Ex Christians

[waitasec]

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

wait, is that an objective moral stance?

 

[Astravalon]

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.

Amen! Agreed.

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.

The problem I see with this is that it presents a frail human
being (Adam) as being more successful at influencing
mankind through his actions than an all-powerful God is
through His actions.

The bible mentions that in the same way all died in Adam,
all will be made alive again in Christ (1 Corinthians 15:22).
How did all die in Adam? Did anyone have to believe in
Adam before Adam's actions impacted them? Did anyone
have to answer an altar-call or get baptized in Adam first
before Adam's actions would take effect? Did anyone have to
say a certain prayer in order for the effects of Adam's actions
to kick in? The answer to all of that is, of course, No. So why
the teaching that says, essentially, that God's remedy
cannot be just as instantaneously effective as Adam's
recklessness was without mankind's cooperation in the
process? It doesn't make sense to me (anymore ).

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

Exactly. In fact, if the only way that Adam and Eve could
have comprehended the distinction between good and evil
was by partaking of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and
Evil, how could they have understood that they did wrong by
partaking of it?
-

 

[Nakosis]

wait, is that an objective moral stance?

There are no absolutes except for the truth that there are no absolutes. :bonk:

 

[waitasec]

There are no absolutes except for the truth that there are no absolutes. :bonk:

people are funny.

 

[waitasec]

The bible mentions that in the same way all died in Adam,
all will be made alive again in Christ (1 Corinthians 15:22).
How did all die in Adam? Did anyone have to believe in
Adam before Adam's actions impacted them? Did anyone
have to answer an altar-call or get baptized in Adam first
before Adam's actions would take effect? Did anyone have to
say a certain prayer in order for the effects of Adam's actions
to kick in? The answer to all of that is, of course, No. So why
the teaching that says, essentially, that God's remedy
cannot be just as instantaneously effective as Adam's
recklessness was without mankind's cooperation in the
process? It doesn't make sense to me (anymore ). [/COLOR]

if god only sacrificed himself to himself before adam ate the forbidden fruit we would be eternally ignorant of our actions, which suggests our sense of empathy wouldn't guide our sense of morality, which means we would have pretty much killed ourselves a long time ago....

so why even create us with the ability to empathize?

 

[Nakosis]

The bible mentions that in the same way all died in Adam,
all will be made alive again in Christ (1 Corinthians 15:22).
How did all die in Adam? Did anyone have to believe in
Adam before Adam's actions impacted them? Did anyone
have to answer an altar-call or get baptized in Adam first
before Adam's actions would take effect? Did anyone have to
say a certain prayer in order for the effects of Adam's actions
to kick in? The answer to all of that is, of course, No. So why
the teaching that says, essentially, that God's remedy
cannot be just as instantaneously effective as Adam's
recklessness was without mankind's cooperation in the
process? It doesn't make sense to me (anymore ).

How I see it....

First of all man's cooperation is not necessary. However we can fight against it and be dragged along against our will or accept our faith. Basically stop trying to swim against the current. IMO we are all going to get to where we need to go. Probably better to relax and enjoy the ride.

Through the actions of Adam we became spiritually ignorant. Through the actions of Jesus man will become spiritually aware. Adam really had no choice. Eating the fruit of sin was destined. Man has no choice, man will be spiritually reborn, awakened to the truth.

Why? It's a game. God creates a reality. Sets up the rules. Creates participants. Just for the sake of the experience of participating in the game. God plays all roles. The criminal and the victim. The king and the pauper. God and the Devil.

Each participant is God in disguise. However each participant is so well disguised they are unaware of this. Adam is God ignorant of his true nature. Adam had to be made ignorant in order to be bound to the rules of the game.

At some point each participant will recognize their true nature and the game will be over. I suspect then it's likely we will start a new game.

 

[mycorrhiza]

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.

Exodus 22:18 clearly says that witches should be killed, and we know from history that the methods for determining if someone was a witch weren't exactly accurate. Especially since we found out that witches don't exist (in the traditional/biblical sense, that is). Even if the God of the Bible didn't want the crusades, people still did them in His name.

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.

Sin has no meaning if God didn't define it. God decided what was sin and God decided what the punishment was. Therefore it is not of free choice that we choose hell, it is because God is forcing us. It is either obey or be tortured forever. So the metaphor still stands.

For it to not be God forcing us, the laws of sin would have to be above God, so He would not be the omnipotent creator of everything. Either that or hell as eternal torture isn't a Biblical concept.

Oh okay, and have you always felt this way?

Probably not when I was a little kid, but I think it's quite logical to accept a pacifist way of life.

 

[Vadergirl123]

Yes, it is. You're wrong.

Why am I wrong? Because you say I am?

By this example alone my morals are better than God's.

What example?

Except by the proof of his actions, he does not love us.

You don't believe willingly dying for someone to save them demonstrates love?

