Ex Christians

[Vadergirl123]

Just to recap the kind of opinions one ends up embracing when they choose to believe the Bible is the ultimate guide to morality:
Honour killings are OK.
There's nothing wrong with torture.
Killing other humans is no big deal, like if it's punishment or a war or something.
Slavery is not wrong unless it's based on skin colour.
Wow. Just... wow.

I've NEVER said any of those things were okay. I didn't say honor killings were okay, I didn't say there was nothing wrong with torture, I didn't say slavery was right, and I didn't say killing other humans was no big deal.

 

[Alceste]

I'm trying to make a point(the question soudns really badI know haha, but please bare with me) and I don't have followers...

I was praying to your God to keep His followers away from me. Suffice out to say I strongly disagree with your opinion that torture is OK a much as I disagree with your opinion that honour killings are OK.

 

[Vadergirl123]

That is what I said, and I stand by it.

Haha yes I know you do and it's because your morality is based on how you feel right. What feels right to you is right for you, what feels wrong to you is wrong for you. Is that a fair statement?

 

[Vadergirl123]

I was praying to your God to keep His followers away from me. Suffice out to say I strongly disagree with your opinion that torture is OK a much as I disagree with your opinion that honour killings are OK.

Alceste this is ridiculus. I NEVER said either of those things were okay. In fact I'm pretty sure I told you honor killings were wrong. And I just asked Heathen Hammer why he thought torture is immoral. That doesn't mean I think it's right.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Oh yeah, I was saying how we can't know anything about God without the Bible.

So you base everything you know about God on a book of unknown origin written two-thousand years ago for which we no longer possess any original copies?

Yes, I have the preconcieved notion that what the Bible says is true. But I'm not twisting it's words to support my own personal beliefs.

You almost definitely do. It's impossible to follow the Bible without interpreting it.

Nope, but I also don't ignore all the passages that show him as caring and loving.

Why are they relevant? A loving God would not kill millions (if not billions) of the people he supposedly loves. Just because God acted nice some times does not excuse the fact that he merciessly slaughtered entire civilizations of people just because they didn't live up to his expectations. A loving God simply would not do that.

Ah well that's not really endorsing. Endorsing is to declare one's public approval or support of. But yes God did permit slavery and gives laws on how people should treat their slaves. Also slavery in ancient times was different then salvery in say America. It wasn't based on skin color.

Why should that matter? Are you saying slavery is okay?

 

[Alceste]

I've NEVER said any of those things were okay. I didn't say honor killings were okay, I didn't say there was nothing wrong with torture, I didn't say slavery was right, and I didn't say killing other humans was no big deal.

You specifically said you would cheer at an honour killing because you think it's God's justice being carried out, you implied that the race of the slaves in the Bible was some kind of mitigating factor as to whether it is wrong, you said it's OK when soldiers kill people, making much of some imagined difference between killing and murder, and you have insisted quite strongly that your God has the right to torture non-Christians , then asked "what's wrong with torture?"

I'm not sure what point you've been trying to make, but you've succeeded in making the point that trying to base one's morality on the Bible is... let's say ineffective.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Haha yes I know you do and it's because your morality is based on how you feel right. What feels right to you is right for you, what feels wrong to you is wrong for you. Is that a fair statement?

There are moral codes outside of the Bible, you know. I base mine on my practice.....including the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path, and wisdom and compassion.

 

[Alceste]

Alceste this is ridiculus. I NEVER said either of those things were okay. In fact I'm pretty sure I told you honor killings were wrong. And I just asked Heathen Hammer why he thought torture is immoral. That doesn't mean I think it's right.

What? We argued for forty pages about the bloody sheet test and the execution of women assumed to be sexually immoral and now you're telling me you were on my side the whole time?

And you think torture is wrong now? That's funny, because I was pretty sure you were just saying it's God's eternal justice.

 

[Vadergirl123]

You specifically said you would cheer at an honour killing because you think it's God's justice being carried out

Page number and post please.

you implied that the race of the slaves in the Bible was some kind of mitigating factor as to whether it is wrong

That wasn't my intention at all. I was just pointing out that slavery in ancient times was different then it was in the 16-18th century.

you said it's OK when soldiers kill people, making much of some imagined difference between killing and murder, and you have insisted quite strongly that God has the right to torture non-Christians for all, then asked "what's wrong with torture?"

I think armies are fine yes. but I never said killing was, "no big deal." I think war is terrible, but I also think that armies are necessary. Killing is different than murder. If I kill someone in self-defense did I murder them? No. If I kill someone accidently did I murder them? No. They're different.
As to torture I did ask why he thought it was immoral. That doesn't mean I want to go out and torture people.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Page number and post please.

That wasn't my intention at all. I was just pointing out that slavery in ancient times was different then it was in the 16-18th century.

I think armies are fine yes. but I never said killing was, "no big deal." I think war is terrible, but I also think that armies are necessary. Killing is different than murder. If I kill someone in self-defense did I murder them? No. If I kill someone accidently did I murder them? No. They're different.
As to torture I did ask why he thought it was immoral. That doesn't mean I want to go out and torture people.

No, but it seems you will sit by and let it happen to somebody because they're a different religion. By your logic.

The approval is implicit.

 

[Vadergirl123]

What? We argued for forty pages about the bloody sheet test and the execution of women assumed to be sexually immoral and now you're telling me you were on my side the whole time?

If you'd read my posts you'd have seen I said that the law had nothing to do with honor killings since the women wasn't being killed for bringing dishonor to her family.

And you think torture is wrong now?

I believe It's wrong for me or other human beings to to torture somebody yes, and as I've said so many times already, I'm not God.

