what it says is true. If I were to tell you that what I say is true, would you trust me unconditionally, do you think? The book is from god, though, and therefore cannot be filled with lies. How do you know that the book is from god? The book tells you.

:: Intolerant
:: even our own sins. On Judgment Day, Jesus will send anyone
:: who rejects Him
:: into the fiery pits of Hell in a heartbeat. Without batting

The book tells you this. Do you have evidence that shows you that this is so? Evidence that is independent of the bible? When you look at something scientifically, you see lots of evidence from many different sources all coming together to fit perfectly. Physics ties with biology, chemistry, mathematics, and so on. For example, physics tells us about the contents of the light that travels from the sun to the earth. Biology tells us how plants react to light by generating chlorophyll to create nutrients to feed themselves. Chemistry tells us how chlorophyll is made, and how this reacts with the contents of sunlight to create nutrients. We can test each of these individually to confirm them as facts. Each is independent of the others, and yet they come together to form one complete picture. The important thing, however, is that each of these facts stands alone. Without chemistry, we would not know how plants produced chlorophyll, but we would still be able to prove that they lived on sunlight by producing something that turns them green. Without physics, we would still be able to expose plants to different types of light to determine what it is in the light that provides nutrients. Without biology, we would still be able to prove that plants need specific types of light in order to survive. It's a jigsaw. There's no one source of scientific knowledge. Why then is christianity, a faith built entirely upon a single self-referential text, more likely to be truth, would you say? No one fact from christianity stands on its own. Not one.

:: an eye. Now
:: THAT is intolerance. And Righteously so. He spent three
:: days in Hell so we
:: would not have to spend one moment there. He gave His LIFE
:: that we may have
:: it -- eternally in Paradise.

Stipulating for the moment his existence, what you apparently don't realise is that he also made the rules. So he made the rules, gave human kind the ability to break them, and then got upset because they did. He gave human kind the ability to make choices, to ask questions, and then forbade them from doing so. Not only that, but he let a devil go around tempting human kind into eternal damnation, and didn't do anything about it. Consider that there are more atheists now than ever before. Consider that, in terms of numbers, christianity is in decline. Consider the content of your own site, those things that are considered acceptable by the public but not by christianity. It sounds like the devil is winning, doesn't it? So this begs the question: why doesn't god do anything about it? If god is omnipotent, why doesn't he just destroy satan? Then he wouldn't have to condemn anyone to eternal torment, which he supposedly doesn't want to do. Two possible answers occur: he is unable to do so, or he is unwilling to do so. If he is unwilling, then he doesn't care as much as you think. If he is unable, then he's not omnipotent after all, is he?

:: He is entitled to say whether
:: we may bask in
:: Paradise or burn in Hell for flipping Him off. Whether we
:: believe it or
:: not. He further will NOT excuse any single sin. He will
:: forgive them all
:: if we are humble enough to ask, but He WILL NOT excuse ANY sin. More
:: intolerance -- and righteously so. I will be happy to

Really? Do you, then, advocate stonings? Do you believe that jealousy is commendable? Do you feel that women are property, to be handed around at the whim of men, given as prizes, and so on? Do you feel that those who are not christians should be slaughtered? Because that's what the bible demands, and if it's his written word, you're sinning by not doing these things. That means you're going to hell, doesn't it?

:: explain that further
:: if you have the guts to honor His Word AS WRITTEN.

It isn't a question of 'guts' but rather one of credibility. You accept the content of the bible as being 1) god's word, and 2) absolutely true. I do not because a) there is no evidence that such a creature exists, and b) there is no evidence that even if this creature did exist, it is responsible for the content of the book. As mentioned, the only way you have of knowing that the book is divinely inspired is because that book tells you so. So, to put it another way, if I come to your door and tell you that I'm jesus reborn, will you believe me? I must be jesus reborn because I wouldn't lie, and I wouldn't lie because I'm jesus reborn. Same thing exactly. Circular logic makes you dizzy, but it doesn't prove your point.

:: > she finds the views expressed on your site
:: > extremist and intolerant, not to mention closed of mind.
::
:: Since you introduced it to her, I really wonder whom it was
:: that gave her
:: such an impression.

