Ex Christians

[Vadergirl123]

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

True christainity isn't evil or tyranical. However there've been churches and people in the past(and some today)who make it seem like it is.

 

[Vadergirl123]

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.

Okay, it can be hard to, "wrap your head around it" haha what would you consider yourself now?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Why would I have to follow any rule you made?

Because if you don't, I would kill you.

You have no authority over me.

Yes I do. I have the gun, so I am in a more authorative position.

You can shoot me, but it woudln't be justified.

So why is it justified when your God makes such threats and carries them out?

 

[Vadergirl123]

I would agree that his terrifying power and relentless pursuit of causing the paths of destruction would be considered "awesome" in its true definition. Most "Christians" would get streamrolled by him if they actually provoked him.

God's the one who's actually in charge(Job) however we do have to be wary of Satan as he's more powerful then we are without God.

 

[Rakhel]

Okay, it can be hard to, "wrap your head around it" haha what would you consider yourself now?

UMMMM if you will look to the right of my avatar, it tell you what my religion is

 

[Vadergirl123]

UMMMM if you will look to the right of my avatar, it tell you what my religion is

Yes I did read that. What does it mean exactly? What are some jewish things you do/don't believe?

 

[Vadergirl123]

Because if you don't, I would kill you.

that woudln't be very intimidating to me, so I woudln't follow them if they went against what I believed.(unless of course you ordered me to do something I was already going to do regardless)

Yes I do. I have the gun, so I am in a more authorative position.

A more authoratative position yes, but you don't ahve authority. You can't MAKE me do something, you can only threaten me,a nd what if I have soemone else who also points a gun at me. Should I chose to obey him or you?

So why is it justified when your God makes such threats and carries them out?

God doesn't threaten to kill me. And God's the one who created the laws in the first place. He even told the Israelites what the punishments would be.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

that woudln't be very intimidating to me, so I woudln't follow them if they went against what I believed.(unless of course you ordered me to do something I was already going to do regardless)

Are you seriously suggesting that, if somebody put a gun to your head and threatened to kill you, you wouldn't be intimidated? I sincerely doubt that is true.

A more authoratative position yes, but you don't ahve authority. You can't MAKE me do something, you can only threaten me,a nd what if I have soemone else who also points a gun at me. Should I chose to obey him or you?

What if there were multiple Gods, each telling people contradictory things and say that if you don't follow them they'll send you to hell?

God doesn't threaten to kill me. And God's the one who created the laws in the first place. He even told the Israelites what the punishments would be.

How is that any different from me creating the "law" in the analogy? I have the power in that situation, and I set the rules. I even laid out the punishment if you did not follow those rules - so, surely, this logic applies to that situation as well. Because I weild the power and laid out the rules, if you disobey them it is your fault. How is that any different to the logic of your God?

 

[Astravalon]

God tells us not to murder yes. I think we're have different views on what murder is, I'm defining murder as, "premediated, unlawful taking of a life." What are you defining it as?

Again, just because something is legal or lawful doesn't
mean it's right. Murder is taking of a life. "Lawful" murder is
just like "unlawful" murder in that it's premeditated and
involves taking of a life. The only difference is whether or
not it carries the "Legal" stamp.

Jesus doesn't say to not take vows. He says not to swear.

A rose by any other name is still a rose. Whether it's
called "making oaths", "swearing", or "taking vows", it
involves a mere human, with no ability to know precisely
what the future holds, declaring otherwise. That's the
context behind Jesus' command not to do this.




-

 

[mycorrhiza]

Yes they did, and I said marriage represents Christ's love for the church, and if you read Ephesians 5 you'll see that this idea was a, "mystery(something not yet known to man). Christain morals have alot of place in marriage. I thought Sweeden had had a huge crime increase recently?

Does an asatru marriage represent Christ's love for the church? Does a hindu marriage to do so? Or a secular marriage?

Christian morals should only apply to Christian marriage. It should stay away from all other marriage customs, including secular.

Nope, we didn't. Where did you get that from?

You chose to stop believing because you thought the Bible didn't make sense with what you believe about life.

I didn't choose to stop believing, I just stopped believing. If it had been an active choice, then I could just choose to believe that the Bible makes perfect sense and that God exists, but I cannot do so.

But I CHOSE to do that, and now I like milk alot. Everyone choses what they believe.

So, could you choose to believe that you are a flying cat? I certainly could not choose to honestly believe that.

God does forgive sins, and stealing doesn't mean the same thing to you as it does to God. Again you're not God why do you keep comparing yourself to him?

He only forgives them if you follow his son. Stealing seems to be a much bigger deal to Him, and I'm just wondering why. I'm comparing His morals to mine, because those are the morals I have to compare His to. I can forgive people without them believing that I exist.

I was lazy haha and besides the link makes some good points and does explain everything.

It leaves quite many gaps.

Yes eternal separation from God is the punishment not Dying. Everyone(christains/non-christains) dies.