 

[Vadergirl123]

No, but it seems you will sit by and let it happen to somebody because they're a different religion. By your logic.
The approval is implicit.

Sit by and let what happen? People get killed? If that's what you're saying then even if I'd wanted to stop God from killing the midianites I couldn't have. He's far more powerful than me.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Sit by and let what happen? People get killed? If that's what you're saying then even if I'd wanted to stop God from killing the midianites I couldn't have. He's far more powerful than me.

People being tortured for eternity in hell.

People being stoned for premarital sex.

People being burned at the stake for witchcraft.

Somehow it's just or righteous if the pain and agony is being experienced by someone else if it's a morality is being applied from a single book, no? I argue that it is unjust, since I believe it is neither wise nor compassionate.

 

[Vadergirl123]

People being tortured for eternity in hell.
People being stoned for premarital sex.

I coudn't have done anything to stop these even if I'd wanted too. We're not suppose to stone people today anyway. and I can't stop people from going to hell. It's up to them to chose.

People being burned at the stake for witchcraft.

God didn't tell peole to burn witches at the stake, so these people weren't even acting on God's law.

Somehow it's just or righteous if the pain and agony is being experienced by someone else if it's a morality is being applied from a single book, no?

God's laws were just, and while I obviously didn't have them applied to me that doesn't make them any less just.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I coudn't have done anything to stop these even if I'd wanted too. We're not suppose to stone people today anyway. and I can't stop people from going to hell. It's up to them to chose.

Except for all the millions of people who were born before Christs' supposed sacrifice, or the millions of people born into cultures that followed a different religion, or the millions of children who died in their youth.

Where is their choice?

 

[Astravalon]

God's an infinite being so the punishment has to be infinite. and think about it if someone were just punished for a short time, they'd go back to sinning once they were done with the punishment.

This doesn't make sense. It's the sin that is supposedly
being punished, and sin is finite.

Not only that, supposedly Jesus conquered sin and death at
the cross, so the idea that it would then take God forever to
address frail human shortcomings makes Him seem rather
ineffective at fixing them, not to mention making Jesus's
sacrifice look like an utter failure in accomplishing what it
was intended to accomplish.

Haha yes I know you do and it's because your morality is based on how you feel right. What feels right to you is right for you, what feels wrong to you is wrong for you. Is that a fair statement?

Vadergirl, as I indicated in post #646, everyone bases their
morality on what they feel is right. Even Christians do this.
No one is going to base their morality on what they think is
wrong.

As to torture I did ask why he thought it was immoral. That doesn't mean I want to go out and torture people.

So, under what circumstances do you consider torture to be
moral?

 

[waitasec]

Why do God's methods have to meet your expecatations.

why not?
isn't god supposed to make himself clear enough to be able to satisfy my criteria for what is true or not?

And why does he have to include every detail for YOU.

because i am the one who is not persuaded into believing god is either this or that.

The passage wasn't adressed to you or me, and it doesn't seem like the Israelites had any problems with his commands and again there's no reaosn to think God let his law be used to justify killing inoccents.

why not? he killed little midianite boys.

Oh okay well I still wouldn't kill someone for having premarital sex.

however, you wouldn't object to it. nice set of morals you got.

I'd say it's probably pretty unlikely they actually decieved Israel themselves, but they most likely supported what their parents were doing, and were being raised in their parents lifestyle. The Bible itself doesn't specifically say why the girls were enslaved.

so you are saying infants up to 6 yr old boys were apart of deceiving israel but the young virgin midianite girls didn't...really?

I'm not trying to make God look, "attractive to people." I'm more of concerned with people beleiving untrue things about him.

inconsistency is generally not a good trait.

Not really. If I based my morals on just how I felt then they would be different then they are now.

then what do you base your morals on?

I'm not inconsistent with them. I've said I believe premarital sex is wrong. I've never said I believe it's right. Inconsistent would be me saying it's okay to have premarital sex in some cases, but I haven't said that.

no no no. you are evading the issue. it's not about you, it's about your god and your gods inconsistent criteria for justification.

 

[waitasec]

Actually they worshiped other gods, which goes against God's law

is your god that vein?
if they worshipped other gods, let them go to hell when they die...right?

Difference? The inoccent virgins weren't guily of the law that related to them and the Midianite boys, as I've posted above were worshiping other gods and their people had decieved Israel.

no no no
the virgin midianite girls.
remember...consistency, consistency, consistency

I'm not trying to make God look, "nice and pretty."And he's not unjust.

prove that he is not unjust....btw, don't you think by making that claim your attempting to make your god look nice and pretty?

your god is inconsistent, that's not pretty.

and that's why i am an ex-christian.

 

[Alceste]

If you'd read my posts you'd have seen I said that the law had nothing to do with honor killings since the women wasn't being killed for bringing dishonor to her family.

I believe It's wrong for me or other human beings to to torture somebody yes, and as I've said so many times already, I'm not God.

Splitting hairs. The term for murdering women on suspicion of sexual immorality is honour killing. You've vigorously defended the practice. It's either right or wrong. There are no shades of grey for you to latch onto there. If you think it's OK in certain circumstances, you basically think it's OK.

So far your morality seems to boil down to "anything the Christian God does or commands his followers to do is OK, including torture and murder".

 

[waitasec]

Splitting hairs. The term for murdering women on suspicion of sexual immorality is honour killing. You've vigorously defended the practice. It's either right or wrong. There are no shades of grey for you to latch onto there. If you think it's OK in certain circumstances, you basically think it's OK.

So far your morality seems to boil down to "anything the Christian God does or commands his followers to do is OK, including torture and murder".

lets see how she jumps through hoops in hopes of making this look attractive enough to justify why it's ok for god to torture and murder people.

opcorn: