Ex Christians

[Vadergirl123]

no not at all...
so if she's bad in bed, what good is she?

excellent.

If you read the entire passage you'll see that she's being stoned because she had been having other sexual relationships within her father's house.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It's different with God. Yes a person with a gun(or the power) could then chose whatever rules they want. However I don't have to obey them and a human can't be in power forever. It's not possible. Someone will eventually overtake them.

That's irrelevant. Do you or do you not agree with the claim that a person who has power is permitted to dictate the actions of those who do not and possesses the right to punish them? It doesn't matter whether they're in power for eternity or for five minutes.

I said you go to hell for being a sinner, so if you've sinned then yes you're going to hell.

You've still not answered the question. Will I go to hell for believing what I believe? It's a simple yes or no question.

First off God doesn't always punish people who don't do what he says. Seccond God has every right to do whatever he wants because he's an infinite perfect being.

It doesn't matter whether he always does it or sometimes does it. What I'm asking is why does God have any more right than anyone else and why should his being an "infinite perfect being" be justification?

Right I can't know without the Bible. I have no reason to not trust the Bible's God's word.

How do you know it's God's word? We already know it to be demonstrably false in many places.

In other words It's a logical assumption.

No, because it's not assuming anything. It looks at the criteria and makes a basic assessment. It's not an assumption to say "there are no married bachelors" just as it's not an assumption to say "a perfect being cannot possess want".

God can't stand sin. Destroy sin?? We're all sinners and have all sinned. Do you want God to destroy every human being????

I said destroy sin, not human beings. Couldn't God - a perfect, infinite, all-powerful being - just destroy sin withou destroying humanity? Is he incapable of doing that?

I haven't really sat down and thought to myself, "what should my God be like." If that's what you're saying. The God I beleive in is based on the Bible.

And yet I know lots of people who claim to base the God they believe in on the Bible, but their God differs a lot from yours. So, obviously, you've only made your own personal interpretation of God based on the Bible (or based on the words of whoever dictated the Bible or it's interpretation to you).

Also if I was going to form my own God, he probably wouldn't be like the BIblical God.

So the Biblical God isn't the best God you could imagine? Then how can they be perfect? Why not just believe in the God you want to believe?

 

[Vadergirl123]

you made a judgment call that was inaccurate.

My bad, I thought you didn't like my answer

right. it's based on faith.
do you have something against faith?

Nope

nice ducking. you do realize there are other people besides yourself that have loved ones that are not believers, right?
jeez, the lack of foresight is a little bit unnerving.
recently i was in yosemite...my husband couldn't make it...i had a nice time but i missed him. so if you were in heaven knowing your loved ones were in eternal torment, you are saying you could ignore that...interesting.

I'm not ducking, and of course I know there are people out there who aren't beleivers and have loved ones. I'm saying I love God very much and want to spend eternity with him.(think of God as a "loved one" of mine)
Not ignore it, I would feel terrible, but I'd be in heaven with a God I love.

 

[Vadergirl123]

and the way you define christianity is the way christianity is defined, right?

No, I believe the way the Bible defines is right.

 

[Vadergirl123]

well you did say you wanted to see if they were true christians to begin with...
and how is that determined...you say the bible...but that really isn't saying anything at all, since the bible is understood subjectively.

The Bible doesn't need to be understood subjectively.

or are you saying your subjective understanding of the bible will determine if people were real christians at one point?

I don't have a subjective understanding of the Bible. I don't look at a Bible verse/passage and if it goes against my opinion or feelings decide that the passage coudln't have meant what it says.

 

[Vadergirl123]

Technically, if one is basing their criteria on the Bible, they
are, likewise, basing their criteria on what they think is right.

Haha good point

-

 

[Vadergirl123]

do you think taking any type of medication for headaches, as an example, is manipulating the body?

Hmm no, not some of them.

 

[Vadergirl123]

Well what do you think then of my definition of a Christian.
A Christians is someone who chooses to follow the commandments of Jesus?

Why does it matter what I think? And I believe a christain should follow Christ's commands.

 

[Vadergirl123]

It is "your christianity" when yours differs from others (who, by the way are just as sure as you that they are right, and you are wrong in how you interperate the Bible)

There's alot of people who interpret the Bible like I do and who have the same view on christianity as I do. However are you saying my belief about Christaity is wrong because the majority of people you know about don't have the same view?

I would suggest that if you are interested in what other people believe and why, you go to the services of other churches, read literature about it written by someone of that faith, research world religions and their origins. Don't just swallow whole whatever you were indoctrinated with without really knowing where this information is coming from.

Haha I don't "swallow whole indoctrination." I've already said I enjoy reaing and learning more about other religions, And I would read books about them written by people of the same faith and also by people of different faiths. I wouldn't only read books about religions from the perspective of people who aren't even a part of that religion.

 

[Vadergirl123]

i bet they would disagree...so who do you trust?
who do you trust?

No most of them have no problem saying they don't think the Bible's the absolute authority. It's more about feelings and God making us happy.

 

[Vadergirl123]

I don't think I've ever seen backpedalling applied so quickly.