I said "Hey, check out this site."
The site did the rest. As you can see, I gave her no idea what the site was even about. I just sent her the address. It was the content that gave her the impression. I cannot be held responsible for the content of your site, now can I?

:: > She's got
::
:: "She has a ..."

Impressive. Your grasp of the English language clearly exceeds my expectations for you. Perhaps, then, you would care to answer this question:
Why do you, and indeed many other christians, find the phrase "god damn it" to be offensive? I ask this because the phrase is so clearly not designed to offend. I'm not asking to offend, but rather to understand. Surely you realise that the phrase originates with "may god damn it," meaning "may it be damned by god." So Bob runs, god damns. This, therefore, is an expression of anger not at that god, but rather at the object or person following "damn." When used in reference to something specific, the phrase is applied so:
"god damn this nail, it keeps bending when I hit it with the hammer." meaning "may god damn this nail, ..."
Perhaps you can explain why this is considered offensive.

:: > a really
:: > good brain, and until now it has been stifled by religion,
:: but the clouds
:: > are finally parting
::
:: Just to find more obstruction of the Truth in the name of
:: entertainment by
:: your hand.

Heh, all I did was present her with your URL. Religion has never been a topic of conversation between us, since we discovered that we differ. I've been careful to not offend. I didn't even say that it was a religious site. So let's see... we've got an intelligent but religious girl, and a religious site. The girl meets the site, and starts to have doubts. How would you say that this was by my hand, then? Once again, my message said "Hey, check out this site." and the next time I spoke to her, she was questioning.

:: > and she's starting to ask questions.
::
:: Just like you want to her to do, right?

Absolutely. I think it's wonderful when people ask questions. Don't you? I don't actively encourage them to do so. If they need to know, the don't need to be pushed. She asks because she needs to know why. She needs to know the truth, and she's no longer satisfied with the story that the bible provides. When she asks me what I think, I tell her. I do not promote my views. The truth, my lad, can withstand questions because all they can do is uncover more truth. Scientists encourage people to ask questions. Religious leaders encourage people to not ask questions. I wonder why. Don't you? Or don't you question?

:: > I would never have
:: > pushed her to do so; she was happy in her religion and
:: that's fine, but
:: > she's started, on her own, to ask "why..?"
::
:: You just admitted it was because of you.

How do you get that? Your site was the catalyst that made her question, not I. As I've mentioned, I didn't even tell her what kind of site it was.

:: > and to me, that's the road to
:: > recovery.
::
:: That is the road to Hell. Just like Satan wants of you.
:: You sure can be
:: manipulated easily.

Stipulating that satan exists, your site is apparently a tool of his. Without your site, this might never have come to pass, I think. But satan no more exists than does god. It's all make-believe. That's my working theory, since there's no evidence to disprove it. Before you make claims that I'm easily manipulated by this devil of yours, you should really find a way to show me that he exists. Without that existence, you're proceeding from a false premise. Once there's evidence, your theory has credibility.

:: > Religion causes your mind to atrophy.
::
:: Yours, maybe. But not mind and not of those who can be
:: strong enough to
:: humble themselves to the Truth.

Really? By not asking questions, by just believing everything you are told, you don't think. You don't use your mind, you just absorb and accept. How would you say this exercises your mind? Without exercise, your mind atrophies. What then, would you say, is the source of mental exercise in humbling yourself to 'the truth?' You're not even allowed to ask questions, and that suggests that you're not allowed to wonder. If you don't wonder, what do you do with your mind?

:: Y'see, I am not a
:: "religious" man. I am
:: Christian.

christianity is defined as:
Chris·ti·an·i·ty Pronunciation Key (krsch-n-t, krst-)
n.

1) The Christian religion, founded on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2) Christians as a group; Christendom.
3) The state or fact of being a Christian.
4) pl. Chris·ti·an·i·ties A particular form or sect of the Christian religion: the Christianities of antiquity.

