Ex Christians

[Nakosis]

Everyone has different values. Do you want to live in a society that tells people to do what's right based on what each individual values or doesn't value?

In a democracy/republic we as a group create laws that are voted on. These are our civic laws that govern us as a group. So it's not an individual but what a majority of individuals value.

In a dictatorship, it'd be an individual, which may ok by me if I gets to be the dictator. :yes:

There is a system to determine the values we govern ourselves by. The Bible has no authority in this system anyway. It's the reality of what we have now. So how do you like it?

Morals are my personal sense of right and wrong. They may at times conflict with civic laws. Ok, well the civic laws are enforced by the group. There's no "earthly" enforcement of biblical laws. Your biblical morality is between you and God anyway. You are free to accept this morality as long as they don't conflict with civic laws at least in the US. I'm thinking Mormons and polygamy for example.

So you don't need to worry so much about my individual morality since we have enforcement of civic laws.

You and I may disagree on some moral issue, however the group provides enforcement not according to our individual morality but on civic laws.

Some civic law you don't like, you are free to try and change it. Like the homosexual community are trying to change our civic laws regarding marriage. Maybe you don't like it but as part of the group you have to respect the civic laws.

 

[Astravalon]

Hahahaha that's not the hell I'm talking about.

but it is.

Not really, the hell I'm taking about isn't a place I formed from my imagination.

Actually -- and I realize we're getting waaaaay off the original topic -- the English word “hell” in Scripture is used for four different things: Gehenna, Sheol, Hades, and Tartarus. Gehenna was merely a garbage dump, Sheol means simply the grave, and the latter two hail from Greek mythology.

Vadergirl -- getting back to the original topic of this thread, did you see my original post responding to that (129)? I think there were also a couple of other posts since then from folks addressing the original question that may have gotten lost in this thread’s derailment. Since that was your original subject, I wanted to be sure you didn't miss the responses pertaining to it.


-

 

[mycorrhiza]

God is loving(However he's also just) there's a punishment for sin, and why would he reward us for sinning? Jesus was the only one who could take away our sins. He doesn't think women are less than men(he loves them equally) and yes he does say homosexuality is wrong.

If the Bible is literal, then women are less than man. (1 Corinthians 14:34, 1 Corinthians 11:3). Why would homosexuality be wrong? It's love between two people of the same sex.

Again God is loving and just. We're all sinners, and sin can't be in heaven. However God gives us the opportunity to become his child by accepting Christ to take away our sin. Those who chose to be God's child won't go to hell, but if you're not his child then you will. You can't say God's unfair in punishing sin. Especially considering he gives us the choice to spend eternity with him.

He doesn't give this choice to everyone. I can't believe in the Biblical God even if I try, so I'm bound for hell according to the literal interpretation of the Bible. If a person is born in the wrong country, then he/she will be less likely to follow your God, and thus they are at a disadvantage. A person could be the most loving person ever, never harming anyone, always helping others and still this person would be tortured for all eternity, just because he/she never believed in God.

Hell isn't a fair punishment. It is torture, for all eternity, just because you commited a single sin: not believing in a God that gives no clear evidence of His existence. It is way too harsh for any crime whatsoever.

A loving God should be more loving than humans, and I would never ever send anyone to eternal torture, no matter how evil the deeds this person committed. Should I be more loving and forgiving than a perfect God?


There cannot be both hell and a loving God. Therefore we must either conclude either that hell isn't literal, but rather a metaphor for the end of life, or that God isn't loving.

 

[waitasec]

Well we all have the ability to make choices. That's why we don't HAVE to become christains(God doesn't force us to) Also human beings can chose what they want to eat, wear, read, etc

ok now i remember why i asked you about hell.

you don't think the threat of hell is a way of presenting an ultimatum?

and by ultimatum i mean this:

: a final proposition, condition, or demand; especially : one whose rejection will end negotiations and cause a resort to force or other direct action
Ultimatum - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[jasonwill2]

What didn't he answer you back on? How did he fail you?

He failed in that he didn't help me when I needed him most both emotionally and spiritually despite how much I honestly prayed to him.

