Ex Christians

[Vadergirl123]

it is right for them, even though it may harm me...they think it's right no matter what anyone says.

I didn't ask if they think it's right.(Obviously they do) I asked if it's right. Is lying right? If you think so, then would it be right for someone to rape someone if it was "right to them"

i think it's annoying and disruptive. even if i thought it wasn't right for me, how does that affect their right to think that lying is right?

Because if everyone can decide what's right or wrong, then nobody is right or wrong. Everyone has any right to do wahtever they want, regardless of if it destroys societies or causes chaos. Since they think it's right.

hmmm...so what was the sermon on the mount all about?

Jesus telling how to live, but he never said if you live this way you'll be saved, or that his purpose for comming to the earth was to tell people how to live.

 

[fantome profane]

I don't know why the other ways weren't mentioned. Why would the Israelites have passed them down?

Regardless of the method of proving virginity, do really honestly think it is fair that she must prove her virginity, and that her life depends on it? It is not even that they need to prove that she had intercourse, all the husband must do is accuse her and then the burden is on her to prove her virginity. Does that seem fair to you? Does that sound like the "God"?

 

[F0uad]

I am not trying to say something harmful but why is this thread so big ?

 

[Alceste]

I am not trying to say something harmful but why is this thread so big ?

I'm here because it's fascinating. I've never heard a Christian defend the practice of honour killings before. And a woman, to boot. Obviously it's a horror that the human mind is perfectly capable of coming to terms with, since it still goes on in some parts of the world, but I've never understood it - I thought it was mainly a thing that only particularly ignorant misogynistic, male Muslim fundamentalists are into. I guess not!

Now I am starting to understand. As long as we (humans) can convince ourselves God is doing all our thinking for us, we are capable of justifying the most despicable acts, right up to and including murdering our own female children on a whim.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I'm here because it's fascinating. I've never heard a Christian defend the practice of honour killings before. And a woman, to boot. Obviously it's a horror that the human mind is perfectly capable of coming to terms with, since it still goes on in some parts of the world, but I've never understood it - I thought it was mainly a thing that only particularly ignorant misogynistic, male Muslim fundamentalists are into. I guess not!

Now I am starting to understand. As long as we (humans) can convince ourselves God is doing all our thinking for us, we are capable of justifying the most despicable acts, right up to and including murdering our own female children on a whim.

Yes. Hence the danger of thinking that absolute morals are determined by anybody, anything, or any deity besides our own minds. Saying a deity or a book is telling us exactly how we should live, eat, mate, or handle death with complete certainty is abdicating responsibility for one's own contributions to these determinations.

"I killed my daughter because it was the right thing to do according to God." :sad:

 

[Alceste]

Yes. Hence the danger of thinking that absolute morals are determined by anybody, anything, or any deity besides our own minds. Saying a deity or a book is telling us exactly how we should live, eat, mate, or handle death with complete certainty is abdicating responsibility for one's own contributions to these determinations.

"I killed my daughter because it was the right thing to do according to God." :sad:

 

[Jacksnyte]

On a similar note, Alceste, have you ever read any Chick Tracts?

 

[Rakhel]

I want, so much, to frubie this. But, for some reason, my browser isn't allowing pop-ups.

 

[Sunstone]

Now I am starting to understand. As long as we (humans) can convince ourselves God is doing all our thinking for us, we are capable of justifying the most despicable acts, right up to and including murdering our own female children on a whim.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

[waitasec]

I didn't ask if they think it's right.(Obviously they do) I asked if it's right. Is lying right? If you think so, then would it be right for someone to rape someone if it was "right to them"

we are talking about the obvious here.
if the person doing the harm thinks it's right, it is right for them. what you and i think about it has no bearing on what that person thinks, because they think it's right.

we happen to live in a society that has made laws against such acts because this act infringes on the rights of others, correct? why are you talking about obvious acts that are accepted as deviant behavior with in the society you and i both live in? what i want to know is, why would there be those who cannot empathize that would commit such an act? how can god hold them accountable if they are not capable of empathy?
to me, that is a more interesting topic.

Because if everyone can decide what's right or wrong, then nobody is right or wrong. Everyone has any right to do wahtever they want, regardless of if it destroys societies or causes chaos. Since they think it's right.

you are overlooking the ability we have to empathize.
your ideas about societies needs to be thought over. societies exist for the purpose of developing solidarity among a group of people. and how does solidarity develop...through laws. not too long ago our society believed it was right to segregate blacks from whites, we have progressed from that. does our society think it's right to segregate blacks from whites today?

Jesus telling how to live, but he never said if you live this way you'll be saved, or that his purpose for comming to the earth was to tell people how to live.

that is exactly what the majority of christians are doing though telling people how they should live, and that is what concerns me the most.

what saves you, saves you it doesn't save me. therefore you cannot expect anyone else but you to be saved by what you personally believe saves you. if you push your personal beliefs on me, then you are raping my space and my rights.

by definition rape means this:
The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rape

then forcing your personal morals over mine to make me submit to what you think is objectively moral..is an act of moral rape.

with the understanding that my rights and my space doesn't infringe on your rights and your space, what is the problem?
mutual respect doesn't pose a problem if our definition of respect is:
mutually investing interest in protecting our personal space and the personal space of others.
this way there is not act of control, via raping others morals and rights and space, but an act of freedom.

 

[waitasec]

I don't know why the other ways weren't mentioned.

well if it's not mentioned in the bible, which is what you say conveys the will of god, and since the only way in which the bible explains how a girl is to be validated as a virgin or not is by having the parents present the cloth to the elders of the town, then there was no other way they could determine that piece of evidence, the cloth, would satisfy the elders per god's command.

