zonmoy

wouldnt be too sure where to look for that other than the daily devotionals that I honestly dont want to subscribe too. I did give you a link to the churches website.

spin

You are in a difficult situation, though lots of people find themselves there. So first thing to know is that you are not alone. People survive their families and their mental and emotional oppression.

But actively fighting against those people who have control over you will make things more difficult for you. If you get angry and frustrated, they will be more sure that there is something wrong with you and they will have to try harder to fix you up. You know that when you reach some in dependence you'll be free of their efforts and can actively be the person you want to be. You can still be that person, but not openly. Getting angry and upset and wanting to do something doesn't work. Being calm, understanding yourself and them, learning more about the world, learning how to make rational judgments, be critical, does work.

You know that the bible is an old book, written by people who knew nothing about science, who lived in a poor culture in which there were slaves and women were little better than slaves. You can see this in the book. The book is a window into a distant past and only that. It is a fool who runs his life based on such a book. You know that. The book is full of all sorts of interesting things about how ancient people understood the world. Very often wrong, but very interesting. Someone who believes this book is for running your life is so out of touch with reality that you should be able to deal with them mainly by ignoring them. You take the opportunity to stay in your room, to go out, surf the web, spend less time with them however you can.

At the same time, if you have to read the bible, do so. But not with hate. It's not a dumb book. It's just old and not relevant to an ordinary rational human being. Learn what things actually mean. Look for inconsistencies, or read about them on the web. The more you know about the bible the less it will have any effect on you. When the time comes, you will be able to defend yourself because you know the bible and what it means.

You have a future ahead of you and you can plan for it. In the meantime, you'll get support from other infidels. They've been through similar circumstances and know somewhat how you feel. That is good for you. As I said, you are not alone.

I don't think confrontation is the best approach. Don't challenge their claims until you feel it doesn't matter to your state of being, when you feel stronger, less dependent. Even then, the only thing you'll achieve is to make yourself feel better. They won't understand or appreciate. The important thing is that you do.

If there are specific things that cause you problems about the bible and your family's use of it, why don't you ask about it here and we'll see if we can't clarify the issue.

And there are other forums where you can talk about other things. Talk to other sceptics. It's good for you.




spin

Clouseau

Devotionals are free of charge, are they not? But there is no shortage of general literature, and I doubt that you will find allegations of this sort in print. In several decades I have never witnessed it audibly, either.

Yes, thank you for that. I could find no polemic there.

Ramen

The thing to argue isn't what they believe, but the act of believing itself. Ask them to explain how believing in anything changes reality and isn't just mental fabrication.

HAWTHORNE

In their delusion, they have it reversed. They are the ones making the incredible
claim that a dead man came back to life 2000 years ago. Put them on the defensive.
Make them prove it. The following is from an email debate I
had with a fundamentalist Christian. I hope it helps:

Okay, (name omitted), let's say someone comes up to me and says he saw
Albert Einstein a couple of weeks ago. I tell him that's impossible,
Albert Einstein died in 1955. He says hundreds of people saw him
and that Einstein even gave him a book on the theory of relativity. I
tell him I don't believe he saw Albert Einstein. Well, he uses your
type of logic and says, well, Kenneth, that's a pretty big claim you're
making there. With no more "evidence" than that all I can do is walk
away shaking my head at the credulity of some people. Can't you
see, (name omitted)? We could use Elvis as an example. People are "seeing"
Elvis all the time. And give nothing but flimsy reasons as to why they
"believe" it was Elvis. And when people say they don't believe them
they have the ... I can't even come up with a strong enough word...
okay, the audacity and utter nonsense to accuse them of making
the BIG claim in not believing them! I guess if you walked into a
deserted house and heard something fall in another room you would
immediately go to the presumption that it must be a ghost, rather than
think of natural things it could be first without going to the
extreme of it being a ghost. The one making a positive claim,
especially an outrageous claim, has the burden to prove it.

From an article by Farrell Till:
The only sensible way to evaluate claims that one has no firsthand knowledge of is to apply a rule of evidence that Carl Lofmark explained in What is the Bible?--

"When you lack evidence, the only way to decide whether or not to believe something is to ask: Is it likely? If you tell me a bird flew past my window, I will probably believe you, even though I did not see it myself and I have no evidence. That is because such a thing is likely. I have seen it happen before. It is more likely that a bird flew past my window, than that you are deceiving me. But if you tell me a pig flew past my window, I will not believe you, because my past experience tells me that such things do not happen, and so I presume that what you reported is false. Thus, where there is no evidence we have to rely on our own past experience of the sort of things that really happen"(pp. 41-42).

Clouseau

Isn't that the whole idea, that resurrection is impossible, unless the person concerned is the deity or agent thereof?

HAWTHORNE

And, rather than calling skeptics "fools", they have the heavy burden
of proving this nonsense of a man coming back to life 2000 years ago.
All they can do is beg questions, argue in circles, and end up having
a blind faith based on NO COMPELLING EVIDENCE. Who looks more
like a fool?

Clouseau

It hasn't yet been shown that they call anyone fools. They don't have to prove that Jesus was resurrected.

The argument that there can be no deity because resurrection is impossible unless there is a deity is circularity.

Many find the sayings of Jesus and his apostles very compelling indeed, being unlike anything else uttered or written before or since. They are also convinced by the practical changes that take place in the lives of people who take these words seriously. They are therefore, with open eyes, highly disposed to believe that Jesus was resurrected.

I don't think that calling people fools is appropriate or useful.

NZSkep

how about the bible? Is that a good enough source?

Psalm 14:1 "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' "


it doesn't take long on the interweb to find articles/book quotes etc talking about how unbelievers are fools.

http://members.aol.com/BaxterInstitute/Fool.html

or

http://www.logosresourcepages.org/Be.../existence.htm


there are heaps more articles books etc talking on this topic.

Chili

They crucified and buried the Jew to set free the man whom they called Barabbas because he truly was an insurrectionist who continued to seek freedom from religious oppression in the wake of his rebirth, and finally got it when his Jewish identity was crucified.

Is there something is wrong with that?