Ex Christians

[Heathen Hammer]

Well everyone's a *slave to some degree.

I'm not.

Slaves like to think that, though. It lessens the sting.

 

[waitasec]

I think it's been an attempt by the OP to show why ex-Christians are somehow making the biggest mistake EVER.

Mystic are you serious! Why do you feel like I'm attacking you??? I've told you(I don't know how many times) that you can believe whatever you want and that it's your life. How after me saying that can you then say, "I'm trying to show that ex-christains are making the biggest mistake ever?" I don't get it?

hmmm.

no where do i find the word attack or any implications thereof in her post.

however we do see you confusing your attempt of defending god with your attempt in defending your belief in god, how do you differentiate between the two?

becoming an ex christian was the best thing that has ever happened to me...
and look...i don't eat children for breakfast...nor have i acquired a taste for it. odd, huh...

 

[Alceste]

Well everyone's a salve to some degree, and my statements aren't "absurd" you just disagree with them.

They are absurd because they are absurd. "God slaughters and commands to be slaughtered vast numbers of innocent people, but I don't like hearing people say He is mean, because it isn't true!"

Really. If that's not absurd I don't know what is.

 

[Jacksnyte]

The gospels were written by people who actually witnessed his death and fellowshipped with him after he rose.

Um, no, they weren't:

From Authorship of the Bible
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The gospels (and Acts) are anonymous, in that none of them name an author.[67] Whilst the Gospel of John might be considered somewhat of an exception, because the author refers to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved" and claims to be a member of Jesus's inner circle,[68] most scholars today consider this passage to be an interpolation (see below).

There is general agreement among scholars that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) show a high level of cross-reference. The usual explanation, the Two-source hypothesis, is that Mark was written first and that the authors of Matthew and Luke relied on Mark and the hypothetical Q document. Scholars agree that the Gospel of John was written last, using a different tradition and body of testimony. In addition, most scholars agree that the author of Luke also wrote the Acts of the Apostles, making Luke-Acts two halves of a single work.[69][70][71][72][73]

[edit]Mark
According to tradition and early church fathers, the author is Mark the Evangelist, the companion of the apostle Peter.[74] The gospel, however, appears to rely on several underlying sources, varying in form and in theology, and which tells against the tradition that the gospel was based on Peter's preaching.[75] Various elements within the gospel, including the importance of the authority of Peter and the broadness of the basic theology, suggest that the author wrote in Syria or Palestine for a non-Jewish Christian community which had earlier absorbed the influence of pre-Pauline beliefs and then developed them further independent of Paul.[76]

[edit]Matthew
Early Christian tradition held that the Gospel of Matthew was written in "Hebrew" (Aramaic, the language of Judea) by the apostle Matthew, the tax-collector and disciple of Jesus,[77] but according to the majority of modern scholars it is unlikely that this Gospel was written by an eyewitness.[78] Modern scholars interpret the tradition to mean that Papias, its source, writing about 125–150 CE, believed that Matthew had made a collection of the sayings of Jesus.[79] Papias's description does not correspond well with what is known of the gospel: it was most probably written in Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew, it depends on the Greek Gospels of Mark and on the hypothetical Q document, and it is not a collection of sayings.[80] Although the identity of the author is unknown, the internal evidence of the Gospel suggests that he was an ethnic Jewish male scribe from a Hellenised city, possibly Antioch in Syria,[81] and that he wrote between 70 and 100 CE[82] using a variety of oral traditions and written sources about Jesus.[83]

[edit]Luke and Acts
Main article: Authorship of Luke-Acts
There is general acceptance that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles originated as a two-volume work by a single author addressed to an otherwise unknown individual named Theophilus.[84] This author was an "amateur Hellenistic historian" versed in Greek rhetoric, that being the standard training for historians in the ancient world.[85]

According to tradition the author was Luke the Evangelist, the companion of the Apostle Paul, but many modern scholars have expressed doubt and opinion on the subject is evenly divided.[86] Instead, they believe Luke-Acts was written by an anonymous Christian author who may not have been an eyewitness to any of the events recorded within the text. Some of the evidence cited comes from the text of Luke-Acts itself. In the preface to Luke, the author refers to having eyewitness testimony "handed down to us" and to having undertaken a "careful investigation", but the author does not mention his own name or explicitly claim to be an eyewitness to any of the events, except for the we passages. And in the we passages, the narrative is written in the first person plural— the author never refers to himself as "I" or "me". To those who are skeptical of an eyewitness author, the we passages are usually regarded as fragments of a second document, part of some earlier account, which was later incorporated into Acts by the later author of Luke-Acts, or simply a Greek rhetorical device used for sea voyages.[87]

[edit]John
John 21:24 identifies the author of the Gospel of John as "the beloved disciple," and from the late 2nd century this figure, unnamed in the Gospel itself, was identified with John the son of Zebedee.[88] Today, however, most scholars agree that John 21 is an appendix to the Gospel, which originally ended at John 20:30–31.[89] The majority of scholars date the Gospel of John to c. 80–95,[67][90] and propose that the author made use of two major sources, a "Signs" source (a collection of seven miracle stories) and a "Discourse" source.[91]

[edit]

 

[jasonwill2]

The elders of the town were presented with proof yes, and if the charge against the girl was false she wasn't killed, but if it was true she wasn't a virgin then she was. Yes I do believe human beings are fallible.


The Bible isn't incomplete. Everything in it is what God wants us to know. I said the other forms of proof weren't mentioned. Now it can be misleading at times(but that's the fault of the reader NOT God) and I've never said it was incorrect.

I believe it's wrong to murder inoccent girls yes. When did I say, "I think it's right to murder a girl who didn't pass a test." Give me the page number and post.

why the **** are you quoting me as saying this?

 

[Vadergirl123]

why the **** are you quoting me as saying this?

I'm so sorry!!! I was having some issues with the multi-quote and I must've done the wrong name.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

I wasn't talking about the midianites. Read my post again.

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.

No they don't - that's the point I was making. Read my post again.

 

[4Life]

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.

Hi,

I should say X modern Christian. I found modern Christianity is mixed with pagan beliefs and customs, which angers God and insults him. Since my goal was to draw closer to God, not spit in his face. I came out of the great whore, and refuse to sleep in the same bed with her.

Original Christianity was Judaism, a sect of the Jews who believed Messiah had come. They did not believe he was God, nor equal to God...sorry, but that is not what a messiah is. The Jesus is a demi-god thing, is part of the pagan mess introduced around 325 AD by Constantine.

Separating the truth from the lie has been a lifetime endeavor...I began when I was 16 years old, I'm 54 now.

 

[Vadergirl123]

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

You mean there's no, "good reason you see" However God didn't wnat the Midianites turning Israel's heart from him and they decieved the Israelites, so God killed them. Again the Midianites had the opportunity to ally with Israel. They weren't these inoccent people who had done nothing wrong.

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?

No he's not, God is a male being, but he's not a human man. And yeah what was he thinking? Hahaha I definitely woudln't have been concerned about Israel if I was him.

 

[Vadergirl123]

was it a moral choice?

Um I don't know? I mean he had the choice of doing what God said, or thinking he knew what was best.

that makes no sense. they didn't know what good and evil meant.

Yes it does if I had someone tell me to not eat a certain banana because it would give me gruhpior, and they were implying that this wouldn't be a good thing. Then even though I don't know what gruhpior is I'll know it's not a positive thing.

which is why i said the story fails from the get go, if taken literally.

So you agree that Eve knew something good wouldn't happen?

i don't think you're defending god..you're defending your belief in an evil god

Okay haha, think whatever you want to about me.

says who?

God says

so a 10 yr old isn't aware of the fact her family was killed by another tribe and somehow she is now living with that other tribe who was responsible for the murdering of her family

What? I didn't say that. You seemed to be implying that most of the girls woudl be married, but I was saying most of them would be servants. Of course she'd be aware of the fact.

i'm going to stop this right now, because this entire discourse is contingent on the understanding that god wants a personal relationship with me...

Yes he does that's why Christ was sent to die for you.

i cannot see how this is consistent with the murdering of infant boys because they are of a different race, not of unbelief, but because they just so happened to be boys in a tribe that refused to follow the israelites

WHoa!!! Different race??? That is totally an assumption. God told the Israelites,"Treat the Midianites as enemies and kill them. 18 They treated you as enemies when they deceived you in the Peor incident."
That's why they were killed NOT because God didn't like people of a different skin color(I don't know where in the Bible you got that from) also there's only one race according to the Bible(the human race)

..there is no personal interaction...they were only guilty by association.

You know God's omnicient right, so if those little boys would've grown up with a desire to love and serve him he would've probably let them live. However he knew they'd grow up into men with a venegance against Israel, and again Israel is God's chosen people. The boys weren't killed just because of association. They were killed because of what they'd grow up into.

and the fact there is a new covenant proves god is either shortsighted or not consistent.

No it doesn't, God made a covenant with Israel and they broke it, but instead of just dismissing them altogether he provided a new covenant and also allowed gentiles to be a part of it.

 

[Vadergirl123]

hmmm.
where did you get this piece of information from?

The Bible(of course haha)

Did he have to destroy them?

No, he could've allowed them to turn Israel away from him.

I'm not.

So then you're free to do anything you want?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, he could've allowed them to turn Israel away from him.

So those were the only two options available to him? He couldn't, is his infinite power and wisdom, have found another way?

Why would a supposedly perfect God have to resort to enacting genocide at all?

 

[Vadergirl123]

hmmm.
no where do i find the word attack or any implications thereof in her post.

Really? Well I do, it seems like she thinks I want to show why Ex-christains are wrong or stupid, etc, which just is not the case. In fact I've had a thread where my beliefs are being attacked.

however we do see you confusing your attempt of defending god with your attempt in defending your belief in god, how do you differentiate between the two?

My belief is based on the Bible, again if I was going to form my own beliefs about God it wouldn't be the God of the Bible.

becoming an ex christian was the best thing that has ever happened to me...
and look...i don't eat children for breakfast...nor have i acquired a taste for it. odd, huh...