Carry on, Vadergirl.

Backpedalling? Do you feel I told you/or anyone else that your reason for leaving was"unfair." If so then please tell me who the person is and I can apologize to them?

 

[Vadergirl123]

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

The love people have is suppose to represent Christ's love for the church, but If you're not a christain then you probably won't recognize it.

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

Do you believe you can apply whatever morals you wnat to a marriage?

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

Something I heard/read. I thought Sweden had a high rate of crime. Maybe it was someplace else.

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.

I thought you said you stopped believing because the Bible failed to make sense to you? You had to chose to beleive the Bible no longer made sense.

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

Hmm possibly. I've never tried, nor do I have the deisire to.

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.

Well again you're not God and neither am I, so we can't really understand the way HE feels about sin.

So then if your morals are contradictory to God's then yours are right because they make more sense to you?

 

[Vadergirl123]

It leaves quite many gaps.

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?

What translation are you using? Mine says "go down" not return.

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.

Its' a logical assumption. However you've never died before(obvioulsy) so you can't know your sould won't be able to feel or know anything. And it's eternal punishment and seperation from God.

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.

It's eternal fire yes and you will burn forever. I can't give you s scientific reason for hwo that's possible.

Of course the link won't use verses that go against what they're trying to prove. What does it say in the full context, then?

How the living can ahve hope and something to look forward to and the dead no longer have that.

Not in parables, but in similars. Why is hell called gehenna over and over again if it has nothing to do with gehenna?

Because when used figuratively it refers to a place of everlasting punishment.

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

Sometimes just by common sense. Obviously the passage Jesus wept is to be taken literally. Other times it's by a knowledge of the culture, original language, understanding greek/hebrew writing styles. The main reason why people sometimes differ about if a passage is literal or not is when they read the Bibel with their own preconcieved ideas. An example would be, "I think stealing isn't a bad thing, so therefore the verse "thou shalt not steal" can't be literal, God has to be speaking figuratively.

 

[Vadergirl123]

It leaves quite many gaps.

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?

What translation are you using? Mine says "go down" not return.

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.

Its' a logical assumption. However you've never died before(obvioulsy) so you can't know your sould won't be able to feel or know anything. And it's eternal punishment and seperation from God.

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.

It's eternal fire yes and you will burn forever. I can't give you s scientific reason for hwo that's possible.

Of course the link won't use verses that go against what they're trying to prove. What does it say in the full context, then?

How the living can ahve hope and something to look forward to and the dead no longer have that.

Not in parables, but in similars. Why is hell called gehenna over and over again if it has nothing to do with gehenna?

Because when used figuratively it refers to a place of everlasting punishment.

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

Sometimes just by common sense. Obviously the passage Jesus wept is to be taken literally. Other times it's by a knowledge of the culture, original language, understanding greek/hebrew writing styles. The main reason why people sometimes differ about if a passage is literal or not is when they read the Bibel with their own preconcieved ideas. An example would be, "I think stealing isn't a bad thing, so therefore the verse "thou shalt not steal" can't be taken literally, and God has to be speaking figuratively because that view goes against what I believe.

 

[mycorrhiza]

The love people have is suppose to represent Christ's love for the church, but If you're not a christain then you probably won't recognize it.

If love is supposed to represent Christ's love for the Church, then why isn't the love valid if it's between two people of the same sex? Marriages were performed long before Christianity came along.

Do you believe you can apply whatever morals you wnat to a marriage?

Yes, but only on a marriage that is strictly tied to that moral. You should not apply Christian morals to Hindu marriages, for example, and neither should you apply Hindu morals to Christian marriages.

Something I heard/read. I thought Sweden had a high rate of crime. Maybe it was someplace else.

Probably someplace else. We have a quite low crime rate.

I thought you said you stopped believing because the Bible failed to make sense to you? You had to chose to beleive the Bible no longer made sense.

Nope, I didn't need to make an active choice. Why would I actively choose to lose faith and go through a time of doubt and searching? That's not how the mind works. It's basic psychology.

Hmm possibly. I've never tried, nor do I have the deisire to.

So you do believe that you could choose to suddenly 100% honestly believe that you are a flying cat?

Well again you're not God and neither am I, so we can't really understand the way HE feels about sin.

I think the Bible is pretty clear about how he feels, and I'd say that it goes against my morals and my understanding of perfection.

So then if your morals are contradictory to God's then yours are right because they make more sense to you?

I don't believe in objective morals. However, in perfection, which you claim that God possesses, I don't count in eternal torture and being unforgiving and jealous. But I guess you could believe that those things are indeed compatible with perfection.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Backpedalling? Do you feel I told you/or anyone else that your reason for leaving was"unfair." If so then please tell me who the person is and I can apologize to them?

No, your arguments against others' perspectives about God and Jesus themselves have said they were unfair. Or that we can't blame God because he's perfect and we're not - it isn't like we haven't heard that before, and in fact had believed it.

But, I've doubted the sincerity of this thread from the beginning since you also have a thread trying to refute all the contradictions in the Bible to prove that it's perfect and infallible and there are no contradictions.

