Ex Christians

[Heathen Hammer]

I thought Moses got quite a bit too. I would not have entrusted hundreds of laws to be passed down by people who could barely name furry animals

 

[roberto]

I thought Moses got quite a bit too. I would not have entrusted hundreds of laws to be passed down by people who could barely name furry animals

And so did Abraham[in the flesh]...,Oral Law as well.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Which of them received the memo that the laws 'needed to be justified'?

 

[roberto]

Which of them received the memo that the laws 'needed to be justified'?

I think the "Hebrews" did
Abraham walked by faith [in the instructions] and it was accounted as rightiousness to him.
.
.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I think the "Hebrews" did
Abraham walked by faith and it was acconted as rightiousness to him.
.

Wait wait.. that's not an answer.

WHO received the word from God that somehow his laws need to be 'justified'.

An interesting aside: in looking for it, I find that the definition for the word 'justify' actually needed to have an addendum in order to fit the incorrect usage associated with the word and the Christians.

Without that extra addition using the word regarding law makes no literal sense used in that context.

 

[roberto]

Berei**** - Genesis - Chapter 15

Rashi explains here>> http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8210/showrashi/true

6. And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him as righteousness.
And he believed in the Lord: He did not request of Him a sign regarding this, but regarding the inheritance of the land, he did request of Him a sign, and he said to Him, "How will I know? [from Ned. 32a] והאמין בה': לא שאל לו אות על זאת, אבל על ירושת הארץ שאל לו אות ואמר לו במה אדע:and He accounted it to him as righteousness: The Holy One, blessed be He, accounted it to Abram as a merit and as righteousness for the faith that he believed in Him (Targum Jonathan). Another explanation for: “How will I know?” He did not ask Him for a sign but he said before Him, “Let me know with what merit will they [my descendants] remain therein [in the Land]?” The Holy One, blessed be He, replied, “With the merit of the sacrifices.” ויחשבה לו צדקה: הקב"ה חשבה לאברם לזכות ולצדקה על האמונה שהאמין בו. דבר אחר במה אדע, לא שאל לו אות אלא אמר לפניו הודיעני באיזה זכות יתקיימו בה, אמר לו הקב"ה בזכות
.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I do like your posts

So it was Abraham to whom it was said something about righteousness. Now, I understand the context of the word righteousness in this regard [something not always done by citing Christians, let's say]. And perhaps I am asking the wrong person, but... it would appear from these citations and the things that follow, that righteousness is essentially its own reward for following God's laws. In other words, being observant [technically and observant Jew] would grant this kind of righteousness, to anyone. There is no real emphasis on a perfect, 100%-all-the-time observance, per se, although it appears assumed that the laws are all to be observed. But the idea of human fallibility is in a way already taken into account.

Why, therefore, is it necessary for Jesus to somehow arrive to 'justify' the laws? Because it appears that some form of righteousness is already achievable by any observant person. And it had been that way since the time of Abraham, the founder.

Given what was already said and done, to me it appears pointless to assume somehow Jesus' action in this manner was necessary. It seems redundant.

It might also bear mentioning that it's possible, you and I both, understand Jesus was not really the Moschiach, anyway. But then, a related question: for the Moschiach, is there some special overemphasis on this same action, 'justifying' the laws?

 

[Vadergirl123]

Humans have always commited bad deeds in the name of GodCrusades and witch burnings were both done in the name of God and both lead to the death of many innocent people,

Yeah I know, but the deeds they commit are done in the name of a god they've formed in their own minds. The God of the Bible didn't want them to do the crusades or the witch burnings.

so why is it unlikely that innocent women were killed?

Because her parents were given the chance to present proof of her virginity.(and before you ask I've already said I don't know what the proof was)

 

[Vadergirl123]

Begging the question
You really simply do not grasp that you are assuming that God would not allow an innocent woman to die

God's just, he woudn't have allowed an inoccent to die. That's not really an assumption

while simultaneously being able to find, only, a totally fallible system present in the holy texts; and being forced to presume without any evidence whatsoever that 'some other better method' was also used, even though this other method is not mentioned anywhere in the texts where his followers specifically WENT to FIND SUCH METHODS.

