Ex Christians

[Alceste]

I don't know, but you shouldn't be saying the passage says the girl has to produce bloody sheets or she does. She was being stoned because she wasn't a virgin.

What's the passage in the Bible of this incident?

Jacksnyte provided it. It's one of the most well known Bible stories there are, the source of the widely used quote "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Have you really never come across it before? :thud:

John 8 KJV

 

[Father Heathen]

Who are you talking to?

I'm referring to anyone to tries to defend the atrocious, unjust biblical garbage.

 

[Father Heathen]

Jacksnyte provided it. It's one of the most well known Bible stories there are, the source of the widely used quote "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Have you really never come across it before? :thud:

John 8 KJV

Of course not, they only cherry pick what they personally find convenient or fitting.

 

[Alceste]

Of course not, they only cherry pick what they personally find convenient or fitting.

It's amazing, really. What do people do in fundamentalist churches if not actually READ the book they believe to be the literally true, inspired word of their God and the only valid basis for all human morality?

 

[Astravalon]

I'll assume the main issue is when does life begin? And according to the Bible life begins at conception. So if the embryonic cells are life then harvesting them, which will kill them, is murder, and the Bible is also against murder.

No it's not, suicide is murder, which God condemns.

If there was a law that said being promiscuous was wrong and the penalty is stoning. Then yes I would approve. The woman chose to break the law, she didn't have too. In breaking it she was accepting the consequences.

[/color][/font]
God doesn't approve sex outside of marriage. It's a sin, and sin is repulsive to him. You don't see it as a bad thing, but so what? Does your opinion of what's good/bad mean it's right for everyone?

This response to my defense of human life is a bit ironic
considering your repeated statements about the bible being
against murder. So how do you justify murdering people
over the opinion that God says sex is wrong outside of
marriage (marriage being a ceremony which, by the way,
contains a ritual in which the couple publicly ignores Jesus'
command to not make any vows whatsoever)?



-

 

[Jacksnyte]

It's amazing, really. What do people do in fundamentalist churches if not actually READ the book they believe to be the literally true, inspired word of their God and the only valid basis for all human morality?

they are led by the hand through certain verses and told what they are supposed to mean by an authority figure. Other verses that might contradict this are then either ignored, or they stretch and twist things all out of shape to fit with what they wan it to say. When I was Baptist, there was usually a study guide that cherry-picked certain things, and ignored others. Most fundys read their Bible, but only in a pre-prescribed way, and covering only those verses that back up what the person who wrote the study guide claims is the meaning.
Most fundy seminarians receive a very sub-standard college education, and are very often not on a par with others who received "equivalent" degrees from more reputable facilities of higher learning.

 

[jasonwill2]

Are you sure that's it? That one isn't even a reply to my earlier question. My question was how did God let you down?


So all that stuff you posted about the satanist religion was interesting. Who came up with it?
No it's not, suicide is murder, which God condemns.

I must of gotten you and someone else confused then. I don't know where my post was, but I did say it somewhere i recall.

Also what is your basis for suicide being murder? How can I murder myself? do I not have the right to do to my body whatever I want?

The Bible doesn't say anything about suicide, much less call it murder.

Also "who came up with it" about Satanism... I can't answer that because I can't know what you mean; it's not derived from a single source (my beliefs anyway). Also I can't answer that even generally because many Satanists believe wildly different things

 

[mycorrhiza]

Define less, they weren't allowed to rule the church or be in chareg in a marriage. But they could have authority in business, with servants, etc

They had less power in total than men, as they weren't allowed to have any say in church nor marriage.

You live in Sweden? Well marriage is suppsoe to represent Christ's love for the church(Ephesians 5) I thought Sweden wasn't a very moral country?

People got married thousands of years before Jesus came. It's definitely not a Christian thing, so Christian morals have no place in marriage. Why wouldn't Sweden be moral?

But you still made a choice. You chose to not believe in christianity becasue it didn't make since to you. As to the food analogy, you can train your taste buds to enjoy something. When I was younger I HATED milk, but now I love it and drink it everyday Do you not believe a human being can make choices?

