Reply #20: no, you're actually agreeing with me... [View All]

[Lerkfish]

I phrased my post in such a way to point out both sides are at fault, for both flamebaiting and taking offense. Tis why I said "side A": and "side B".

I have also responded in threads from atheists demanding christians not define them in certain ways, that its insulting to say they have "beliefs".

:shrug:

I think ultimately, issues should be discussed rationally, but attempts to define other groups by highly negative broad stereotypes is counterproductive. And none of us are without sin in that regard.

however, to define christianity as an abusive parent to a slave or child, is using inflammatory rhetoric to be intentionally caustic.

The same topic could have been discussed rationally with a different tone, and hackles would not have been raised...for example:

Seems to me that the relationship Christians have with their God is very like a co-dependent relationship with an abusive father or spouse. I think this part is fine

When questioned as to why their allegedly all-loving God routinely allows bad things to happen to them, Christian believers, like abused children or spouses, go to irrational lengths to defend God's actions. They even go so far as to blame themselves for their suffering, even though God supposedly loves them and is in complete control. this is the beginning of the problem, here. this is setting up a straw man arguement to define the actual beliefs and then shoot them down as irrational, instead of asking how christians view the first analogy. This is bad for open discussion because the OP has already labeled anyone who might disagree with his assertion as "irrational"...in fact, the OP misunderstands the views of many christians, but to phrase it this way precludes participation without having to backtrack and attempt to correct...this twists anyone of belief into sounding too defensive, and the combative tone can shape the rest of the discussion down a nonproductive path

And, like abused co-dependents, they do this because they're simply terrified of being without his "love". now the OP is going beyond making observations and fabricating arguements for others, he is assigning negative emotional internal motivations as a way to denigrate those of belief, again without complete understanding. Also, it has the added twist of making it so anyone who argues against this misperception can be easily cast as falling into the "abused co-dependent category..this preemptively dismisses the point of view of others before they even have a hearing of how they REALLY believe instead of how the OP thinks they believe

This relationship (although an imaginary one, in my opinion) seems very unhealthy indeed.
and there we have the value judgement...unhealthy. This is the real point of the OP-- wishing to define believers as sick, mentally and morally sick. So ask yourself, is this really a topic starting post? Or is it a facade for flamebait, or simply passive aggressive license to insult at will?

FURTHER, I edited to add: Its obvious the OP poster is truly not interested in discussion, because he has ignored my attempts to elevate the discussion by offering insight into how some christians think, in posts #12, and post #9....both discussive posts which have NOT been replied to in this thread.

see? the purpose is not to discuss, but to denigrate...if I was wrong then my other posts would have been responded to.