Nitpicky, no? :) The point is that christianity is a cult like any other. There's nothing that makes christianity different from any other religion. Not from an objective point of view. Perhaps if you believe the dogma that is contained in the bible, christianity is more real than the others. Having said that, the other religions say the same thing, don't they? How do you know that yours is right and theirs is not? Or is that asking too many questions?

:: Too much "chrurchianity" in organized religion.
:: "Churchianity"
:: is that which might be described as a system of worship and obedience
:: doctrines which satisfy man but any adherence to the teachings and
:: expectations of Jesus is coincidental, superficial, or counterfeited.

Nicely put. And indeed, this is so... organised religion is a business like any other, designed to support few at the expense of many. However, your statement assumes that jesus exists as described in the bible. There is no evidence to support this assumption. Even making this assumption, however, and further assuming for the moment that the truth in the bible is absolute, it must be remembered that the church is the representation of jesus on earth. This being the case, if the church is responsible for diluting that truth, it is responsible for the millions of people each year who stop defining themselves as christian. This means that the church is responsible for damning countless people to an eternity of torment by misrepresenting the biblical truth. Why, then, wouldn't god do something about it? A sign, an appearance, something that reassures those people who have lost faith in the church that the church isn't the only aspect of christianity. But god hasn't appeared. He's noticeable by his absence. Why do you suppose that is? Why wouldn't he take that simple step? Think of the souls he'd save. There's no reason that he shouldn't. He's omnipotent, isn't he? He doesn't answer to anyone, right?

:: > A little exercise will do
:: > her good, I think.
::
:: You have been wrong before.

Haven't we all. This is why I take no action in matters of belief. I think that people will be better off without religion, but that is not my decision to make. I could be wrong, so I don't make that decision, and I value my friends too highly to take risks with them.

:: > So your site has done some good, after all. I must thank
:: > you for that.
::
:: It was not our site that drove her away from Jesus, pal.
:: Re-read what you
:: wrote and even you will see who it was who LED her away.

Let's see... re-reading here:
I wrote to you: '... she's starting to ask questions. I would never have pushed her to do so; she was happy in her religion and that's fine, but she's started, on her own, to ask "why...?"' You quoted that bit above. Note the "I would never have pushed her" part.
Re-reading the more recent bits:
I wrote to her: "Hey, check out this site" and she did. I'm not sure how giving her the URL for your religious site led her away from jesus. Perhaps you would care to elaborate.

:: And you'll answer
:: for that. Whether you believe it or not.

Again, show me the evidence that there's anyone to make that happen. Show me the evidence that there's even such a thing as a soul. Without that soul, the rest is meaningless, and frankly, the soul has yet to be found. So show me the evidence, and I shall consider it as I would any other scientific proof. Having confirmed it as proof, of course. If this soul concept can stand up to scrutiny, then the rest will have a starting point, but right now all you have is a book filled with stories, and no actual evidence.

:: > Tell me, how does giving up your own moral values, your own view of
:: reality,
:: > and instead living your life according to religious dogma
:: considered open
:: > minded?
::
:: Experiencing things of others. Being strong enough to know
:: that others just
:: maybe be smarter than you, know more than you, be happier than you.

None of this is specific to religion, so that doesn't answer my question. If you feel that these things are specific to religion, please explain how.

:: > Keep in mind that this is the same dogma that says that anyone who
:: > disagrees with it is going to suffer torment for all eternity.
::
:: Shows how ignorant you are. The ONLY thing that will cause
:: anyone to burn
:: in Hell for eternity is to reject Jesus. And that you can

Yes, and that's disagreement. I don't believe in your god. According to your beliefs, I'm thereby breaking his laws and going to hell. So I disagree with the dogma, and I'm going to hell. Again, this does not appear to be terribly open-minded. Rather, a totalitarian approach to belief. And this, then, is the story: god creates human kind. god demands that human kind worship him and praise him. If human kind does not worship god and praise god, it is to be made to suffer for all eternity. Holy narcissism.

:: mask that Reality
:: with fine-sounding argument and smooth talk means nothing to
:: the Truth of
:: it.

Why thank you. Ultimately, christianity does not stand up to scrutiny. Prove me wrong. Please. Use something other than the bible to prove points in the bible.. something not self-referential. I'm open to rational argument, but that requires logic and evidence. If you can provide these things, I'm eager to hear what you have to say.

:: > That doesn't
:: > seem to fit the definition of "open minded" very well.
::
:: I can see why if you are closed minded to the Truth.

That's the point. I'm very open minded. I gave the bible, and christianity in general, a fair shot at least twice. Yet I remain open-minded. That's why I'm asking you to prove things from the bible. If you can produce evidence, I'll listen. That's what being open-minded means.

:: > How does believing
:: > everything you're told by collection of fictional stories
:: qualify as
:: > thinking for yourself, do you think?
::
:: By being wise enough to know the difference between the
:: Truth and lies.

Yes, and how do you know that without asking questions? How do you find the truth without searching for it? How do you know that what you have been told is the truth?

:: > :: to come. Little thought nuggets that grow ... and grow ... and
:: > :: grow. And
:: > :: they crop up at the most unexpected times and places.
:: >
:: > Like cancer. Funny, that.
::
:: Like peace and joy. But you have to be humble to know these
:: things through
:: Jesus. You can be -- as soon as you lose that adolescent know-it-all
:: attitude.

Oh, I don't know it all. I'm glad I don't.. I love to learn, and I'd be sad to lose the chance to do so. That's why I'm eager to hear your points, but so far you've said nothing that proves that the biblical truth is absolute truth. You affirm over and over that it is, but you don't say how you know this. You say that it is the truth, not that it is the truth because x. (where x is some form of evidence) Don't tell me that it is the truth. Tell me why it is the truth, how you know that it is the truth, why I should believe that it is closer the truth than the scientific paradigm in which I presently exist. Tell me what disproves scientific theories like neo-Darwinism, the big bang, the Law of Entropy. Show me what makes the bible more believable than scientific, fact-based theory.

:: > regards,
:: > -wildsong
:: >
http://www.violently-happy.net
:: >
::
:: Now, if you think you can raise your diatribe above the

Diatribe? I have asked questions to which you have not provided answers. I have raised points that you have completely misunderstood, intentionally or otherwise. I have asked your opinion and been subjected to dogma and menaces that jesus is going to get me. ("And you'll answer for that. Whether you believe it or not.") And I've thanked you for causing my friend to begin actively looking for the truth by asking questions. That doesn't sound like abuse to me.

:: level of a juvenile
:: spitting contest, I'll be happy to continue this.

I'm not certain where the contest part comes in. I've simply asked opinions, and expressed views. That's how the truth is found.. by examining theories in order to determine their worth. How can I know that my worldview is accurate without testing it by considering others?

:: Otherwise, don't bother.
:: Your next mail, if any, will determine whether you are

Naturally there would be more, though sometimes I must admit that work causes unpleasant delays in such interesting debates. Nonetheless, this is too fascinating to cease. At least for me.

:: mature enough to
:: learn or whether you will become blocked. It is your

Out of curiosity, how do you define 'mature' without reference to belief? For maturity exists without religious dogma, and yet all of your references to maturity are shrouded in religious concepts. Do you feel, then, that there is no maturity without blind faith?

:: choice. We'll see if
:: you can be open minded and free thinking. I doubt it. But

That's just what I am. That's why I'm here. I'm looking for answers from a worldview different from my own. I had hoped that you could provide these answers, and I have hope yet. It remains to be seen whether your mind is open enough to even consider the possibility that your truth is not absolute. That's what I'm doing. Either I will discover that I've been wrong about the world all these years, or my worldview will be reaffirmed. Hence the experiment. I'm putting my paradigm on the line, confident that it will stand up to scrutiny, but I'm open minded enough to accept that it might not. The question is, are you?

:: I have been
:: wrong before, too.

Then at least we have something in common. :)

regards
-wildsong
http://www.violently-happy.net
From: ChildCare Action Project Ministry [cap@capalert.com]
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 4:22 PM
To: Wildsong
Subject: Re: Your site

On 5/6/02 4:49 PM, the CAP ministry wrote:

> :: > :: Glad you appreciate a good thing when you see it and
> :: glad you had a
> :: good
> :: > :: time picking up a few Seeds! Come back for more
> :: anytime! And bring
> :: your
> :: > :: friends.
> ::
> :: Great! Percentages dictate that at least some of them will
> :: no doubt be
> :: mature enough to accept that they don't know everything.
>
> I'm not certain why you're responding to your own quoted message here, but
> to each her/his own.