Psalm 9:17 says that the wicked will return to sheol, meaning that they've been there once before. Does this not imply that the second death is indeed returning to being dead?

We, of course, must speak of the second death, not the first. All go to sheol, but only the wicked return after the ressurection, while the believers are given eternal life. It is constantly repeated that the reward for belief is life, eternal life and so on. If everyone already has eternal life, then there would be no need to state this.

Where do you get that from the link/the Bible?

By using logic. Being dead, you don't feel anything or know anything. Eternal death is being dead for all eternity. The opposite of eternal life.

Did you even read over the link, if it's eternal then he'll burn forever.

So if you keep a fire burning, all that goes in the fire will also burn forever? If we assert that because the fire is eternal, the punishment must also be so, then we must also assert that fuel is never depleted.

That verse wasn't even in the link, and you need to read it in it's entire context.

Of course the link wont use verses that go against what they're trying to prove. What does it say in the full context, then?

No, someparts of the Bible shoudln't be taken literally. Was he speaking in parables?

Not in parables, but in similars. Why is hell called gehenna over and over again if it has nothing to do with gehenna? It was a place where they actually burned people. The fire was constant, as new fuel was added all the time, and the worms kept reproducing, but yet none of the people who were thrown there kept on burning for all eternity.

How do you decide which parts are literal and which aren't?

That verse also wasn't in the link, and again pleas read the entire context.

I did, it still says that the soul can be destroyed, proving that hell, if it exists, isn't necessarily eternal.

That passage does indeed talk about hell and torture. However why do you think the place was the greek mythological hades? The place described doesn't even describe hades??? And also Abraham woudln't be in Hades.

Because it used hades as a place of punishment, which was unknown to Jews before the influence of hellenism. Hades is traditionally the same as sheol in Jewish mythology. It would be a weird coincidence if Jesus just happened to reveal that there actually was a hell, just when the hellenistic influence was so strong.

So you believe the Bible talks about eternal torture then? Now you justwant to know if there's flames?

I do believe that it talks about eternal torture in flames, but for the devil and his angels. Though it speaks of eternal punishment, it is in no way implied that it's a continuous torture. Being dead for all eternity is still eternal punishment, as it doesn't end.

When Jesus came, a belief in a kind of "torture" after hell had developed in some Jewish traditions, gehenna. This, however, was temporary and lasted a maximum of a year. It fits the historical context that Jesus would talk about hell, while Moses and Abraham failed to mention even a word about something like it.

Most likely there all along, since sin's been in existence. Hell is refered to in the O.T. (Daniel 12:2) and again Psa. 19:& where David talks about the sorrows of hell.

Daniel is a late work, so it's possible that the concept of hell had developed in Judaism by then. It in no way implies torture and fails to mention hell. Though it speaks of something as everlasting, this might be metaphorical. Periods of time are metaphorical all throughout the Bible (week meaning seven years, day meaning a year, a certain amount of years meaning a very long time).

What translation are you using, because I fail to find what you referenced in Psa. 19. The psalms are poetic works and are to be regarded as such.

Why did God not give out clear warnings of eternal hell to the Jews if it existed back then? If they were his chosen people, then they of any would deserve to know of it's existence. The concept of sin is quite different between Judaism and Christianity, too.

Yes I agree with you, but that doesn't make them "less" they could speak in marriage. In I Peter it talks about a woman influencing her husband. And tey could be very involved in the church.

It still makes them less if they're not allowed the same authority in the same fields. Are there any fields where men aren't allowed authority?

Well if they don't want to face it then they don't have to chose to become a christain. I never said the christain life was easy.

But if it's easier for some people, due to them being raised Christians, that is unfair.

To me it doesn't sound very fair, but sin doesn't bother me the way it does God. Again why do you keep comparing me to him?

So your morals aren't based on God? If it's unfair to you, why don't you consider it unfair?

I don't read the whole Bible literally, but the parts that are intended to be read literally I read literally

How do you decide which parts are which? Have you yourself done wider scriptural and historical studies or do you listen to the explanations given by your pastor or similar?

 

[Rakhel]

Yes I did read that. What does it mean exactly? What are soem jewish things you do/don't believe?

Quite basically, I don't believe that we should "fence" everything. When I say "fence," I mean by certain rabbis amending torah/talmud laws to make things stricter than they already are.
If Hashem had not wanted us to know and understand everything this world has to offer, as well as make decisions for ourselves, then half the stuff we see and use now(telephone, computer, internet), would not exist.
I do not believe, much to most rabbis discontent, that they are the end all be all of Torah law. They are just man, not god.

 

[CMike]

Once again the premise is completely wrong.

The death penalty was very rarely carried out. The requirements were so great to carry it out, it made it almost impossible to impose that sentence.

There were two laws given to the jews. The written law and the oral law. Both were given by G-d on Mt. Sinai.

The oral law is just as important because it explains how to do the things composed in the written law.

If anyone actually cares, the link below gives the jewish view on the death penalty.