I didn't choose not to believe in Christianity, I just stopped believing. I didn't just say "you know what, I'm going to stop believing in God". Yes, you're really confirming my statement here. You can train your tastebuds, it's the culinary version of indoctrination. Whether or not free will exists can be debated. However, you cannot really choose what you believe.

Most everyone will face persecution sometime during their life. However if you love someone enough it won't matter. There's kids in the west who grow up in homes where God's hated or where there peers will mock them for believing in God.

Doesn't change the fact that it's unfair. Most people wont face persecution.

So because God punishes sin and you woudln't you think you're more forgiving then him. You don't even seem to mind some sins. Sin isn't the smae thing to you as it is to God. It's easy to forgive people when youd on't even beleive they did anything that wrong in the first place.

I believe stealing is wrong, but I don't think the punishment should be eternal. If I can forgive sins, why cannot God?

Here you go Is hell real? Is hell eternal?

It's cheap to post a link instead of explaining, but I'll have a go at it:

1. Death is the punishment for sins (Romans 6:23) and death is eternal. Therefore, death is the punishment.
2. Eternal life is only given to believers. Eternal death is just being dead for all eternity. If you're punished for all eternity, then you must also have eternal life.
3.What happens to a man, when he is thrown into fire? Does he burn forever, or does he perish in the flames?
4. The dead know nothing (Ecclesiastes 9:5).
5. While hell is mentioned several times in the Bible, it is only spoken of as sheol and gehenna (and their greek counterparts), neither of which is hell according to Judaism.
6. If the Bible is 100% literal, then the fires of gehenna would still burn today, which they do not. Thus we can tell that Jesus either was ignorant of this or he spoke metaphorically about hell.
7. Both body and soul are destroyed in hell, not eternally punished (Matthew 10:28).

The only verse I found that directly refers to a hell that is torture in flames (for humans, that is) is Luke 16:23-24. However, this is in an allegorical story and the word used is hades, which was not understood as eternal torture, but rather the greek word for sheol. Unless you're hinting that Christians believed in the hades of greek mythology this hades cannot be considered eternal punishment. It stands directly against Jewish mythology and the common usage of the word. Add to that the allegorical nature of the story.

It would be nice if you could find the individual passages, because then we could discuss them one by one and see whether or not they support eternal torture in flames.

I just have a question about hell. Did Jesus open it when he came to Earth or was it there all along? If it's the second, then why didn't God tell people about it before Jesus came? There was never a hell, in the Christian way, in Judaism.

It's not God's "opinion" that sin is bad. His very being is opposed to it.

It's still his opinion. He defined what sin was and said that it was wrong. If the definition is not from God, then it must be higher than God.

You and God don't have the same view about sin.

So you think eternal torture is a fair punishment for stealing a stick of gum?

I read passages as literal which are intended to be taken literally. Shoudl I take the verse, "Jesus wept" to be metaphorical. No of course not.

That's not exactly a good example of a part that should be read metaphorically. Sure, it's much easier to read all of the Bible literally, but it's probably not the correct way when you consider the historical context and the different natures of the different books of the Bible. Some are to be considered literal, while others definitely aren't.

 

[Jacksnyte]

In a nutshell, women were considered chattel, and hell was a concept dreamed up by the Christian church.

 

[Alceste]

they are led by the hand through certain verses and told what they are supposed to mean by an authority figure. Other verses that might contradict this are then either ignored, or they stretch and twist things all out of shape to fit with what they wan it to say. When I was Baptist, there was usually a study guide that cherry-picked certain things, and ignored others. Most fundys read their Bible, but only in a pre-prescribed way, and covering only those verses that back up what the person who wrote the study guide claims is the meaning.
Most fundy seminarians receive a very sub-standard college education, and are very often not on a par with others who received "equivalent" degrees from more reputable facilities of higher learning.

So it doesn't really have anything to do with the Bible, then? A religious authority could cherry pick verses from just about any book to justify whatever they want their "flock" to believe. Granted, I don't think I'd find any verses I could use to argue that women should be murdered if they don't bleed on their wedding night in The Hobbit or Gulliver's Travels., but I could try.