I didn't I responded to what you said which is no longer here.

> Scientific thought dictates that we don't know everything.

Practical thought dictates we do not need to know everything.

> That's the whole
> purpose of science. It's about the search for answers. There's no book that
> claims to know it all. There's no supreme being.

Yes. There is. Whether you believe it or not.

> There's only the search for
> a theory that fits all of the facts. Something that makes sense.

Something that can be proven.

> And that
> theory changes as new facts are uncovered.

Yup. That is why the theory of evolution is falling.

> That's how science works. You
> look at the facts. You form a theory that fits those facts.

Which is yet theory regarding evolution.

> You try to
> disprove that theory. If you cannot disprove that theory, it holds for the
> time being.

But is still not proof.

> As new facts are uncovered, the theory is either scrapped or
> revised to fit those facts. The difference is that facts are solid. Theories
> are flexible or they are of no use. So, compare the scientific approach to
> the religious approach.

Your description of the scientific approach, "method" is the correct term,
is incomplete.

> Religion: Man kind was created by god. We know this because the book tells
> us. Fossils of primitive humans have been found that disprove this. They are
> not real, but rather lies created by the devil. We know that the devil
> exists because the book tells us. We know that god exists because the book
> tells us.
>
> Science: Human kind and ape kind are very similar, in physical structure,
> genetic makeup, observed behaviour, and so on. Fossils have been found that
> demonstrate a gradual change from an ape-like creature into human kind, as
> well as from an ape-like creature into ape kind. Therefore, the working
> theory is that human kind and ape kind developed from a common ancestor.
>
> Of course, this is massively over-simplified but the point, I think, is
> made.

For yourself maybe. And the scientific method has never been able to disprove the non-empirical.

> :: > I've directed many people to your site, christian
> :: > and non-christian. I think you've helped to convince one
> :: person that
> :: > christianity is pure foolishness;
> ::
> :: Fasten your seatbelt. It's going to get bumpy for you. It
> :: is not we who
> :: are driving those people away from Jesus. It is people who
> :: situationally
> :: redefine, counterfeit, and conditionally apply His Word to
> :: suit themselves
>
> Hang on a minute. I have mentioned before that I have said nothing to affect
> their beliefs.

And I have not said you did.

> I don't feel that attacking their beliefs is the action of a
> friend.

Then you apparently care nothing about their eternity.

> I've directed them to your website, providing no preconceptions.
> Anything they get from your website is only that which is therein presented.
> I've made no comment on the content whatever when directing friends to your
> site.

> :: who *pull* people away from Christ (maybe like you?). People who so
>
> As mentioned, I don't believe that this would be an appropriate behaviour. I
> don't feel that forcing my beliefs on my friends would be acceptable.

That is what you have been doing throughout your diatribe -- trying to get me to believe something else. What doesn't matter.

> I
> don't pull, I don't lead, I don't do anything that would shake their faith
> because as I see it, if they're happy, they're happy.

You are wrong. As I said, that is what you have been trying on me from the start. And denying it won't make it go away.

> And hard though it may
> be to accept, some people find their own way out. It might help if you read
> Losing Faith In Faith (http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif.html) to understand
> the reasons behind this.

Why? So you could use what you believe to try to get me to change my beliefs? No thanks.

> Some people start to find cracks, and start to ask
> questions.

Our inability to grasp the meaning of something in the Bible is not a revelation that the Bible is unclear or contradictory, but is a matter of our perception of it. In other words, there is nothing unclear about what Jesus tells us. But since some of His statements do not fit some of our expectations, we attempt to make His Word suit our understanding, which distorts our perception of the Truth and gives a foothold to Satan.

> They find a loose thread, and when they pull, the wool over their
> eyes unravels.

That you call it wool over their eyes is proof of what you have been trying to do.