Ask the Rabbi

Also at the time the jewish court was disbanded so their was no way the death penalty could have been imposed anyway.

And the rabbis at the time couldn't have cared less of jesus' vew on anything. So the story is extremely unlikely to have taken place.

 

[tumbleweed41]

But can it be said with confidence that at the time the Law was given, that it was never carried out?

 

[Vadergirl123]

Are you seriously suggesting that, if somebody put a gun to your head and threatened to kill you, you wouldn't be intimidated? I sincerely doubt that is true.

My bad I should've said, "not intimidated about dying" however the process itself woudl be intimidating.

What if there were multiple Gods, each telling people contradictory things and say that if you don't follow them they'll send you to hell?

Then that would be very interesting. I believe there's only one God though. However there's not only one human being, so who should I follow if both you and someone else are pointing a gun at me?

How is that any different from me creating the "law" in the analogy? I have the power in that situation, and I set the rules. I even laid out the punishment if you did not follow those rules - so, surely, this logic applies to that situation as well. Because I weild the power and laid out the rules, if you disobey them it is your fault. How is that any different to the logic of your God?

No alot of people have the power to hold a gun at someone. There's nothing special about that. It seems that you're saying anyone can take a gun, threaten people, and instantly have the authority to decide whatever they want. Nobody is as powerful as God.

 

[Vadergirl123]

Quite basically, I don't believe that we should "fence" everything. When I say "fence," I mean by certain rabbis amending torah/talmud laws to make things stricter than they already are.
If Hashem had not wanted us to know and understand everything this world has to offer, as well as make decisions for ourselves, then half the stuff we see and use now(telephone, computer, internet), would not exist.
I do not believe, much to most rabbis discontent, that they are the end all be all of Torah law. They are just man, not god.

Hmmm I agree they're not God. That's very interesting.

 

[Alceste]

The Bible doesn't specifically say

Many translations actually say "bloody sheet". Would you say those translations are NOT the word of God? If not, how do you decide which translation is the inspired word of God?

The ONLY English translations that do not use the ambiguous phrase "tokens of virginity", refer to a cloth, garment, sheet or blanket, in many cases "stained with blood". What is your alternative interpretation, and how do you think all these Bible scholars managed to get it wrong?

Here are some examples, and you can browse through the different translations yourself here.

New Living Translation:
“I discovered that your daughter was not a virgin.” But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.’ Then they must spread her bed sheet before the elders. "

New International Translation:
"But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.’ Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town"

Common English Bible:
"But look! Here’s proof of my daughter’s virginity.” At that point they will spread out the blanket in front of the city’s elders."

Complete Jewish Bible:
"yet here is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity’ — and they will lay the cloth before the town leaders."

Contemporary English Version:
" here is proof that she was a virgin!” Then the bride’s parents will show them the bed sheet from the woman’s wedding night."

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition:
"behold these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the ancients of the city"

GOD'S WORD (sic) Translation:
"But here’s the evidence!” Then the girl’s parents must spread out the cloth in front of the leaders of the city"

Good News Translation:
"But here is the proof that my daughter was a virgin; look at the bloodstains on the wedding sheet!"

Holman Christian Standard Bible:
"here is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ They will spread out the cloth before the city elders."

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Then that would be very interesting. I believe there's only one God though. However there's not only one human being, so who should I follow if both you and someone else are pointing a gun at me?

You wouldn't, but fortunately the metaphor only includes one person with one gun, so the decision is removed entirely.

No alot of people have the power to hold a gun at someone. There's nothing special about that. It seems that you're saying anyone can take a gun, threaten people, and instantly have the authority to decide whatever they want. Nobody is as powerful as God.

But a person with a gun is more powerful than a person without, right? Therefore the person with the power has the right to tell the other person what to do. How does this differ from the logic you apply to God? Just because God supposedly has all the power, why does that make God right, or why does that justify anything that God does?

 

[Alceste]

I said I believe murder is wrong. God gave them the rules and he gave punishments for breaking them. It was their choice to break the rules, and by doing so they accept the consequences.
You didn't answer my question of what makes someone's sense of morality better than someone elses?

The first commandment is "thou shalt not kill", not "thou shalt not murder", and was reiterated in the NT by Paul in Romans 13:8:

13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

I don't blame you for being confused about what is moral and what isn't if you're trying to base it all on the Bible. The commandment against killing, which is continually violated - even by God Himself - throughout the entire book, without consequence, is one of the most stark self-contradictions in the history of literature.

 

[Alceste]

Yes I've read it many times, but I wanted to make sure we were thinking of the same passage.
First off Jesus didn't "interfere." The pharisees brought the women to him(vs 3) then when they ASKED HIM what to do about her, he said, "Let any of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."
He wasn't saying not to do the law, Jesus said whoever has no sin, throw the first stone, and there were no takers.

Jesus was sinless. Why couldn't he have stoned her to death? Wouldn't he have been obligated to do so in order to obey God's commandment?

 

[Alceste]

What do you believe should be the basis for human morality?

Reason.