Ex Christians

[MysticSang'ha]

So, if my personal morals say it's ok to murder someone, then you can't tell me it's not ok, right? Because, should I listen to you, I'd be going against my personal morals.

You're pulling the old relativism card, and, sorry, it doesn't work. At all. Vadergirl makes an excellent point. There has to be an absolute set of morals out there, independent of us, and what we think or feel has nothing to do with it. If we all simply go by what we think or feel, and do each of us, as the Bible says, "what is right in our own eyes," then we are all drifting aimlessly about, with no fixed point to guide us. Without an absolute set of morals, society disintegrates. When "relativistic" morality takes over, chaos reigns supreme.

Absolute morals based on the Bible as God's word? I'm sure Judaism and Islam at the very least both have a bone to pick against Christian morals picked as the absolute.

Before we start listening to each Christian denomination all declaring THEY have the Truth on their side.

When you step outside the arena and actually watch all the arguments from each group or individual claiming they know the Truth, it all becomes rather comical.

 

[Sunstone]

There has to be an absolute set of morals out there, independent of us, and what we think or feel has nothing to do with it.

Good luck demonstrating that there exists an "absolute set of morals". Sounds like a fool's errand.

If we all simply go by what we think or feel...

Since an "absolute set of morals" cannot be demonstrated to exist, there is not a person on this planet who does NOT "simply go by what he or she thinks or feels". The difference is, some call their morals "god derived" and "absolute" and some don't.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Good luck demonstrating that there exists an "absolute set of morals". Sounds like a fool's errand.



Since an "absolute set of morals" cannot be demonstrated to exist, there is not a person on this planet who does NOT "simply go by what he or she thinks or feels". The difference is, some call their morals "god derived" and "absolute" and some don't.

There are tribes in Papua New Guinea that believes without a doubt that men cannot eat food with a woman nor eat food that has any resemblance to female anatomy. The reason is that doing so would literally drain all their masculine energy.

They all know this to be absolute.

So, who wants to argue with them? Why not choose to believe them and follow their food and sexual purity laws? After all, it's better that way, isn't it?

 

[Alceste]

So, if my personal morals say it's ok to murder someone, then you can't tell me it's not ok, right? Because, should I listen to you, I'd be going against my personal morals.

You're pulling the old relativism card, and, sorry, it doesn't work. At all. Vadergirl makes an excellent point. There has to be an absolute set of morals out there, independent of us, and what we think or feel has nothing to do with it. If we all simply go by what we think or feel, and do each of us, as the Bible says, "what is right in our own eyes," then we are all drifting aimlessly about, with no fixed point to guide us. Without an absolute set of morals, society disintegrates. When "relativistic" morality takes over, chaos reigns supreme.

Vadergirl is actually the only person in this thread who openly argues that killing people is OK. I haven't seen a single non-Christian make that argument here.

Obviously there's something very wrong with her morality, whether she calls it "objective" or not.

 

[waitasec]

So, if my personal morals say it's ok to murder someone, then you can't tell me it's not ok, right? Because, should I listen to you, I'd be going against my personal morals.

You're pulling the old relativism card, and, sorry, it doesn't work. At all. Vadergirl makes an excellent point. There has to be an absolute set of morals out there, independent of us, and what we think or feel has nothing to do with it. If we all simply go by what we think or feel, and do each of us, as the Bible says, "what is right in our own eyes," then we are all drifting aimlessly about, with no fixed point to guide us. Without an absolute set of morals, society disintegrates. When "relativistic" morality takes over, chaos reigns supreme.

sorry, no ones morals is based on absolute morality.
we have the ability and have been going on by what we think and feel all along ... which is why our morals are constantly changing...much like how the morality in the bible changes according to what we think and feel.

so if you think it's wrong to kill anyone...don't kill

if you think it's wrong to be gay...don't be gay
if you think it's wrong to lie...don't lie
if you think its right to control the actions of others...then you're stepping on toes...

it's simple really.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Okay it's hell to you. I was thinking of it terms of an authority. No one can take away God's authority.

Then you aren't understanding the irony of your position.

You haven't really showed me that God's morally corrupt. Are you saying he's morally corrupt because what he says is moral goes against what soemone else says/believes?

I have shown you; God places a gun to your head to make you decide. A gun that cannot be taken from him nor defended against, as your own responses have clearly shown you agree about. And that gun makes him immoral, because he's putting a gun to your head to force you to decide.

 

[Vadergirl123]

no to justify stoning a girl who didn't bleed.

As I've said many times, the girl was stoned because she was having sexual relationships NOT because she didn't bleed.
Continue reading and you'll see that vs 21 says, "she's done an outrageous thing...by being promiscuous in her father's house. It DOESN'T say she's done an outrageous thing by not bleeding.

because that was the only source that sufficed those ignorant minds of that time

Well there must've been something else they did too

and where else is one to find the justification of stoning a girl if she doesn't bleed...? stoning a girl who doesn't bleed IS in the bible...

Again she wasn't stoned for not bleeding.

 

[Vadergirl123]

hmmm, i'm trying to give you insight from my perspective.
in fact, there are many many different perspectives.

there are no wrong perspectives as far as i am concerned.when making blanket statements that cannot be determined or supported except through faith one has to realize that it is ultimately subjective therefore their truth doesn't necessarily apply to other peoples truth.

does that make sense?

i am looking for truth too.

Yes I see what you're saying, and I don't disagree you're looking for truth, but not everything can have multiple perspectives and each perspective be true. If I looked at a red car and said it was yellow while you said it was red, would we both be right? No you'd be right because the car is red. I can have all the faith in the world that the car is yellow, but it'll still be red. Regardless of how much faith or belief I have.

 

[Vadergirl123]

yes mute as there is nothing else that can verify what it claims to be true.

Hmm so I think I already asked but what's a 2nd source that would "prove" to you that it's true?

you base it on faith don't you?

Yeah but not just faith. Having faith in something doesn't mean it's true. I already gave a car color analogy.

 

[Vadergirl123]

what i am trying to explain is that the bible says different things to different people. the way in which you interpret the bible isn't going to be the same as another person who is just as genuine in their pursuit for "gods truth" to be revealed to them because the bible has nothing but itself to support it's unsupportable claims.

I know people read it that way, but just because someone is "genuine in their pursuit for God's truth" doesn't mean the way they interpret the Bible is correct.

even you in your daily life get 2nd opinions. why isn't that applied to the bible?

Why shoudl I apply 2nd opinions to the Bible? There's no reason too.

 

[Vadergirl123]

why though?

I've already said I believe the Bible is true, which means that I'd compare anything else to it to see if that thing is also true.

all i know is that we are surrounded by indifference.
indifference is not a source.
as far as i am concerned i have been fortunate to have a job a family and good health, but that can all change in a split second...which is why i live for today and not tomorrow.

Um okay you didn't really answer the question though. I'll reword it, what source would show you the Bible's true? Another religious book, God talking to you, etc, What would it be?

 

[Vadergirl123]

then why are there so many different intrepretations of the bible?

I've already talked about the preconceived ideas. To someone when the Bible talks about not stealing they might not see stealing as a bad thing so they'll say the passage can't mean that and find a different meaning for it. However to a person who just lets the Bible speak for itself then they'll see that the Bible says stealing is bad. You can't let what you think dictate what the Bible says, the Bible needs to dictate what you believe. Some people do the first and that's why there's different interpretations.

you have to consider a few things in order to understand the true intention of what the bible is conveying.
culture, ignorance and plight.

Yes I agree there are some things you need to know, but the fact that ancient people didn't knwo everything we know today shouldn't be too much of a factor, considering God's the one who inspired the Bible.

mark 16:16 can cause others to make a tragic mistake, while some understand the context where it came from and won't commit such a horrific act.

Okay what does that have to do with what I was talking about. What do you mean Mark 16:16 can cause someone to commit a horrific act?

 

[Vadergirl123]

i didn't see this before.

No problem

the way to solve that problem is to not go against ones personal morals.

What if someone's personal morals said lying was okay. Does that mean it's fine for them to do it?

and stop comparing yourself to others.

I was using an analogy.

then why is salvation based on how we treat others?
in fact it is the 2nd greatest commandment.
consider matthew 22 and 25....

Um salvation isn't based on how we treat others. Yes God gives it as a commandment, but being nice to others doesn't save you. Just like he tells us not to steal or lie, but not doing those things doesn't give you salvation.

 

[Vadergirl123]

Once again, to be completely clear, she is being stoned because her husband accused her of not being a virgin and her parents failed to show a bloody sheet to the village elders.

Okay let me try to give an analogy,
Lets say there's a little boy(the women) and he steals a cookie(has sexual relationships), which he's not suppose to do. And lets say he gets chocolate(proof), from the cookie, all over his mouth and on his teeth. Now lets say that his brother(the husband) is like "Mom, dad Henry stole a cookie. Well the parents will then go to their son and once they see the chocolate on his mouth and teeth, smell his breath, etc they'll know he stole it.
However they're not punishing him for having chocolate on his teeth and mouth.(the proof of virginity) they're punishing him for stealing the cookie and eating it.
When you say the woman was punished for not bleeding, it's like you're saying the boy was punished for having chocolate all over him.

