Ex Christians

[Heathen Hammer]

You don't understand, God's NOT a "nice and pretty" being(I'm not trying to make him look that way at all, and I'm sorry it's comming across that way to you)

If you recognize this, then why do you have such a hard time understanding/making so many objections where the not-pretty parts are being pointed out to you?

Or is this more empty phrasing?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

They were able to chose to follow God's laws.

How could they "choose" to follow the laws of a God if they died young in a culture that either a) believed in a different God, b) didn't worship any Gods or c) existed before Jesus Christs' supposed sacrifice?

Those people didn't have a choice - they were doomed from the beginning. Do you seriously believe that a child raised in, say, a Muslim society by Muslim parents surrounded by Muslim culture deserves to be punished (eternally or otherwise) for not spontaneously choosing - against both his upbringing and the society he has lived in all of his life - to follow the orders of the God of the Bible instead, even if they never even know anything about that God or the Bible?

No. Sorry. That's just plain wrong, and any God that would allow that to happen is an evil, malicious *******.

 

[Vadergirl123]

we went over this already.
god held adam responsible for his actions while ignoring god is a bad bad parent by not holding himself responsible.

Oh well Adam was responsible(since nobody shoved the fruit down his mouth) he chose to ate it. Also unlike your analogy the tree wasn't the only thing in the garden(you had the poison being the only thing in the crib) I don't understand why you think God's responsible? He didn't force Adam to eat the fruit AND he didn't have only the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as the only thing in the garden.

i don't understand your logic about the other trees...so what there were other trees.

You're making it seem as if the tree was an unbearable temptation, and Adam and Eve just ahd to eat from it. That's why I pointed out that there were other things to occupy their attention

1st in order to know what good and evil means you would need to have knowledge of it...so from the get go it fails.

Adam didn't have to know what good/evil meant to make a choice.

so then why would you expect adam and eve to?
they didn't know what good and evil meant...so to them it was like hearing glipper and glopper...get it?

Ah yes I see what you're saying. However if someone told me that something bad would happen if I ate from the tree of glipper and glapper then I wouldn't want to eat from that tree. And God made sure they nkew something bad wuold happen. He didn't just say, "hey guys over there's the tree of knowledge of good and evil"

right that is what i said.
nip it in the bud, right?

I'll "nip it in the bud" if you'll stop making it seem that killing these boys was just wrong and unfair of God to do.

but you are justifying genocide by saying this:

Oh yes I am justifying it by saying that, and it's rightfully justified. Israel was God's chosen people and he would be looking out for them over the Midianites(and the Midianites had had a chance to join with Israel, but instead chose to ally with their enemies) So he wouldn't have wanted a bunch of boys to grow up to seek venegance. Also you don't seem like the kind of person who'd have wanted those boys to be child-sacrifices, which was another option.

 

[Vadergirl123]

For me, I recognized that I what I was feeling - what I had attributed to God - could have been anything. Basically that there was no proof that what I experienced was God, or any god. Sure it's possible, but that's not enough for me.

Gotcha

Then I started exploring other ideas, religions, etc. I especially watched other "Christians". That was the final straw. When I saw how awful people who considered themselves "Christian", added to my other experiences (not to mention common sense) I then declared myself, proudly, an 'ex-christian' (a term that was available to me - nothing more).

Eesh I'm sorry you saw some awful examples

IMO, anyone who claims to have a relationship with Jesus is simply fooling themselves to an extreme - much like I did. They are brainwashed by a desperate regime (the church) that wants the money and control of people/society.
But hey - if they want to live in a fairy-tale land, so long as they don't try to force it on me, I don't much care what they do. It's their life to waste, after all.

Hmm thanks for sharing

 

[Vadergirl123]

However, you mentiond in post 1266 that God created Adam as
perfect and that therefore he wouldn't have a knowledge of
evil.

1. Adam was supposedly perfect, so he would be incapable
of sinning.

Incapable? Adam could chose to sin, which he obviously did. However originally God created him as, "very good" I probably should have said that instead of perfect.

2. God is inflicting a pretty radical punishment, right off the

bat, for crossing a line that Adam had not realized should
not be crossed. It’s Parenting 101

No he's not, Adam realized that God told them to not eat the fruit and they knew what it meant to, "not eat something"

Your bible distinctly says that Jesus took away the sin of the
world. So maybe you just don’t believe what it says there,
which is fine (I don’t buy any ancient text hook line and
sinker anymore either).

He did pay the price for sin(here can you give me a few references for these verses, and I'll look at the context surrounding them.?)