I've never said there was a "better method," Here I'll change the word from method and say the parents might've brought some form of proof other than a cloth.

It is amazing, and appalling, to watch the lengths to which you will go to refuse to recognize when you are wrong.

I don't mind admitting when I'm wrong. However the posts others have done haven't convinced me I am.

 

[Vadergirl123]

That is still forcing. A dictator could say the same thing: "follow me or get tortured".

Hmm I'll try to explain what I'm saying better. When Adam sinned he brought sin into the world and at that moment human beings became destined for hell. (Because our sin had to be punished) Now God then decided that he would give us a savior and when Christ died he gave us the opprotunity to go to heaven. What I'm trying to say is we brought sin on ourselves, and God gave us a way out of eternal punishment, but he's not forcing us since we're the ones who started the problem.

To me, turning the other cheek. Pacifist beliefs have developed in many traditions separated from Christianity as they are beneficial to society and the individuals that inhabit it. Personal revenge will break society apart, which is bad for the continuation of the human species and thus it goes against the natural instinct of survival.

Oh okay, and have you always felt this way?

 

[Rakhel]

God's just, he woudn't have allowed an inoccent to die. That's not really an assumption

I've never said there was a "better method," Here I'll change the word from method and say the parents might've brought some form of proof other than a cloth.

I don't mind admitting when I'm wrong. However the posts others have done haven't convinced me I am.

What of Jephthah's daughter?

 

[Tarheeler]

... it would appear from these citations and the things that follow, that righteousness is essentially its own reward for following God's laws. In other words, being observant [technically and observant Jew] would grant this kind of righteousness, to anyone. There is no real emphasis on a perfect, 100%-all-the-time observance, per se, although it appears assumed that the laws are all to be observed. But the idea of human fallibility is in a way already taken into account.

Certainly puts it into a different light, doesn't it?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Hmm I'll try to explain what I'm saying better. When Adam sinned he brought sin into the world and at that moment human beings became destined for hell. (Because our sin had to be punished)

Do you consider it just to punish billions of people for the actions of one of their ancestors?

Now God then decided that he would give us a savior and when Christ died he gave us the opprotunity to go to heaven.

So why did God punish humanity in the first place? And why did God have to send Christ and have them sacrificed in order to redeem humanity from the sin he put on us in the first place?

What I'm trying to say is we brought sin on ourselves,

Garbage. Sin was created by God, and God tempted Adam into it.

and God gave us a way out of eternal punishment,

When he could have just not had eternal punishment in the first place.

but he's not forcing us since we're the ones who started the problem.

Again, garbage. God set the rules, controls everything, everything goes according to his will, but when sin is concerned suddenly "we started the problem"? Nope, sorry. That makes no sense. If God wants credit for creation and wants to set all the rules, then God gets the blame for sin. Seems only fair.

 

[waitasec]

Yeah I know, but the deeds they commit are done in the name of a god they've formed in their own minds. The God of the Bible didn't want them to do the crusades or the witch burnings.

wow...
you mean with a the massacres that were done in the name of god in the OT were not crusades?

 

[waitasec]

Do you consider it just to punish billions of people for the actions of one of their ancestors?

it doesn't matter if it's fair,
what god wants, god gets

 

[waitasec]

Garbage. Sin was created by God, and God tempted Adam into it.

spot on. god created adam without the ability to tell the difference between good and evil.

 

[Hope]

where did i say that?
i said subjective morals cannot be compared to empirical evidence.
(one wonders if this is how you read the bible...just by skimming through and picking what seems to work for your version of "right")

Isn't empirical evidence evidence from observation? I guess I'm not quite following your line of reasoning. Subjective morals can definitely be observed, can't they? Isn't this thread proof enough of that? I'm not quite sure what you are trying to argue.

of course i do...in fact i am almost insulted by that question, but i don't expect you to understand that.
what i consider to be right doesn't necessarily mean you would consider the same...and i don't expect it to mean the same for you.