Why would the Israelites have passed them down?

they did. the cloth was the only way in which the elders of the town can determine if the girl was a virgin or not...there is no other way mentioned.

 

[waitasec]

Okay but I thought you "stayed away form people who hated you" How can you stay away and help them out?

if i could help it, i would stay away. but i can't always get what i want.

Would you help them if it didn't benefit you or the world at all?

you see, it will benefit me and the world regardless, at least i like to think it will

 

[Me Myself]

Which means that the poor judgement of the biblical god caused a lot of 100% unfair murders of girls.

*IMPORTANT PIECE OF INFO*

The God of the armies gains 200 points for every person unfairly killed

You can only guess his highscore with the bloody blanket BS!

 

[waitasec]

i cannot wrap my head around an idea that would suggest that god is concerned if a girl was a virgin or not, this is so telling that this was more of how society viewed girls...and how this particular society placed value on a girls life....if she was a virgin or not. i don't think god had anything to do with it...
i think "god", or more likely the idea of god, was just a justification for killing someone who wasn't a virgin.

bump...

 

[waitasec]

I'm here because it's fascinating. I've never heard a Christian defend the practice of honour killings before. And a woman, to boot. Obviously it's a horror that the human mind is perfectly capable of coming to terms with, since it still goes on in some parts of the world, but I've never understood it - I thought it was mainly a thing that only particularly ignorant misogynistic, male Muslim fundamentalists are into. I guess not!

Now I am starting to understand. As long as we (humans) can convince ourselves God is doing all our thinking for us, we are capable of justifying the most despicable acts, right up to and including murdering our own female children on a whim.

:clap
willful ignorance is a dangerous thing indeed.

 

[waitasec]

Yes. Hence the danger of thinking that absolute morals are determined by anybody, anything, or any deity besides our own minds. Saying a deity or a book is telling us exactly how we should live, eat, mate, or handle death with complete certainty is abdicating responsibility for one's own contributions to these determinations.

"I killed my daughter because it was the right thing to do according to God." :sad:

a sad sad state of affairs in the 21st century.
hopefully this way of thinking will begin to fade on a larger scale along with intolerance within our children's life time.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

That's right nothing can take away God's authority. When God first created man, he didn't tell him, "Hey I created a place called hell, and if you disobey me then that's where you're going so you better obey."
Instead he created Adam to be in a relationship with him. [a relationship where God forces the other person in the 'relationship' to do what only He wants at the threat of eternal torture of he refuses - prettying it up with the word 'relationship' does not change the one-sided evil nature of that relationship] He told him not to eat of a certain tree. When Adam disobeyed him and ruined God's plan then sin came into the world. Sin is why WE do immoral things. God ISN'T immoral for creating a punishment for it.

Again - why do you understand that this is immoral for a person to do to another person... but think it's ok for God to do to someone?

You've created a convoluted way of confusing yourself.

BTW - God created sin. Just because we commit them, does not undo the fact that if God had not created sin as being disobedience to him, it would no exist and we wouldn't commit them. It's his doing that sin exists at all.

 

[Astravalon]

we are talking about the obvious here.
if the person doing the harm thinks it's right, it is right for them. what you and i think about it has no bearing on what that person thinks, because they think it's right.

This is actually very much in line with something found in
the bible (Romans 14, verses 14 and 23 specifically). While
the passages are speaking of food in particular, the principle
behind it could apply to anything, which is this: if
someone believes a particular thing is wrong, then, for that
person, it is wrong. That person would be sinning if that
person did that particular thing.

It really gives whole new meaning to Jesus' words, "Be it
unto you according to your faith." :yes:



-

 

[waitasec]

This is actually very much in line with something found in
the bible (Romans 14, verses 14 and 23 specifically). While
the passages are speaking of food in particular, the principle
behind it could apply to anything, which is this: if
someone believes a particular thing is wrong, then, for that
person, it is wrong. That person would be sinning if that
person did that particular thing.

It really gives whole new meaning to Jesus' words, "Be it
unto you according to your faith." :yes:



-

i went and read romans 14 and the chapter starts with this.

1 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters.

15 If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died.

wouldn't this idea only be applied to those that already believe and not necessarily to everyone especially to those who do not?

 

[Astravalon]

i went and read romans 14 and the chapter starts with this.

1 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters.

15 If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died.

wouldn't this idea only be applied to those that already believe and not necessarily to everyone especially to those who do not?

I think so, at least in the context of that verse, and being
that it's in the Christian bible specifically.

In a more general sense, it could be along the lines of "If
you know something you do bugs the other guy, don't rub
the fact that you do it in his face". At that point it's less of
a Christian Morality issue and more just good manners, I
suppose.

If there's a particular activity that I believe is just fine to
do, it would be inconsiderate of me to go on and on about
having done it in the presence of someone who I know for a
fact disapproves of that activity. It would be just tacky to do
on my part. It would also give the offended party the
opportunity to criticize that activity, something that Romans
14:16 says to avoid: "Do not allow what you consider good
to be spoken of as evil." The easiest way to avoid that is
probably to just not discuss or do it within range of those
one knows won't sympathize.

I used to wonder if the verse meant that if anything I do
offends someone, I should just stop doing it entirely. But
that doesn't really make sense, because then I would
essentially be a prisoner of others' self-imposed
parameters.

Not only that, but, I'm persuaded that the sense of being
offended is something that's more within the control
of the one being offended, not the one being considered
offensive, based upon the offended party's chosen beliefs
about whatever it is that they find offensive.

So I think it's more of a case that one can still do those
things that one personally approves, but just not rub it in
the faces of those one knows don't like it.





-