> You'd be amazed to hear what ex-christians have to say about
> christianity.

I doubt it. By the way, if someone can become an "ex-Christian" they were likely not a Christian in the first place. Jesus cannot be thrown away. Pretense about Him can.

> If your faith is strong enough, understanding their loss of
> faith might help you to be a stronger christian.

Yet another attempt at proselytizing to your way of thinking. Doesn't matter what you destroy in the process.

I simply do not have the time to keep this up. You go right ahead and think you have won your diatribe if it makes you feel better. I will see your mail in our inbox no more. God warns us to tell the unbelievers once then tell them twice and if they still will not listen, have nothing more to do with them. This is your "twice." Goodbye. It is sad that you simply would not open you mind enough to accept that there just might be Truth outside of the pseudo-scientific box you've compartmentalized yourself into.
From: Wildsong [wildsong@NOSPAMviolently-happy.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 2:08 PM
To: ChildCare Action Project Ministry
Subject: one final response, then.

You probably won't get this, since you've mentioned that you were going to block my messages, but I thought, why not?
Of course, I wonder why I've been blocked. Perhaps I ask too many questions. God forbid (apparently) you should have to think about the answers.

:: I didn't I responded to what you said which is no longer here.

The whole history is posted at http://www.violently-happy.net/musings/cap.html
You can look it up.

:: Practical thought dictates we do not need to know everything.

This may be so, but human nature is filled with curiosity. That's why we have science in the first place. Hell, that's why we have religion. Why does the volcano erupt? What are the tiny lights in the sky at night? People need to know. Religion is a security blanket that served its purpose in its time, but has outlived its usefulness. As long as people still need to know, as long as we still have curiosity, there will be that need, that drive to know everything. That's why the christianity doesn't like people to ask questions. They might find answers that the bible doesn't like.

:: > claims to know it all. There's no supreme being.
::
:: Yes. There is. Whether you believe it or not.

Affirmation is not evidence. Telling people over and over doesn't make it true. That's not proof, it's brainwashing.

:: > There's only the search for
:: > a theory that fits all of the facts. Something that makes sense.
::
:: Something that can be proven.

Quite the contrary. You don't prove a theory to validate it, you fail disprove it. If it stands up to your examination, it's accepted. Could have sworn I described this before.

:: > And that
:: > theory changes as new facts are uncovered.
::
:: Yup. That is why the theory of evolution is falling.

Falling? How do you get that? The theory is on more firm ground than ever before, what with the additional fossils that are being located all the time. The theory has undergone some overhauling since Darwin's day, but that's what science is about. You don't establish a theory and then defend it with your life. You change it to suit the new facts. Facts are not flexible, but theories are. Religion isn't flexible, either, it would appear.

:: > That's how science works. You
:: > look at the facts. You form a theory that fits those facts.
::
:: Which is yet theory regarding evolution.

Yet theory? Not sure what you mean, but I'll try to address this: the theory of evolution is a theory because we cannot recreate the evolution of humanity. We can theorise as to what happened based upon evidence, but unless we can actually go back and witness the process, we cannot say that it is absolute fact. However, there is no evidence that contradicts the theory at the moment. Evolution in general can be seen all over the place. Do you think that cows and sheep and goats as they exist today have always looked like that? Do you think that cats and dogs have always been the way they are? Look at it this way: natural law dictates that life lives in a constant struggle for survival of the fittest. That is, the deer who runs slowest is lunch for the wolf who runs fastest. Follow me so far? Where do you think the dachshund fits into all of this? (commonly called the 'wiener dog' http://wdkrocks.hypermart.net/longweiner.jpg) The poor little guy wouldn't survive a day in the wild. He was bred by humans. Dogs were selectively bred for certain traits and over generations, the result was the wiener dog. That's called evolution. It's all around you.. things change according to their environment. Evolution means change from one thing into another. You can't deny that it happens. Another example: you've heard of the superbugs, I'm sure. They're bacterial diseases that are resistant to antibiotics. This is because (and you can look it up) in any given batch of bacteria, some will be more resistant to antibiotics than others. Hit them all with antibiotics, and the only ones who survive to reproduce will be the resistant ones. And when they reproduce, they pass on their resistance. That's evolution, my friend. Or don't we believe in genetics, either?

:: > You try to
:: > disprove that theory. If you cannot disprove that theory, it
:: > holds for the
:: > time being.
::
:: But is still not proof.

Perhaps not, but it has not been disproved, either. And that's the point. If your theory is wrong, there's a good chance that you'll find something that will disprove it. It's process of elimination. We believe in that, don't we? Strip away the incorrect and you'll be left with the correct. As Holmes said: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." (ref: The Sign Of The Four)
biblical claims are disproved on a regular basis.

:: Your description of the scientific approach, "method" is the
:: correct term,
:: is incomplete.

Tommy knows a scientific term. But in fact, the writer part of me wanted the symmetry of "approach" to be in both the religious side and the scientific side. A little artistic license. Given that the bible is your reading material of choice, you aren't familiar with good writing, I know. That was one of the things that made me lose interest in it.. it's not even well written escapism, let alone an entire belief system. Star Trek novels are better. (And that's saying something.)
If you are more familiar with the scientific method than I, then do please feel free to describe the steps of the method which I have omitted. Providing references, of course.

:: For yourself maybe. And the scientific method has never been able to
:: disprove the non-empirical.

That's because there's no evidence either way. How can you disprove fiction? No one has ever been able to offer the least shred of evidence for the existence of god, or the mystical 'truths' of the bible.

:: > I don't feel that attacking their beliefs is the action of a
:: > friend.
::
:: Then you apparently care nothing about their eternity.

Exactly. To me, there isn't one. You die, and you're gone. Until there is evidence of a soul, or a heaven, or a god, or any of the rest of it, it's just fiction. However, as usual, you misunderstand. I said I don't attack the beliefs of my religious friends. This means that I don't try to, as you put it, 'lead them away from' their beliefs.

:: > As mentioned, I don't believe that this would be an
:: > appropriate behaviour. I
:: > don't feel that forcing my beliefs on my friends would be acceptable.
::
:: That is what you have been doing throughout your diatribe --
:: trying to get
:: me to believe something else. What doesn't matter.

Firstly, I said "friends." Secondly, I'm not forcing my beliefs on you. I'm looking for arguments against them and flaws in them. That way, I can modify them to be more accurate. So far, you haven't disproved anything, though. Quite the contrary. I'm not trying to get you to believe something else. I don't really care what you believe, to be honest. It's just that you're a rabid christian, so I thought that you would be a useful tool for testing my worldview. So far, you've definitely been a tool.

:: > I
:: > don't pull, I don't lead, I don't do anything that would shake
:: > their faith
:: > because as I see it, if they're happy, they're happy.
::
:: You are wrong. As I said, that is what you have been trying on
:: me from the
:: start. And denying it won't make it go away.

You are labouring under a misapprehension: I don't care what you believe. I think that it's sad that you're wasting your life worshipping a god who never even calls, never writes, never drops in for tea, but the important thing is that it's your life you're wasting. So I don't really care what you believe except that just at the moment you're being useful to me.

:: > And hard though it may
:: > be to accept, some people find their own way out. It might
:: help if you read
:: > Losing Faith In Faith (http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif.html)
:: to understand
:: > the reasons behind this.
::
:: Why? So you could use what you believe to try to get me to change my
:: beliefs? No thanks.

Why Dorothy, what was all that talk about open-mindedness and free thinking? So though I'm putting my beliefs on the line, fully expecting that something will come along and make me change them, you're not willing to even read the words of someone who questioned your own. Very interesting. If you won't even read anything that casts the slightest doubt on your beliefs, do you feel secure building your entire life upon them? Are your beliefs built on the premise of "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" ?

:: > Some people start to find cracks, and start to ask
:: > questions.
::
:: Our inability to grasp the meaning of something in the Bible is not a
:: revelation that the Bible is unclear or contradictory, but is a matter of
:: our perception of it. In other words, there is nothing unclear about what
:: Jesus tells us. But since some of His statements do not fit some of our
:: expectations, we attempt to make His Word suit our understanding, which
:: distorts our perception of the Truth and gives a foothold to Satan.

So, then, when you read: 'If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26) The word "hate" here is miseo, the Greek word for "hate," from which we get the prefix in "misanthropy" and "misogyny." The same writer uses miseo in such verses as: "Blessed are ye when men shall hate you."' (Luke 6:22) you don't find any conflict here with your condemnation of children rebelling against their parents? I ask because in your review of ET it says: "Impudence/Hate (I): adolescent yelling at and arguing with mom" is a bad thing, as it does in many other reviews. But then, the fifth commandment states: "Honour thy father and thy mother..." doesn't it?

:: > They find a loose thread, and when they pull, the wool over their
:: > eyes unravels.
::
:: That you call it wool over their eyes is proof of what you have
:: been trying
:: to do.

The reason I call it that is that they don't think for themselves. They don't look at the big picture, believing instead whatever they're told. If you open your eyes and see the biblical truth is still true, good for you. If you don't, you've been living a lie. But wouldn't you rather know the truth, either way?

:: > You'd be amazed to hear what ex-christians have to say about
:: > christianity.
::
:: I doubt it. By the way, if someone can become an "ex-Christian"
:: they were
:: likely not a Christian in the first place. Jesus cannot be thrown away.
:: Pretense about Him can.

You wouldn't say that if you read what these people have said. Losing Faith In Faith was written by a former priest who started to ask questions and didn't find the answers satisfactory. You'll find that the stronger a christian the person is, the worse their crash when they start to ask questions. It's the strong ones who start to ask questions because they're sure that their beliefs are correct, and questioning them can't hurt. Before you make pronouncements like this, I suggest that you do your research. Look into why people lose their faith, before you decide that they didn't have it in the first place. Without understanding, you'll never know whether what you believe really is true, will you?

:: > If your faith is strong enough, understanding their loss of
:: > faith might help you to be a stronger christian.
::
:: Yet another attempt at proselytizing to your way of thinking. Doesn't
:: matter what you destroy in the process.

I'm on a quest for truth, as are we all. The truth, the real truth, cannot be destroyed. So questioning is good. As I've mentioned before, I don't care what you believe, but as I make the effort to understand the religious point of view, so it might do you some good to understand the ex-christian point of view. If your belief in the absolute truth of the bible is strong enough, how can it hurt? Are you afraid to question? And if so, why? If you do choose to answer this message, don't answer that bit. Think about it on your own, instead.

:: I simply do not have the time to keep this up. You go right
:: ahead and think
:: you have won your diatribe if it makes you feel better. I will see your

Ah well. It was fun while it lasted. I encourage you to think about what I have said, and should you have any questions, feel free to get back to me.
Heh, what am I saying? You won't have any questions.

:: mail in our inbox no more. God warns us to tell the unbelievers
:: once then
:: tell them twice and if they still will not listen, have nothing
:: more to do
:: with them.

Then I suggest that you read 1984 by Orwell. Compare 'big brother' to 'god' and see where it gets you.

:: This is your "twice." Goodbye.

"Shields up! Red alert! Must not.. use.. brain!" Well, you have filters in your mind. I suppose that adding them to your mailbox is a logical progression.

:: It is sad that you
:: simply would
:: not open you mind enough to accept that there just might be
:: Truth outside of

But I do, and that's why I'm here. I kept asking you for reasons, for explanations, for any kind of proof that what I believed was incorrect and what you were saying was truth, but you didn't provide it. You repeated again and again that jesus is truth, but never once told me how you knew. I was ready to hear, I wanted you to speak, and instead I got blocked when I asked you 'why?' Which mind, then, would you say was not open?

:: the pseudo-scientific box you've compartmentalized yourself into.

It's a shame you're hiding behind a filter now. I'd like to hear how you got 'pseudo' out of this.

Good luck then, Tommy. Maybe one day you'll be ready to reason.

regards
-wildsong
http://www.violently-happy.net


if you need me, just email.
you know how to do that, don't you?
just put your cursor here and click

this site, and indeed all sites, best experienced with