You told me to prove there are absolute morals. I didn't ask you what you think is right, or what you think is wrong---I simply asked whether you believe that right and wrong exist. You respond in the affirmative. The fact that you believe there is right and wrong---and I think I can safely say that every human being on the planet has some sense of right and wrong---proves there IS an absolute morality in existence.

You are actually contradicting yourself when you admit there is right and wrong, after stressing that each of us has our own sense of right and wrong. How can there truly be any right and wrong, if right and wrong is different for every person? Again, if my sense of right and wrong say it's ok to kill you, on what authority can you tell me that my sense of right is wrong and your sense of right is right? Do you see the dilemma you put yourself in by claiming no absolute morality exists (while at the same time inexplicably claiming there is such thing as right and wrong)?

If, according to your relativistic view of morality, everyone should act according to what they believe is right, then all your arguments on this thread lambasting God for killing innocent girls (supposedly) hold absolutely no weight whatsoever. Your very arguments assume there is an absolute morality, otherwise you'd have no reason to be upset if God chooses a version of morality opposed to your own. Why have any "righteous indignation" at all if no absolute morality exists? You are only proving my point for me.

question is, why would you expect your version of right to be applied to my set of morals? are you better than me...do you have a higher sense of morals than i?
another thing i wonder about is, are you not supposed to treat others the way you like to be treated? i think that is as close to a universal code as any...and btw, that code is not
exclusive to your religion :sorry1:

in my book, if one has had a hand in the suicide of an insecure teenager who was devastated by comparing their right, their truth, to your version of right, your truth, which is being perpetuated by a need to control others (something your lord didn't stipulate) they have murdered.

So why is your truth, and your right, better than mine, or God's? I'm not the one claiming my truth, or my right, is better than anyone's. You're throwing unfounded accusations and assumptions at me. All I'm saying is that absolute morality exists, and in your very arguments you are proving me right.

 

[waitasec]

Isn't empirical evidence evidence from observation?

yes.

I guess I'm not quite following your line of reasoning. Subjective morals can definitely be observed, can't they?

yes.

Isn't this thread proof enough of that? I'm not quite sure what you are trying to argue.

yes and not only that you don't seem to be understanding what you are saying or why you are arguing against my point of relative morality.

you said:

Certainly every culture, denomination, etc., has its own preferences ("preferences" being the key word) in regards to certain issues, but if it's true everyone is absolutely right in their morals (according to waitasec),then, actually no one is right.

i am right for me
you are right for you
there is no absolute morality.
i am bi sexual, i am right, you believe homosexuality is wrong, you are right.
so if you being a heterosexual, having sex with another woman is wrong...so don't do it.

it's really easy, if you try.

You told me to prove there are absolute morals. I didn't ask you what you think is right, or what you think is wrong---I simply asked whether you believe that right and wrong exist. You respond in the affirmative. The fact that you believe there is right and wrong---and I think I can safely say that every human being on the planet has some sense of right and wrong---proves there IS an absolute morality in existence.

not at all because what i think is right you think is wrong...
right?

You are actually contradicting yourself when you admit there is right and wrong, after stressing that each of us has our own sense of right and wrong.

how is that a contradiction when i say morality is subjective?

How can there truly be any right and wrong, if right and wrong is different for every person?

because what is true for you, is true for YOU.

Again, if my sense of right and wrong say it's ok to kill you, on what authority can you tell me that my sense of right is wrong and your sense of right is right?

the authority, for lack of a better word, of empathy.
all have it, in fact the human race could survive without it, since we are social animals.

Do you see the dilemma you put yourself in by claiming no absolute morality exists (while at the same time inexplicably claiming there is such thing as right and wrong)?

i see a dilemma you created for yourself.