So like I said, carry on. I await your denial with bated breath.

 

[mycorrhiza]

What translation are you using? Mine says "go down" not return.

NIV. It is not consistent with Jewish mythology that only the wicked would go down into the grave, sheol.

Its' a logical assumption. However you've never died before(obvioulsy) so you can't know your sould won't be able to feel or know anything. And it's eternal punishment and seperation from God.

The physiological implications of death is that you lose consciousness and your bodily functions stop, forever. Death is held in contrast to life and they mean just that, death and life.

It's eternal fire yes and you will burn forever. I can't give you s scientific reason for hwo that's possible.

It was a badly drawn conclusion. Just because the fire is eternal, that doesn't mean that the punishment is eternal. There could be other implications that the torture is indeed eternal, but that the fire itself is eternal is not one of those.

How the living can ahve hope and something to look forward to and the dead no longer have that.

Because they're dead. I don't see how that points towards hell being eternal torture.

Because when used figuratively it refers to a place of everlasting punishment.

Then why didn't he say so? He clearly stated the the wicked would be thrown into Gehenna, and things that were thrown into Gehenna were in no way burning for all eternity. Nothing about it implies that they would burn forever.

Sometimes just by common sense. Obviously the passage Jesus wept is to be taken literally. Other times it's by a knowledge of the culture, original language, understanding greek/hebrew writing styles. The main reason why people sometimes differ about if a passage is literal or not is when they read the Bibel with their own preconcieved ideas. An example would be, "I think stealing isn't a bad thing, so therefore the verse "thou shalt not steal" can't be literal, God has to be speaking figuratively.

What you don't realize that you do is that you also interpret things based on your preconcieved ideas. The historical and mythological context of the Judaism of which Jesus was a part of shows us that there is no such thing as eternal hell. The writing style or usage of words in what Jesus says doesn't imply this either. The idea of eternal hell does not come from Judaism. Rather, it comes from pagan faiths common around the time Jesus lived. Ask any Jew familiar with the scriptures and he/she will tell you that eternal hell is not mentioned in the Tanakh.

 

[Vadergirl123]

Because it used hades as a place of punishment, which was unknown to Jews before the influence of hellenism.

In Jesus time they'd already had greek inlfuences.

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.

It's talking about a prohecy and hell is implied when you look at the rest of the Bible. And contempt could be like "torture"

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).

Why do you believe periods of time metaphorical?

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.

Dang it. I meant Psa. 9, sorry

Why did God not give out clear warnings of eternal hell to the Jews if it existed back then?

The jews knew sin was wrong and that's why they made sacrifices to God. I don't know too much about Judaisim, I can look more into it though.

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?

A queen would be in charge of some male servants

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

It's NOT easier/harder for them to accpet Christ, but it can be easier/harder for someone to live for Christ. So in that sense I guess you could say it's unfair.

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

Because sin also doesn't bother me in the same way. For example if I saw a boy break a glass it woudln't bother me in the same way it does a women who's now a widow and that glass belonged to her husband. I'm not God and I don't view sin the same way he does, therefore it's not fair for me to have the same sense of punishment for it that he does.

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?

I answered above, and no I usually research the Bible&history myself. I am blessed with a very good pastor though. He knows alot about the Bible, scripture in general, jewish culture, etc.

 

[Vadergirl123]

No, your arguments against others' perspectives about God and Jesus themselves have said they were unfair. Or that we can't blame God because he's perfect and we're not - it isn't like we haven't heard that before, and in fact had believed it.

Oh that's what you meant. Why did you say I said their reason were unfair?? I don't believe we should blame God and I do believe that he's perfect, but you don't have to believe that. Everyone can believe whatever they want.

But, I've doubted the sincerity of this thread from the beginning since you also have a thread trying to refute all the contradictions in the Bible to prove that it's perfect and infallible and there are no contradictions.

Whoa now, I'm a very sincere person. How have I been insincere. Does my supporting Christianity and still wanting to remain a christain make me insincere??

So like I said, carry on. I await your denial with bated breath.

A denial of what? Christianity?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Oh that's what you meant. Why did you say I said their reason were unfair?? I don't believe we should blame God and I do believe that he's perfect, but you don't have to believe that. Everyone can believe whatever they want.

Tell you what, you can believe whatever you want and I can believe whatever I want, but once your beliefs go public about the fate of my life, happiness, or eternal soul, I can voice my opposition. But then the cycle begins again....

Whoa now, I'm a very sincere person. How have I been insincere. Does my supporting Christianity and still wanting to remain a christain make me insincere??

That isn't what I said.

I doubted the intent of this thread and I still doubt it due to the arguments against every single minute point. I don't doubt your own personal sincerity, and I've stated several times throughout you've been very sweet. I doubt that the reasons people have left Christianity are simply let go because so many points have been argued against. Not just major points of contention, but minute and tiny points. It seems you have a difficult time understanding that other perspectives are as perfectly valid as yours.

A denial of what? Christianity?

No. A denial of your tactics and your debating style.