I don't know why you refuse to understand that passage. Is it because understanding it reveals that the morality described in the Bible is barbaric and misogynistic?

I'm not refusing to understand it. The woman wa punished for having sexual relationships. If you want to argue that it's not fair to be stoned for having sex outside of marriage then fine, but it's not fair to say she was stoned for not bleeding.

How do you feel about honor killing, by the way? If your daughter didn't bleed on her wedding night, would you have her killed for bringing shame onto your family?

If I lived in that time period and my daughter, knowing the law, went and had sexual relationships then yeah she'd be stoned. I wouldn't want it of course, but it was her choice and I couldn't prevent the elders from stoning her anyway. I think I already answered this question.

 

[Vadergirl123]

So, if my personal morals say it's ok to murder someone, then you can't tell me it's not ok, right? Because, should I listen to you, I'd be going against my personal morals.

You're pulling the old relativism card, and, sorry, it doesn't work. At all. There has to be an absolute set of morals out there, independent of us, and what we think or feel has nothing to do with it. If we all simply go by what we think or feel, and do each of us, as the Bible says, "what is right in our own eyes," then we are all drifting aimlessly about, with no fixed point to guide us. Without an absolute set of morals, society disintegrates. When "relativistic" morality takes over, chaos reigns supreme.

Couldn't agree more, frubals

 

[Vadergirl123]

There are tribes in Papua New Guinea that believes without a doubt that men cannot eat food with a woman nor eat food that has any resemblance to female anatomy. The reason is that doing so would literally drain all their masculine energy.

They all know this to be absolute.

That law doesn't go against the Bible. There's nothing wrong with men not eating food that resembles the female anatomy. However the Bible also doesn't say men can only eat food that doesn't resemble it. Iow if you go to there country then you should be respctful of their traditions, but when you're not with them you don't have to follow their rules.

So, who wants to argue with them? Why not choose to believe them and follow their food and sexual purity laws? After all, it's better that way, isn't it?

There's no reason to argue with them and the Bible doesn't say you have to follow their laws, but as I said above you should be respectful to their culture.

 

[Vadergirl123]

ok...how else do you suppose i, as a non believer, would treat her?
or are you saying displaying "christ's love" is to state what you think is right when asked?

I don't know how you would treat her. There are some christains and non-believers who probably would've been jerks to her, and there are other christains and non-believers who would've been nice to her.

i still don't see how "christ's love" is any different from anything else...

Hmm well are you genuinely nice to someone who hates you or treats you wrongly? Can you still bring yourself to genuinely care about them?

 

[Astravalon]

If God takes away sin, he'd have to take away are ability to make choices(because otherwise we coudl still chose to sin)then he'd have to program us like robots or someting.

The bible does refer to Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes
away the sin of the world (John 1:29).

Now, I realize that the verse can mean different things to
different people, but, even in the most literal sense, if
indeed he took away the sins of the world, it would seem we
still have quite a bit of wiggle-room in the choices
department. I don't believe we have free will in the
absolute sense (i.e., omnipotent sovereignty), but I do think
we have the ability to choose to a degree.

As for programming us like robots, scripture uses an even
less flattering metaphor to describe us: "Clay" (Isaiah
64:8). At least robots can carry an illusion of autonomy,
whereas clay just kinda sits there until the Potter comes
along and sculpts it into the shape He desires.


-

 

[Vadergirl123]

The bible does refer to Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes
away the sin of the world (John 1:29).

Indeed. You have to want him too though. That's what salvation's about, asking him to take away your sins. Some people enjoying living in sin, they wouldn't want it taken away from them. God gives us the choice.

As for programming us like robots, scripture uses an even

less flattering metaphor to describe us: "Clay" (Isaiah
64:8). At least robots can carry an illusion of autonomy,
whereas clay just kinda sits there until the Potter comes
along and sculpts it into the shape He desires.

That verse is talking about how we're like clay and God's the potter. We were created by him. That doesn't mean we're robots.


-

 

[Vadergirl123]

Vadergirl is actually the only person in this thread who openly argues that killing people is OK. I haven't seen a single non-Christian make that argument here.
Obviously there's something very wrong with her morality, whether she calls it "objective" or not.

I said sometimes killing is okay. I think killing animals is fine as are armies when they're fighting for their countries. I've also said(countless times)that I don't approve murder. Do you believe armies and killing animals is immoral?