 

[Vadergirl123]

How about Samson praying to G_d for the return of his strength so that he could kill himself......?

What about it?

 

[Vadergirl123]

There are a number of Rabbis who can trace their lineage back that far. Even today, you will find a few who can actually say they are descendant of the Levi tribe. This means that their knowledge and understandings of Torah, and Torah law, is the direct understanding of Moses and Aaron. This knowledge was a direct father to son understanding

Cool

After the fall of the second temple, when Rabbinic Judaism came into existence, other Tribes began to see rabbis come up out of their clan. However, their understanding of Torah and Torah law, while may not have been father to son knowledge, was teacher to student. Or Levite to Danite, Levite to Benjaminite, or Levite to....
So, while Gamliel was not around during the time of Moses(he's time period is from 1400s C.E.), his knowledge, or understanding, is.
However, do keep in mind, Gamliel is but one Rabbi among hundreds, and, much like our resident Levite, human and prone to mistakes and, on the rarest of occasions, drunken stupidity.

Did any of the rabbi's before him talk about this method?

BTW, Rakhel is a female name. Hebrew from Rachel.

haha sorry, I should've looked at what your gender was.

 

[Vadergirl123]

so again, this law was made to justify the stoning of a girl who didn't bleed...or had a particular smell on her breath.

The law wasn't made to justify stoning a girl who didn't bleed. It was made to tell the Israelites how to respond to a particular problem that might've happened.

 

[Vadergirl123]

so if a girl who was a virgin that didn't bleed would prove her innocence in what way?

I still don't know. Aren't you bored of asking me?

no, it's not ok. at least for me it isn't. i don't particularly have a high regard for blind faith.

Then why do you have faith that some inoccent girl was killed?

yes what?

Yes I know he chose not to put it in the Bible b/c it wasn't there.

i wonder why that was never mentioned...if god knows there are times girls do not bleed for the 1st time they have sex, god would be looking out for those who will be taken advantage of using this very system he set up.

Maybe none of the jewish girls had a problem not bleeding or maybe it was rare and the other forms of proof weren'tmentioned...I still don't know why he didn't mention it.

 

[Vadergirl123]

would agree that mankind is fallible?

Yes I would

 

[Vadergirl123]

why are you so determined to believe blindly?

Believe what blindly? The Bible? God exists? or that inoccent virgins weren't killed?

 

[waitasec]

The law wasn't made to justify stoning a girl who didn't bleed. It was made to tell the Israelites how to respond to a particular problem that might've happened.

you still have a big problem in your hands...

the fallible method in determining if there was a problem to begin with...

 

[Vadergirl123]

yes he would.
if you, and i'm only speculating here, believe the flood story is literally true...many innocent children died in that flood.

The Bible says, "The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time."(Genesis 6: 5) That doesn't sound very inoccent to me.

and lets not forget about the little boys that were to be slaughtered
numbers 31:17,18
god had something against non virgins and he seemed to prefer virgins, don't you find that sort of odd...especially if god is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow

God's always been against sex before marriage and what makes you think the Midianites were an "inoccent" people?

where they innocent of any wrong doing other than being a midianite? isn't that promoting racism and genocide for the purpose of eliminating a future conflict for committing this act in the 1st place? or was god concerned about the innocent midianite children?

First off the Midianites were being punished for the Peor incident in which they decieved Israel. Seccondly do you beleive children are inoccent and can do no wrong?

i also think since god justifies this sort of thing, anything can be justified....flying into buildings is justified. what an astonishing god you believe in...

The God of the Bible never told anyone to fly into a building, you're thinking of another god.

 

[Vadergirl123]

i thought you believed blindly?

Nope and I was just asking Rakhel where she got the info from. I like to know what people's source is.

 

[Vadergirl123]

where does this come from? it's not in the book you claim is infallible.

Something doesn't have to be in the Bibel to potentially be true. The Bible doesn't mention Moses going to the bathroom, but we can assume he did, and there's nothing in the Bible that would contradict the idea of him going.

 

[Vadergirl123]

you would stand on the sidelines cheering those who would enforce gods rules onto those who do not adhere to your gods rules, wouldn't you?

Yes I would cheer for those who enforce God's rules. But God doesn't say to kill a woman who doesn't bleed, nor does he say to kill a woman who's a virgin. So I'd have no reason to cheer for anyone doing those things, since God didn't command them to.

 

[Vadergirl123]

Vadar girl im still waiting for you to find those verses on suicide being condemned and it being called self-murder in teh bible. its been days now

I posted them...go back a few pages(96-98)

Why not? he allows innocent people to die and get inprisioned all the time

Some of the people aren't his children and the ones who are do die eventually(everyone dies being a christain doesn't mean you'll live forever), but they shoudln't really be afraid of death or feel cheated out of life since they'll be able to spend time with their father soon.