Ex Christians

[Alceste]

Really Alceste, I've said countless times that I wouldn't kill anyone who's inoccent. Why do you keep insisting I would. It's a false statement.

How would you know if I was innocent? The Bible says it all hinges on whether or not a bloody sheet can be produced. Don't you believe in the Bible?

 

[Astravalon]

So which old testament laws actually apply today, and which don't? Did god tell the Israelites that these laws only apply to them? Does it say this in the Bible? Why is this law no longer valid, while other old testament laws aren't?

These questions, and many more seem to cause us to chase our tail on this thread quite a bit. If you don't know, and you can't find the answers when you try to look it up, it's ok to say so.

The following verse is what helped me finally jump off the
Laws merry-go-round after a tussle in another forum over the
commandments about a year ago:

Jeremiah 8:8: "How can you say, 'We are wise, for
we have the law of the LORD,' when actually the
lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?"
​

Not only do the scriptures indicate that the Law – whatever
it was supposed to be – has been fulfilled by Christ and
therefore abolished, but it also seems to be saying that
what is outlined as being The Law might not even be
accurate, according to Jeremiah 8:8.

It was a very liberating realization. :yes:
-

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Then why create a law requiring that we be killed if or parents fail to produce a bloody sheet from the wedding night? Surely if He didn't want innocent women killed he would have given his COMPLETE instructions on determining guilt or innocence, or better yet, not tell the Israelites to murder women accused of sexual impurity in the first place.

She believes the bloody sheet test is sufficient if God says it's so, but doesn't know what the bloody sheet test is or if it was the primary test. Facepalm?

 

[Nakosis]

It was a very liberating realization. :yes:
-

Fine, but it sorta leaves one free to disqualify any portion of the Bible they find themselves uncomfortable with.

Many Christians have a doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible. Then here's the Bible stating the scribes may lie?

"I might be lying when I say I always tell the truth"

The mistake I would assume is the inerrancy doctrine.

 

[Alceste]

She believes the bloody sheet test is sufficient if God says it's so, but doesn't know what the bloody sheet test is or if it was the primary test. Facepalm?

It's a pretty good example of cognitive dissonance. I would be so uncomfortable trying to maintain so many mutually incompatible ideas. "The Bible is the only basis we need for morality, except when it tells us to commit evil acts, in which case it doesn't actually mean what it says but something else entirely and I don't know what."

I literally just gave myself a headache writing that down.

 

[Nakosis]

Really Alceste, I've said countless times that I wouldn't kill anyone who's inoccent. Why do you keep insisting I would. It's a false statement.

Maybe better not to try and justify Hebrew laws.

Maybe easier to just stick with justifying Jesus?

 

[Shermana]

Maybe better not to try and justify Hebrew laws.

Maybe easier to just stick with justifying Jesus?

Ultimately, justifying Jesus requires justifying the Hebrew Laws.

The problem is that justifying Hebrew Laws requires a very objective and scholarly means of debate as well as grammar and language issues that not even Jews agree on necessarily. It is best left to those to a thread where objectivity rules emotional issues in the appropriate thread. Under modern "ethics" and arbitrary if not contradictory ideas of what is "right" and "wrong", such a discussion is just a matter of bashing. Without taking into consideration how greatly prized virginity was (and still is) back then, discussions on ancient cultures of lying about virginity (the agreed context is generally that the woman did not make it known that she was not a virgin) or execution of adulterers is a matter of opinionated modernism vs ancient context.

 

[Alceste]

Ultimately, justifying Jesus requires justifying the Hebrew Laws.

The problem is that justifying Hebrew Laws requires a very objective and scholarly means of debate as well as grammar and language issues that not even Jews agree on necessarily. It is best left to those to a thread where objectivity rules emotional issues in the appropriate thread. Under modern "ethics" and arbitrary if not contradictory ideas of what is "right" and "wrong", such a discussion is just a matter of bashing. Without taking into consideration how greatly prized virginity was (and still is) back then, discussions on ancient cultures of lying about virginity (the agreed context is generally that the woman did not make it known that she was not a virgin) or execution of adulterers is a matter of opinionated modernism vs ancient context.

Fun fact: we do not have, nor have we ever had, an infallible test for virginity. Just saying.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

So I've read a couple of posts about people claiming to be "ex christians" and I'm curious as to what they mean exactly. If you are an ex-christain were you in a relationship with Jesus Christ and decided you wanted the relationship to end? Was it that the belief of christiantity stopped making sense or something else entirely? Please let me know.

I was a committed Christian who wanted to understand and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. Actually, to some extent, I still want to do that (there are some good teachings in there)! My faith was more "open" (if you like) and more cerebral than that of misty-eyed fundamentalists. For example, I probably would not have felt comfortable telling someone "I have a relationship with Jesus Christ". I was always wary of engaging in the mindless sloganeering and proselytizing of fundamentalists, although I admired their conviction and selflessness. But I did experience all the feelings of having a relationship, such as love and thankfulness and the confidence that Jesus/God would always be there for me no matter what difficulties I faced, and no matter what wrongs I committed. So Jesus/God felt like a friend, or a parent-figure, to me personally. When I needed help sometimes I would close my eyes and pray, and I would feel a wave of calm, and I knew God was there to comfort me, immovable like a mountain but gentle like a lamb. Wow, God loves me, I would think. What incredible grace and majesty for a being who created all the galaxies in the universe to even bother with a tiny organism like myself. I chose to have faith that this relationship was real, although I would admit I didn't know (and hence the need for faith), because, after all, any sort of meditative practice ought to have calming / reassuring effects.

I never wanted any relationship to end. For me, I learned too much about science and critical thinking to sustain mythical and supernatural beliefs. I also learned, to some extent, to train my mind to deal with difficult situations, to think about things -- real or imaginary -- that give me that same calming, reassuring sensation I felt when praying. After all, even if God doesn't exist, why should that prevent me from overcoming difficulties in life? Nothing in the universe changed which would prevent me from doing so. Only my mind changed.

 

[Nakosis]

Ultimately, justifying Jesus requires justifying the Hebrew Laws.

Why?
What do you see as making it necessary to do so.

Right now I'd disagree. However I'm not unwilling to be persuaded otherwise.

 

[Nakosis]

The problem is that justifying Hebrew Laws requires a very objective and scholarly means of debate as well as grammar and language issues that not even Jews agree on necessarily. It is best left to those to a thread where objectivity rules emotional issues in the appropriate thread. Under modern "ethics" and arbitrary if not contradictory ideas of what is "right" and "wrong", such a discussion is just a matter of bashing. Without taking into consideration how greatly prized virginity was (and still is) back then, discussions on ancient cultures of lying about virginity (the agreed context is generally that the woman did not make it known that she was not a virgin) or execution of adulterers is a matter of opinionated modernism vs ancient context.

It's likely law of the Hebrews. Like a civil law. Not something dictated by God.\

However if you were to argue otherwise. Why would what men valued matter to God. Some Jews I've spoken don't see the Hebrew Bible as the inerrant word of God. This is IMO something Christians came up with. Why? Probably because it was difficult to justify their Bible otherwise. Meaning logically or with evidence. So it's a statement of faith for Christians.

Besides Jews have the Talmud to Justify their understanding. Christian don't. How could they possible think to justify it?

 

[Shermana]

It's likely law of the Hebrews. Like a civil law. Not something dictated by God.\

The Hebrews are an interesting people, their entire continued existence as a separate nation and unique language is only from their Law. But whether it's Divine is for another thread.

However if you were to argue otherwise. Why would what men valued matter to God

Because He's the Owner of the Setup and He's the One in charge, especially so for Israel which is the nation He chose for Himself. It's not too far to see why He would find emotional connection to His creation.

. Some Jews I've spoken don't see the Hebrew Bible as the inerrant word of God. This is IMO something Christians came up with. Why? Probably because it was difficult to justify their Bible otherwise. Meaning logically or with evidence. So it's a statement of faith for Christians.

I don't see the entire Canon as inerrant, I think what we have today is a corrupted version and there are many books that shouldn't belong and many books that should belong, and there are interpolations and added passages and deleted passages which maybe one day we'll find. Most "Christian" religions require total infallibility for their doctrinal basis or their entire system falls apart. Bible Scholarship and (actual) Originalism to them is like sunlight for vampires.

Besides Jews have the Talmud to Justify their understanding. Christian don't. How could they possible think to justify it?[

Talmud is a whole another discussion, the Talmud itself is a collection of opinions of opinions that nonetheless corresponds often with ancient Midrash. But you are right, 'Christians" have nothing to act as a centralized commentary, especially those outside of the Catholic and Orthodox structures, that's why you'll see so many "Apologetics" sites attempting to bridge the gap.

 

[Nakosis]

The Hebrews are an interesting people, their entire continued existence as a separate nation and unique language is only from their Law. But whether it's Divine is for another thread.

if not divine then there'd be no need to justify it. Just some laws the Hebrew thought were appropriate for their time.

Because He's the Owner of the Setup and He's the One in charge, especially so for Israel which is the nation He chose for Himself. It's not too far to see why He would find emotional connection to His creation.

Choose for himself according to Israel. Their Bible seems a bit self-serving. If not divine then the prejudice is understandable. If divine then one is left having to accept God's prejudice.

I don't see the entire Canon as inerrant, I think what we have today is a corrupted version and there are many books that shouldn't belong and many books that should belong, and there are interpolations and added passages and deleted passages which maybe one day we'll find. Most "Christian" religions require total infallibility for their doctrinal basis or their entire system falls apart. Bible Scholarship and (actual) Originalism to them is like sunlight for vampires.

My objection to that is God can't expect everyone to become a scholar. And, even scholars don't always agree. So if you need special training to correctly interpret the Bible seems a lot of people are going to be screwed. And, who ever you get the training from is likely to biased/influenced by others. None of it gives much confidence.

Talmud is a whole another discussion, the Talmud itself is a collection of opinions of opinions that nonetheless corresponds often with ancient Midrash. But you are right, 'Christians" have nothing to act as a centralized commentary, especially those outside of the Catholic and Orthodox structures, that's why you'll see so many "Apologetics" sites attempting to bridge the gap.

Well, why bother then? They use the OT prophecy to justify Jesus as the Messiah. IMO Jesus was not the Messiah the Hebrew were looking for. I think they've taken a lot of the prophecy out of context especially in Matthew. Matthew goes out of his way to justify Jesus to the Judeans.

I suppose I don't see it as necessary. If Jesus had something worth saying then his own words should justify themselves without the need to justify his authority through any particular religious belief.

 

[Astravalon]

Fine, but it sorta leaves one free to disqualify any portion of the Bible they find themselves uncomfortable with.

True, although I think people are pretty much free to do
that anyway. Which is just as well, considering that God isn't
confined to old books to begin with.

 

[Nakosis]

True, although I think people are pretty much free to do
that anyway. Which is just as well, considering that God isn't
confined to old books to begin with.

I'd agree in that I think God should be a personal experience and not something someone reads out of a book.

I suppose books are beneficial so read can read about other's experiences. For example the Torah is Moses' experience of God. Doesn't mean it has to dictate anyone else's.

Maybe God presents many faces to man. One is left to rely on the truth of their own experience as best they can.

 

[roberto]

I'd agree in that I think God should be a personal experience and not something someone reads out of a book.

I suppose books are beneficial so read can read about other's experiences. For example the Torah is Moses' experience of God. Doesn't mean it has to dictate anyone else's.

Maybe God presents many faces to man. One is left to rely on the truth of their own experience as best they can.

“Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has" I love this.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Ultimately, justifying Jesus requires justifying the Hebrew Laws.

Laws don't need justifyin', they just need obeyin'.

 

[roberto]

Laws don't need justifyin', they just need obeyin'.

I wonder why they are called "Hebrew" laws ?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I wonder why they are called "Hebrew" laws ?

Probably because God gave them to the Hebrews?

 

[roberto]

Probably because God gave them to the Hebrews?

It [law] was given to Adam and Eve. "you shal not".... and.... "you shal only"