Or, your idea of a sin-free world makes it difficult for you to

reconcile the world as it appears with Jesus having taken
away the sin therein.

If Christ took sin out of the world, then the world would have no sin in it.

Thirdly, don’t forget that it was allegedly a sin-free world
back when Adam decided to do something that went against
God by eating of the tree.

It was indeed "sin-free" and Adam's choice led to sin entering the world.

Notice I said “no longer sees sin as an issue” there.

Your bible says God is love.
Your bible also says that love keeps no record of wrongs.
Your bible also says blessed is the man whose sin is no longer counted against him.
Your bible also says that we are now no longer under condemnation.

Indeed it does, but your first two statements have some problems. God is love, but in I Corinthians you'll see that Paul is talking about how when you love someone you're not constantly bringing up their faults(even if they're still their). Also if you read elsewhere in the Bible you'll see that God forgives our sins when we CONFESS to him. Clearly though God saw sin as in issue even in the N.T.

I refuse to believe that God is the great germaphobe in the
sky who is still, after all this time, getting the heeby-jeebies
every time someone behaves according to the way He
designed them in the first place.

You don't have to believe that haha, and God didn't originally design us as sinners. If Adam hadn't chosen to go against what God said we'd all be "Very good." Adam brought the curse of sin upon mankind.

You're making belief our savior rather than Jesus.

Sorry that's not what I'm trying to say. Jesus is our savior, but belief in him is what allows us to enter a relationship with him.

No, but Christianity then turns around and basically suggests
that He is only the Savior of most of mankind in name only,
not in effect

I'm not suggesting that he's the savior of "most" of mankind. He died for everyone.

I think you still might be missing the essence of that,

though. Does birth take place because the one being born
believes something or does something?.

Read all of John 3, Christ says we're born through the spirit and you only recieve the spirit after you get saved, or believe on Christ. And Christ talks about beleiving in him in vs 16 of eth same chapter.

That’s just it -- we didn’t have to believe we were sinners to
be sinners. That’s my point. According to your bible we are
made alive in Christ (made sinless too, if you will)

Whoa now, being alive in Christ doesn't mean we're no longer sinners. It means that Christ paid for our sins.

same way we died in Adam. So if our salvation is applied the
same way our sinful nature was, that would mean we don’t
need to believe to be saved any more than we had to
believe to be sinners.

What?? Our salvation isn't applied in the same way our sin was. Adam made a choice and brought a curse upon mankind. Christ came and died for us to pay the price of our sin and present himself as an antidote to our curse if we believe in him. and Christ himself said we need to beleive in him.

Why not?

There's alot of suffering in the world, and what woudl be the point of allowing his followers to suffer for no reason. So it would only make since for God to have taken everyone to heaven and then made his kingdom on earth. Another thing if everyone was saved then everyone wouldn't be attacking each other, and you'd only have one religion in the world.

Death of any kind is the last enemy to be destroyed --

What makes you think it's not just physical death being talked about?

Could you point to where I said that the entire human race

doesn’t not believe in Christ? I don’t recall saying that.

You said, "God wouldn't let an entire race slip away."

 

[Vadergirl123]

Hey I missed this one liner response some time ago so thought i'd reply here..

Baha'is accept that Christ returned in 1844 so the "relationship with Christ" continues... I'll provide a reference

Return of Christ

No problem, there's alot of posts in here and that's pretty interesting.

 

[Astravalon]

so when a child eats the poison one puts in their crib after knowing what "no" means, is fully responsible for the choice of eating it, while not knowing what eating poison entails?

now that is a god i want to believe in...
i'm sold.

Eh to some degree the child is repsonsible for eating the poison. He woudln't be responsible though if someone forced the poison into his mouth. Adam and Eve weren't children first off. God created man and woman, not boy and girl. Adam and Eve (unlike the child in your analogy) knew they'd die if they ate the fruit and while they might not have known what death felt like they knew it was that wouldn't be good. And nobody forced the fruit into their mouths.

Oh well Adam was responsible(since nobody shoved the fruit down his mouth) he chose to ate it. Also unlike your analogy the tree wasn't the only thing in the garden(you had the poison being the only thing in the crib) I don't understand why you think God's responsible? He didn't force Adam to eat the fruit AND he didn't have only the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as the only thing in the garden.