Hmm okay so then which Satan is this, if it's not the guy talked about in the Bible?

It's "Satan" in the Jewish sense... which can be more than one thing simultaneously actually.

 

[waitasec]

Could I have the source of this article please? So the monkey starved himslef? That sounds cruel, the poor monkeys.

here you go...

Experiments with rhesus monkeys would prove that the evolution of empathy is a very long one. These little monkeys were given the option of doubling their food source while simultaneously shocking their fellow monkeys, or eating half as much and letting their friends live an electricity-free existence. Using a system of chains, batteries, and automatic food dispensers, the experimenters found that two-thirds of the monkeys preferred the empathetic less-food option. In a few cases, these monkeys were even starving themselves to avoid hurting their little buddies. They were also less likely to shock another monkey if they had experienced a shock themselves, and were less likely to shock any monkey they knew, although they might not be so kind if one of the scientists were thrown into the cage.

do you see what the implications are?
that monkeys have the ability to empathize like humans do and are also capable of reasoning.

Conservative Left Brain, Liberal Right Brain

but i'm curious, why couldn't you just take my word for it?

okay haha but do you see that if you have no set of moral codes there's nothing to stop everyone from just doing whatever they want. And not just anyone can decide what the moral codes are. I mean I can't write a list of rules and tell everyone to obey them because I said so.

in order for any society to function and thrive is to set up moral codes, which are in fact subjective. in one society it is moral to circumcise a female in others it's an abhorrent act. that isn't proof that people cannot be moral with out the bible...a subjective moral code.

thou shall not murder is not an exclusive moral code given by the god of the bible you know.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

In fairness to the Christian God, does he really condemn people for having certain inclinations?

Oh, I'm not comparing and contrasting life trials. We all have our mountains to climb.

If I were to continue relying on a doctrine that condemned me for my orientation and my thoughts and feelings toward other women, as I'd stated, I wouldn't be where I am now. I'm much happier knowing that I'm not sick and twisted, but that my orientation is just fine, thank you.

Talk about a huge monkey off my back.

 

[waitasec]

In fairness to the Christian God, does he really condemn people for having certain inclinations?

ask paul...

 

[-Peacemaker-]

ask paul...

Good idea

Romans 2: 5But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS

 

[crocusj]

I totally see where you're comming form. I've sometimes found myself reading passages and then saying why didn't God do it this way instead. It would have been better and it would have made him look like a more fair God. The problem when we do that though is that we're trying to "be God" we're saying we know what's best and we know how it should be done. There's things about God we can't understand and we just have to accept that he knows best even if it doesn't make sense to us. I know it's hard to do though.

How can you make this judgement? How can you see that it might be better another way? You would appear to be exercising your own innate morality there. I appreciate that you think that you are incorrect but you are still doing it nonetheless.

 

[jasonwill2]

In fairness to the Christian God, does he really condemn people for having certain inclinations?

believe it or not, yes he does if the bible is to be believed

 

[Vadergirl123]

sure he may have well been real, so what?
that still doesn't determine what he said is true.

Oops I misread what you posted, I thought you were saying John wasn't real. Why should I believe what he(or any of the other apostles) wrote about God was false?(since it's consistent with the rest of scripture)

 

[Vadergirl123]

i do.

Really, but if everyone just lived how they wanted that wouldn't be a very good society. The U.S even tried somehing like that(the articles of confederation) and our founding father's created the constitution.

 

[Vadergirl123]

We have two laws here:
1. Don't rape.
2. If you do rape, then you must pay the father some money and then marry the girl.

I'm not protesting the first rule. I am criticizing the second. You have defended the second by saying that this was due to the Israelite culture. Just like God prohibited rape (and eating shellfish) in the Israelite culture, he could have also prohibited treating raped women as impure and unwanted and chattel to be sold. In his omniscience, he could have realized that having a woman marry her rapist is exceedingly repulsive, terrifying, traumatizing, and sadistic. He could have told the Israelites that rape was not the fault of the woman, and that these women should be treated well, and should be given all the opportunities afforded to non-raped women, and that men should not look down upon them because of this horrific crime which was perpetrated on them.