I don't know any Christains who eat children for breakfast, I defnitely don't. I thought the statement was odd yes.

I wasn't talking about the midianites. Read my post again.

Ah you mean like babies? Are you asking how they'd know about God?

 

[Vadergirl123]

Hi,

I should say X modern Christian. I found modern Christianity is mixed with pagan beliefs and customs, which angers God and insults him. Since my goal was to draw closer to God, not spit in his face. I came out of the great whore, and refuse to sleep in the same bed with her.

Original Christianity was Judaism, a sect of the Jews who believed Messiah had come. They did not believe he was God, nor equal to God...sorry, but that is not what a messiah is. The Jesus is a demi-god thing, is part of the pagan mess introduced around 325 AD by Constantine.

Separating the truth from the lie has been a lifetime endeavor...I began when I was 16 years old, I'm 54 now.

Hello and very interesting

 

[Vadergirl123]

So those were the only two options available to him? He couldn't, is his infinite power and wisdom, have found another way?

He could've taken away the ability for someone to sin.

Why would a supposedly perfect God have to resort to enacting genocide at all?

Here first of all the people weren't inoccent, they'd had the option of chosing to ally with God and his people, and chose to go against God and ally wit his enemies.
He killed them because they'd decieved his people, his chosen people. God wasn't messing around. He was telling other nations, "hey don't mess with my people."
Also if he'd left them alive the men would just have attacked Israel again.

 

[Vadergirl123]

They are absurd because they are absurd. "God slaughters and commands to be slaughtered vast numbers of innocent people, but I don't like hearing people say He is mean, because it isn't true!"

Um that wasn't one on his list, but I never said "I don't like people saying he's mean" I said I don't like people saying hes evil. In fact "he's mean" sounds like a little child whining. It would be like a child saying, "Mommy you're so mean for punishing me."
God does do things that seem "mean." Killing people isn't a "nice" thing to do, but he did it because it was necessary(and it wasn't an evil thing for him to do). That being said there are "nice" things God does as well.

 

[waitasec]

i'm an ex christian because i was deceived into thinking god was a personal god.
but then one day i took my head out of my *** and realized there is too much suffering in the world including those that die in natural disasters, children dying after being alive for a day, people being born with out the ability to empathize and become sociopaths. so god isn't a personal god but a god that is indifferent.
i became an ex christian because it started to look like a convenient path to disowning my culpability. and i became an ex christian because i realized one day that i played a very important role in my salvation....i chose to believe.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Ah you mean like babies? Are you asking how they'd know about God?

I explained precisely what kinds of people I was talking about. Could you please respond to my point?

He could've taken away the ability for someone to sin.

He could have literally done anything, since he is apparently omnipotent. And yet he decided instead to wipe out an entire civilization of people. See, when a human being does that, it's evil beyond compare. But when a God - a being of infinite power who could have resolved the problem by literally any other means imaginable or even remotely conceivable to his infinite mind - decides the best course of action to take care of a bunch of people not doing what he wants them to do is to kill every single one of them, it's far, far, far beyond evil. It's completely and utterly insane.

Here first of all the people weren't inoccent, they'd had the option of chosing to ally with God and his people, and chose to go against God and ally wit his enemies.

So they all deserved to die? That's a perfectly justifiable reaction?

And are you saying that every single medianite, including their children, their unborn, their elderly, their sick, their handicapped, every single member of that civilization made a consious decision and deserved, therfore, to be killed for it?

Nope. Don't buy it.

He killed them because they'd decieved his people, his chosen people. God wasn't messing around. He was telling other nations, "hey don't mess with my people."

Like a mob boss. Gotcha.

Also if he'd left them alive the men would just have attacked Israel again.

And God couldn't have just prevented that with his infinite power?

Your God makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Alceste]

Um that wasn't one on his list, but I never said "I don't like people saying he's mean" I said I don't like people saying hes evil. In fact "he's mean" sounds like a little child whining. It would be like a child saying, "Mommy you're so mean for punishing me."
God does do things that seem "mean." Killing people isn't a "nice" thing to do, but he did it because it was necessary(and it wasn't an evil thing for him to do). That being said there are "nice" things God does as well.

Slaughtering huge numbers of innocent people for their beliefs or ethnicity is never "necessary". If it's evil when Hitler does it, we can't say it's good when your God does it, because that would be absurd.

 

[Nakosis]

He could've taken away the ability for someone to sin.

Here first of all the people weren't inoccent, they'd had the option of chosing to ally with God and his people, and chose to go against God and ally wit his enemies.
He killed them because they'd decieved his people, his chosen people. God wasn't messing around. He was telling other nations, "hey don't mess with my people."
Also if he'd left them alive the men would just have attacked Israel again.

Don't you think it's kind of convenient that they are the ones who wrote the story? Wouldn't you want to make your tribe's God as threatening as possible to deter other tribes from attacking? And, of course encourage your own people to fight believing God is on their side?

It's not unreasonable to think tribal leaders/priest would do this to manipulate the people of their tribe.

Why would they ally with the God of another tribe? They had their own God religious belief to deal with. Why would they think to betray their God for the Hebrew God any more then the Hebrews would?