 

[CMike]

Actually, the passage is about adultery, but here it is:

John 7:53-8:11 in the Authorized Version:

7:53 And every man went unto his own house.
8:1 ¶ Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
8:2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

The question was moot.

The Jewish court at the time was disbanded, therefore the death penalty couldn't have been carried out.

Also the real rabbis at the time couldn't give too hoots what Jesus thought about Jewish law.

 

[Shermana]

Jacksnyte provided it. It's one of the most well known Bible stories there are, the source of the widely used quote "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Have you really never come across it before? :thud:

John 8 KJV

And also one of the most well-known-to-be-interpolated.

The verse simply doesn't appear until later manuscript versions. It's most likely inauthentic.

Also the real rabbis at the time couldn't give too hoots what Jesus thought about Jewish

They apparently gave plenty a big hoot about him in the Talmud, in some of the most angry, degrading language. But I suppose that's not "At the time". We simply don't know what the Rabbis "At the time" thought. We may get a minor glimpse from Josephus what the Church under James was thought of though.

 

[jasonwill2]

another reason i left christianity was becaues i honestly felt it was evil and tyranical

 

[Jacksnyte]

another reason i left christianity was becaues i honestly felt it was evil and tyranical

This is one of the main reasons I left as well

 

[Rakhel]

I tried being a Christian. I failed miserably.
I just couldn't wrap my head around this trinity thing.
So I guess I was never meant to be a Christian.
G-d had other plans for me.

 

[Shermana]

I tried being a Christian. I failed miserably.
I just couldn't wrap my head around this trinity thing.
So I guess I was never meant to be a Christian.
G-d had other plans for me.

What if I told you the Trinity was a total crock and that you don't have to follow the traditional orthodox doctrines to accept that Yashua was in fact the Promised Messiah?

One of the reasons I hate the Trinity (and its cousin which many Trinitarians actually go by, Modalism) so much and attack it in all the Trinity threads is exactly this problem: It is a MAJOR stumbling block for many Jews (if not the main one) and gives the Rabbinicists great straw-man ammunition.

 

[jasonwill2]

I never found trouble with the trinity, but i never liked the idea of demons being other gods and never used the lablel monotheistic guess

i just saw it as different facets of the same entity

 

[Jacksnyte]

Some of my studies that led me away from believing in Christianity included info like what is found in this article:

The Myth of the Historical Veracity of Jesus

 

[Shermana]

The idea that Jesus did not exist is an extreme fringe minority even among Secular scholars. This is a great example of the desperate logic the Rabbinicists will resort to. Not too far off from Zeitgeist. Does the article mention that even the Talmud acknowledges his existence (in the most hating sort of way).

 

[Rakhel]

What if I told you the Trinity was a total crock and that you don't have to follow the traditional orthodox doctrines to accept that Yashua was in fact the Promised Messiah?

One of the reasons I hate the Trinity (and its cousin which many Trinitarians actually go by, Modalism) so much and attack it in all the Trinity threads is exactly this problem: It is a MAJOR stumbling block for many Jews (if not the main one) and gives the Rabbinicists great straw-man ammunition.

I know the Trinity is a total croak. I know that you don't have to follow the traditional orthodox doctrines to accept Jesus as a messiah. (Note: I said "a," not "the.")

However, that was just what started me on my path of discovery.

Only the bad stories of the OT were talked about in church. As if it was a way to show you how badly the Israelites ****** up and that Jesus was "the only way."

Tithes were another story entirely. That was why my grandfather left christianity. He went off to service in the military only to get served a bill from the church he grew up in. $3000 in back dues.

Look Jesus is all hunky dory for those that accept and believe in him. Jesus doesn't work for me. He is a middle man, as far as I am concerned. And the more he gets shoved down my throat, the more I despise him. The more I am told to "trust in Jesus" the more likely I am to tell you to rot in hell. The more I am told that "There is no air conditioning in Hell," the more likely I am to tell you, "There is no air conditioning in the subway tunnels either. Welcome to Hell"