I've already said I don't know for sure why he did that. I'm not God. However the people most likely would have looked down on the women(even if God told them not to).

 

[jasonwill2]

Really, but if everyone just lived how they wanted that wouldn't be a very good society. The U.S even tried somehing like that(the articles of confederation) and our founding father's created the constitution.

The articles of confederation were scrapped because the federal government was too weak in it.

After the Revolutionary war they wrote the articles of confederation, but then after a while they decided to write a new constitution, which made that whole fight with the federals and anti-federals. The newborn USA did actualy run on the Articles of Confederation for a while, but it wasn't a "Do whatever you want" document like you seem to be implying.

 

[Vadergirl123]

just as it is your opinion there is a hell with out any verifiable evidence to back up there is one...

It's not my opinion.

but lets take this a little further.
lets say there is a hell.
you are in heaven now and you find out your best friend or your child didn't make it, how is heaven going to be heaven knowing your loved one is in hell?

Define heaven(I'm not sure we're thinking of the same place)? I personally would be very sad to have friends and relatives go to hell. However I can't force them to go to accept Christ, it's their choice. Also heaven is about getting to see Jesus and living with him for eternity, so I'll still enjoy it.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

believe it or not, yes he does if the bible is to be believed

Care to support that statement with a little Scriptural evidence?

 

[Vadergirl123]

That is precisely what atheists, and other non-Christians, find frightening about this form of morality.
Morality-- treating other people well-- is not a good thing in and of itself, according to this viewpoint. It is only good because God told you to do it.

I'm more of saying without God everyone has their own set of morals.

I, for one, have compassion for my fellow humans and creatures on Earth. I do not want to cause unnecessary suffering. In addition to my own innate sense of morality, I also appreciate morality's benefit to society, in order for it to run smoothly and productively.

I also have compassion for others and don't want to cause suffering

Apparently I, and nearly every other atheist/non-Christian, are able to control ourselves.

I never said I coudn't control myself?

A rather unemotional appeal would be "Well, I wouldn't want to be murdered, so therefore, I shouldn't murder other people. If everyone just went around murdering people, life would be much more frightening and unpredictable, and therefore, that course of action is undesirable."

But I could also look at it as this guy will probably destroy more cars, therefore there's nothing wrong with killing him. Lets even say he's not benefitting society at all and has no family, so no one will miss him. What would be so wrong about killing those who aren't helping our society, but are causing some damage.(again I wouldn't really do this. It's just for the example)

In addition, as others have noted, humans have been conditioned, both through evolution and cultural teaching, so that murdering other people feels like a repulsive thing to do.

You believe everyone feels murder is repulsive?

 

[jasonwill2]

Care to support that statement with a little Scriptural evidence?

several, but if you dont know them i dont have time to carter to your ignorance to get the actual verses, im sure others have done so already

stone gays
stone kids who mouth
stone rapists
stone incest
dont do x dont do y
x,y, and z kind of people wont go to heaven
wages of sin is death, but everyone is a sinner out of compulisve nature

ect ect

he punishes people all the time for their inclinations, or calls for it

 

[Vadergirl123]

so...going back to the original question...

haha you just have to love how a thread can get off topic

I do sometimes describe myself as an ex-Christian, or a former Christian. However, at times that's a label of convenience. It gives one a sense of where I once was spiritually, but reveals very little of what I currently believe.
I have not literally "thrown out the baby (Jesus) with the bath water." I believe Jesus had (has) much to teach us in terms of demonstrating love and compassion to our fellow human beings. What I do not trust about most "religious" teachings regarding Jesus is all of the denominational dogma that has been added/interpreted/literalized over the centuries. Starting with Judaism (and perhaps even Zoroastrianism), the Abrahamic religions of Christianity, Islam, and even Mormonism, have each sequentially hijacked the others' previous teachings, in an attempt to legitimize their own spin on what is considered to be the "true" religion.

Okay I can understand that.

If I am forced to describe my current theological views, I now describe my beliefs as primarily "New Thought". But if you ask me for specifics, I might reveal a hybrid mix of Christian, Hindu and even Buddhist beliefs.

Very interesting, so what are some parts of each that you believe in?