With the poison in the crib analogy, I think there's one thing
that's being overlooked: What parent would put poison in
their baby's crib? Regardless of what child-friendly items are
in the crib along with it, the parent put poison right there. In
the crib. With the baby. Child Protective Services is going to
have some questions, and those questions aren't going to be
aimed at the baby, I can tell ya that right now. And the
parent saying "Well it's not like I forced the poison down
the baby's throat" ain't gonna cut it, methinks.








-

 

[waitasec]

Adam didn't have to know what good/evil meant to make a choice.

in order to determine for anyone, maybe not you, to know they are making a moral choice...and in this case knowing obedience was good...yes one does have to know what good and evil means...but again may not for you
:areyoucra

Ah yes I see what you're saying. However if someone told me that something bad would happen if I ate from the tree of glipper and glapper then I wouldn't want to eat from that tree.

no you didn't get it.
why did you use the word "bad"? you don't know what "bad" means because "bad" is contingent on knowing what glipper and glopper means.
if taken literally, that is why this story fails from the get go.

 

[fantome profane]

Oh well Adam was responsible(since nobody shoved the fruit down his mouth) he chose to ate it.

But did Adam know that that fruit came from that tree? Remember that Adam did not take the fruit from the tree, he took it from Eve. There is no indication that they had a conversation about it or that she told him where the fruit came from. It just says that she gave it to him and he ate. It makes Adam seem very childlike, almost infantile.

Of course it does not say that Adam did not know where the fruit came from. It is just these kind of ambiguities that I think make this story interesting.

 

[waitasec]

Oh yes I am justifying it by saying that, and it's rightfully justified. Israel was God's chosen people and he would be looking out for them over the Midianites(and the Midianites had had a chance to join with Israel, but instead chose to ally with their enemies) So he wouldn't have wanted a bunch of boys to grow up to seek venegance. Also you don't seem like the kind of person who'd have wanted those boys to be child-sacrifices, which was another option.

right. you are justifying genocide.
do you realize what you are saying?
:areyoucra

 

[Vadergirl123]

If you recognize this, then why do you have such a hard time understanding/making so many objections where the not-pretty parts are being pointed out to you?Or is this more empty phrasing?

Because most of the objections are making God look unfair and evil, which isn't the case. However just because something's not nice and pretty doesn't mean it's not good. For example y'all know who Alsan is right? He's not really a nice and pretty(or tame)lion but he's good. It's like the same thing with God.

 

[waitasec]

Because most of the objections are making God look unfair and evil, which isn't the case. However just because something's not nice and pretty doesn't mean it's not good. For example y'all know who Alsan is right? He's not really a nice and pretty(or tame)lion but he's good. It's like the same thing with God.

there you go again making god look nice and pretty as he condones genocide.
:areyoucra


i see genocide as a means for man to get rid of an enemy, if god resorts to such tactics god is weak.

 

[Vadergirl123]

there you go again making god look nice and pretty as he condones genocide.

He had a good reason to destroy the Midianites, and had every right as well.

i see genocide as a means for man to get rid of an enemy, if god resorts to such tactics god is weak.

That's not how God sees it. He used it to show how other nations shouldn't go against him. Also the Midianite had a chance to be friends with the Israelites but they chose to ally themselves with Israel's enemies.(foolish on their part)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

He had a good reason to destroy the Midianites, and had every right as well.

Did he have to destroy them?

 

[waitasec]

He had a good reason to destroy the Midianites, and had every right as well.

there are no good reasons if god is supposed to be love.

That's not how God sees it. He used it to show how other nations shouldn't go against him. Also the Midianite had a chance to be friends with the Israelites but they chose to ally themselves with Israel's enemies.(foolish on their part)

that is how you see it.
your god is man made as your god resorts to the ways of men, but for some strange reason the almighty who created the universe is concerned about a small group of people on a small little blue planet...and is concerned about a small piece of real estate about 7,850 square miles which doesn't even compare to the golden state that is 156,000 square miles...i mean what was he thinking? why not california?

 

[Astravalon]

Incapable? Adam could chose to sin, which he obviously did. However originally God created him as, "very good" I probably should have said that instead of perfect.

In that case, God -- who knows the end from the beginning, let's not forget -- knowingly created him with the capacity to sin. If God really, truly, madly, deeply didn’t want sin to happen, it was well within His power to create accordingly.

No he's not, Adam realized that God told them to not eat the fruit and they knew what it meant to, "not eat something"

Again, human parents are held to a much higher standard than God is, it would seem. Is this a deity we’re talking about or just another flawed mortal?

He did pay the price for sin(here can you give me a few references for these verses, and I'll look at the context surrounding them.?)

The verse containing the specific terminology of Jesus taking away the sin of the world is here:

John 1:29: The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”
​

If Christ took sin out of the world, then the world would have no sin in it.

Careful, now, that’s what many an “unbeliever” might say. Do we go by what The Word Clearly Says, or by what we think we see with our eyes?

It was indeed "sin-free" and Adam's choice led to sin entering the world.

Which proves my point that a world can be sin-free and still provide people the freedom to choose (so that they’re not “robots”), something you previously said couldn’t be possible (see post #739).

Indeed it does, but your first two statements have some problems. God is love, but in I Corinthians you'll see that Paul is talking about how when you love someone you're not constantly bringing up their faults(even if they're still their).

However, the verse is stated even more strongly than that. Love keeps no record of wrongs. Period. How blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him. (Romans 4:8)

Also if you read elsewhere in the Bible you'll see that God forgives our sins when we CONFESS to him.

Even repentance (the key ingredient behind confession) is said, by the bible, to be an act of God, so basically the forgiveness still occurs apart from our choosing. You can view a post I did ages ago pertaining to how faith, belief, and repentance are said to be gifts of God rather than the result of personal choice/effort here: Faith / Belief / Repentance: Man’s Work for God, or God’s Gift to Man?

You don't have to believe that haha, and God didn't originally design us as sinners. If Adam hadn't chosen to go against what God said we'd all be "Very good." Adam brought the curse of sin upon mankind.

If God didn’t design us as sinners, we wouldn’t be sinning, now, would we? Only sinners would sin, obviously.

Sorry that's not what I'm trying to say. Jesus is our savior, but belief in him is what allows us to enter a relationship with him.

Right, but by placing belief -- or anything man must do -- between what Jesus did and it’s impact is essentially making belief -- or anything man must do -- the savior rather than Jesus. If it were truly Jesus doing the saving, then the salvation would be executed regardless of what the individual did or did not do/believe/etc. The bible mentions us being "dead" in our sins. Dead guys can't do much to facilitate their own revival -- it's entirely up to the one reviving them. But this also ties into the post I mentioned above about even something like belief being a work of God rather than the individual.

I'm not suggesting that he's the savior of "most" of mankind. He died for everyone.

The only way to avoid suggesting that God is the savior of only most of mankind is to concede that He is the savior of the whole world, as advertised in scripture. Savior not just in name only, but in actual outcome.

Read all of John 3, Christ says we're born through the spirit and you only recieve the spirit after you get saved, or believe on Christ. And Christ talks about beleiving in him in vs 16 of eth same chapter.

He doesn’t say anything about belief preceding that birth. Interestingly enough, it also says in that chapter that God gives the Spirit without limit.

What?? Our salvation isn't applied in the same way our sin was. Adam made a choice and brought a curse upon mankind. Christ came and died for us to pay the price of our sin and present himself as an antidote to our curse if we believe in him. and Christ himself said we need to beleive in him.

Romans 5:18-19 goes into more detail as to what 1 Corinthians 15:22 is saying:

“18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.”
​

I’m not sure how much clearer I can make it.

Note: My responses continue in my next post (#1297), since I reached the limit in this one. This is more or less the halfway point.




-

 

[Astravalon]

Note: My responses continue in my next post, since I reached the limit in this one. This is more or less the halfway point.-

Below is the continuation from my previous post (#1296).

There's alot of suffering in the world, and what woudl be the point of allowing his followers to suffer for no reason.

You think letting people know the good news that they’re saved is “no reason” for those carrying that message to suffer?

So it would only make since for God to have taken everyone to heaven and then made his kingdom on earth. Another thing if everyone was saved then everyone wouldn't be attacking each other, and you'd only have one religion in the world.

Why put limits on God? He doesn’t fit into any religion’s box. Also -- you honestly think that those who would consider themselves saved can’t attack people or commit any type of wrongdoing?

What makes you think it's not just physical death being talked about?

Scripture doesn’t seem to make the distinction. Death is death is death.

Another clue is in the Garden of Eden. Evidently there was something Adam and Eve would’ve had to do to achieve immortality, which was to partake of the tree of life. This could be one reason why God sent them out of the garden, so they wouldn't live forever in their fallen state:

Genesis 3:22-24:

22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”23So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
​

You know, now that I think about it, it would've been nice if God had deployed that kind of security a little bit sooner, guarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, eh? I mean, if He really had that averse of a reaction to sin, and all.

You said, "God wouldn't let an entire race slip away."

My point was that just as we humans don’t settle for less than what we pay for (and compared to the human soul, what we pay for is quite trivial), God is not going to settle for less than what He paid for in Christ.



-

 

[waitasec]

Did he have to destroy them?

if you're a fallible "man"? yes
if you're a "god"? excellent question.

 

[Vadergirl123]

Since you are apparently a slave to what the Bible says nothing, even the most obvious rational explanation, will be good enough.

A slave huh? I guess I am to some degree.

Except he is; calling it something prettier doesn't change what it is.

No he's not, blackmailing is when you present something to someone and threaten to use it against the if they don't do what you say. God didn't present hell to us and say, "if you don't worship me, I'll send you there."
Originally he created humans "Very good" and designed to be in a relationship with him. Adam's choice ruined that relationship brought sin into the world. So as you can see God didn't present us with hell, we brought it upon ourselves. However God did provide us a way out of hell by sending Jesus.

You simply wish to place the blame on people, and avoid blaming God; but the premise is absurd.

And you want to blame God instead of people, so what? I believe we should be punished for sinning against God, and you don't.

And taht pair of choices shows how it is blackmail; we can follow the choice he prefers, or suffer an eternity of fire. Im sorry that this isn't sinking in for you.

It's not blackmail because we brought it upon ourselves. And also God didn't even have to give us the option of heaven.

Because, as I said, the bible would not lay the blame in God's lap; the book is there to make him look good, do you not understand?

Yes I understand and God is good. I'm sorry you can't accept that human beings don't deserve to be blamed for our sins.

But a rational examination, free of the Bible's one-sided propaganda, reveals the truth.
The fact that Adam's bad choice would lead to every single subsequent human being inclined to sin, IS God's fault. Notice it didn't just change Adam? That's where God made it happen.
What made sin some 'hereditary' inclination? *bzzt* you guessed it.. God's magic.

Adam brought sin, but we each make choices to sin(go against God) every day, we're going to hell because of our sins.

Well, I am a finite being so the punishment has to be finite.

Okay but when you sin against an infinite God(and all sin is primarily oriented toward God)you accrue an infinite debt.

IN any case, your reasoning here is poor. Justice = 'the punishment fits the crime'. This isn't justice, by the definition of the word.

Actually justice is, "the quality of being fair and reasonable.

This is also poor reasoning. Think about it yourself: we are talking about someone who is already dead. They cannot go back to sinning.

If you were in hell and then God decided to take youout and bring you back to earth you really don't think the peopel wuld sin again just because they'd already died once?

Are you really asking this?

Yes, please humor me? Why is torture immoral?

No, Lazarus was raised. Jesus did his own rising himself.

And God couldn't have raised Jesus form the dead? God can do things that are scientifically impossible.

And because that's what 'sacrifice' means! Words have actual definitions; the point of a sacrifice is that you give up something forever for some others' sake. It's like taking back a donation you give to a charity: did you really make a sacrificial gesture, if you grab your money back?

Oh well Jesus did have the sin of the world on him and he was forsaken of his father(for the first time ever) so in that sense you could say he lost something. However the actual definition doesn't say you have to lose something forever.

No, we really can't. it says he died because it needs to manufacture a story that is supposed to tell something. But it's a bad story, poorly thought out. It vacillates between Jesus being divine and Jesus being only a man,
It's not just an assumption.
It's a direct observation.

He was both 100% man AND God. and it's not a direct observation because you weren't there. You didn't check his vital signs or do any other tests to see if he was really dead.

No, that wouldn't be the case.
Witnessing has ZERO to do with it.

Witnessing the event has everything to do with it. The gospels were written by people who actually witnessed his death and fellowshipped with him after he rose.

Dead people don't rise. If you do rise, you're not dead anymore, therefore, you did not die. Death is permanent. Or did you not know that?

God can do things that are scientifically impossible for us to do.

 

[Vadergirl123]

How could they "choose" to follow the laws of a God if they died young in a culture that either a) believed in a different God, b) didn't worship any Gods or c) existed before Jesus Christs' supposed sacrifice?

The Midianites were able to ally themselve with the Israelites, but they chose to ally with their enemies instead. That was a choice they made.

Those people didn't have a choice - they were doomed from the beginning. Do you seriously believe that a child raised in, say, a Muslim society by Muslim parents surrounded by Muslim culture deserves to be punished (eternally or otherwise) for not spontaneously choosing - against both his upbringing and the society he has lived in all of his life - to follow the orders of the God of the Bible instead, even if they never even know anything about that God or the Bible?

No, because you can't believe something when you don't even know what it is. However God gives everyone the opportunity to come to know him.