If, according to your relativistic view of morality, everyone should act according to what they believe is right, then all your arguments on this thread lambasting God for killing innocent girls (supposedly) hold absolutely no weight whatsoever.

well i'm not blaming god for killing innocent girls.
i'm blaming a misogynistic society who uses god to justify their sense of what is right

Your very arguments assume there is an absolute morality, otherwise you'd have no reason to be upset if God chooses a version of morality opposed to your own. Why have any "righteous indignation" at all if no absolute morality exists? You are only proving my point for me.

have you heard of the term:
for the sake of argument

So why is your truth, and your right, better than mine, or God's? I'm not the one claiming my truth, or my right, is better than anyone's.

yes you are. because what happens to be "the truth" is ... your truth

edit:
lets get this straight, i never said that my truth is better than anyones. my truth is my truth, and i don't expect my truth to be your truth. i'm curious though, what did i say that gave you that idea?

You're throwing unfounded accusations and assumptions at me. All I'm saying is that absolute morality exists, and in your very arguments you are proving me right.

if it makes you feel better about yourself

 

[roberto]

I do like your posts

So it was Abraham to whom it was said something about righteousness. Now, I understand the context of the word righteousness in this regard [something not always done by citing Christians, let's say]. And perhaps I am asking the wrong person, but... it would appear from these citations and the things that follow, that righteousness is essentially its own reward for following God's laws. In other words, being observant [technically and observant Jew] would grant this kind of righteousness, to anyone. There is no real emphasis on a perfect, 100%-all-the-time observance, per se, although it appears assumed that the laws are all to be observed. But the idea of human fallibility is in a way already taken into account.

Why, therefore, is it necessary for Jesus to somehow arrive to 'justify' the laws? Because it appears that some form of righteousness is already achievable by any observant person. And it had been that way since the time of Abraham, the founder.

Given what was already said and done, to me it appears pointless to assume somehow Jesus' action in this manner was necessary. It seems redundant.

It might also bear mentioning that it's possible, you and I both, understand Jesus was not really the Moschiach, anyway. But then, a related question: for the Moschiach, is there some special overemphasis on this same action, 'justifying' the laws?

Firstly Heathen Hammer, jesus is definitely not the name of the Messiah as is Heathen Hammer not your name. But yes David and Joseph was forgiven their Pesa sins by "looking forward" to that which Yeshua paid for, for "the bride" as redeemer.

The Sotah (Hebrew: סוטה, "wayward wife") rules applied to the "bride" after she went whoring after heathen stuff.

Yeshua as "Messiah son of Joseph" tried to remove the fences which the Talmud placed around Torah. When he returns as "Messiah son of David" he will surely set down "the instructions" as they should be observed.

maybee I did not quite get your question ?
..

 

[Nakosis]

You told me to prove there are absolute morals. I didn't ask you what you think is right, or what you think is wrong---I simply asked whether you believe that right and wrong exist. You respond in the affirmative. The fact that you believe there is right and wrong---and I think I can safely say that every human being on the planet has some sense of right and wrong---proves there IS an absolute morality in existence.

Just because all humans have a sense of morality doesn't mean any moral is absolute. My morals are subjective. What is moral for me changes depending on circumstances. So what is right and wrong for me is not absolute. My morality is dynamic depending on the circumstances I find myself in.

If, according to your relativistic view of morality, everyone should act according to what they believe is right, then all your arguments on this thread lambasting God for killing innocent girls (supposedly) hold absolutely no weight whatsoever. Your very arguments assume there is an absolute morality, otherwise you'd have no reason to be upset if God chooses a version of morality opposed to your own. Why have any "righteous indignation" at all if no absolute morality exists? You are only proving my point for me.

No because that is base on waitasec's personal sense of morality. Whereas you are trying to claim it is moral. Moral in your view, not in her's.

So why is your truth, and your right, better than mine, or God's? I'm not the one claiming my truth, or my right, is better than anyone's. You're throwing unfounded accusations and assumptions at me. All I'm saying is that absolute morality exists, and in your very arguments you are proving me right.

It is better for waitasec. Obviously not better for you. My truth is there is no absolute morals. There are my morals and there are your morals. Sometimes we may even share a few moral values or two. That doesn't make them absolute.

In saying there is absolute morality aren't you trying to claim your truth is better?

If you want to believe is absolute morals, that's fine. Just don't think I have to accept the truth of that.