| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Old Board > Who do you think should get to make the rules? |
| Posted by: sexkitten Oct 14 2004, 06:58 PM |
| Printable Version of Topic Click here to view this topic in its original format ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Debating with Christians > Who do you think should get to make the rules? Posted by: SOIL Apr 26 2004, 06:04 AM Well - I have been away from this site for soo long now, I am kind of surprised that the User Name "SOIL" is still recognized! But it is - and so I think I will just say a quick thing .. and then (tisk) as usual, I need to get back to my work. I am just thinking, that even several of you folks who by your own admission were once "practising Christians" - though I suppose have now decided that is not something you "need" anymore -- at any rate - presumably, back when you of the opinion "Christianity are we" - I'm thinking you must have felt a good reason to submit yourself to be governed by "rules" - then - for a time - this site was pretty much working without much in the way of "rules", but now I sense you are of the opinion that "rules" are needed - and you are willing to submit yourself to some yet again, (though now they are produced by the almighty <no capitalization> webmaster - verses God. I am not trying to make any derogatory statements about anyone here - certainly not about Dave - (who I admire in some ways, btw) - even though I still say "Christianity is me". I haven't been reading hardly any of the content on here for a month or so - but in the last few days when I did read a few things - I remember hearing some of the non-christians mentioning that, at times, some "rules" wouldn't might even be needed to help regulate posts made even other non-christians, (feel free to correct me if I am wrong about this - as you folks have always been kind enough to do in the past). So - "rules" are needed both because of trolling Christians (maybe I have been in that category several times - with several posts) and I think also even ex-christians as well. For me this kind of reinforces my core belief that people (all of us - starting with me) need help in being who we basically all desire we could be. We want to be better that we are (or at least I do). Rules are needed to help in that regard. I think maybe the 10 Commandment issue was kind of related to what I just said. Christians (or me anyway) think God gets to make the "rules" - I guess I can let you folks tell me who You think should get to make the rules? I don't know if I am making any earth shaking points here (and if so I'm not exactly sure what it is) - and I certainly don't expect to get any brownie points for myself for through post. To tell you the truth, I'm not really sure why I am taking the time to make this post - who can know one's self? (and you are encouraged to comment on this as well). I just thought I would "be open and honest" and say what I am thinking as I have read through only the last couple of pages. I will try to come back and "take the fallout" - maybe after work today, or tomorrow. I hope everyone is still doing OK - I have missed communicating with you folks! Dennis Posted by: _redshift Apr 26 2004, 07:57 AM Good heavens, Dennis, we're ex-Christians, not anarchists. Society is all about rules. Putting the fear of god into people helps to ensure that they are followed. It is that simple. Posted by: SOIL Apr 26 2004, 11:29 AM QUOTE (_redshift @ Apr 26 2004, 07:57 AM) Good heavens, Dennis, we're ex-Christians, not anarchists. ... Thanks Joe (I needed that!), I guess I was kind of asking for a "sanity check" concerning the line of thinking I was heading down there - and I appreciate your response. Now here is my next thought --- I suspect you were (probably) just using a common expression when you said: "Good heavens" .... now I am just wondering .. why is it that us folks think ... the heavens are good? Dennis Posted by: Doug2 Apr 26 2004, 11:42 AM The meaning of that idiomatic colloquialism is derived from a bronze age fairytale popularized during the dark ages of europe. This fairytale contained a place of great riches and happiness known as heaven that all the true believers of the tale are destined to inhabit after leaving their putrid lives. This tale was far from original though, and borrowed heavily on the popular theme. Posted by: SOIL Apr 26 2004, 06:17 PM Sorry for getting us off the subject of requiring folks to register in order to be able to contribute their thoughts about "Debating with Christians". But - then again .... maybe "Good Heavens" might be construed about something related to Christianity that somebody might want to debate about - however.... I'm not so sure about how whether someone were to register on this board or not - might fit in there. By the way, the reason I used my picture - (yep that is what I looked like recently when I got my picture taken to send in with my application for a visa to Nepal) - is because maybe I just want to be as "transparent" and "real" as I can - and letting you "see" what I look like - seems to help in that regard. I guess that is kind of related to "registration" - in some (very small) way - "registration" almost reminds me of some kind of accountability. .... just rambling on again, I guess ..... Dennis Posted by: SOIL Apr 27 2004, 07:35 AM QUOTE (_redshift @ Apr 26 2004, 07:57 AM) Good heavens, Dennis, we're ex-Christians, not anarchists. Society is all about rules. Putting the fear of god into people helps to ensure that they are followed. It is that simple. Hi yet again Joe, I just noticed that I haven't yet responded to the second paragraph of your reply to my post. I am not certain about which people you were referring to when you said "helps to ensure that they are followed" (underlined emphasis mine). Below, I'll let you know who I assumed you may have been referring to when you used the word "they" (and as always I hope you will correct me if I have misunderstood some point you might have been trying to make. Perhaps you think the Bible was written by folks who were trying to benefit personally if other people were to read the Bible and then start fearing God as a result of reading those cleverly crafted words? (Btw, I think the author of the book Da Vinci Code probably felt that way about the Catholic church at times - as it relates to how he suggests they "preserved" scriptures - though I personally do not agree with his views on this issue). If a person believes that John (the beloved disciple) is in fact the author of the gospel that bears his name, and the other (numbered ) books in the New Testament which go by his name -- then I find it rather difficult to see how he (and also the other disciples/apostles for that matter) would have continued to think that he (John, and/or the other apostles) would personally benefit from their readers living in the fear of God after reading what turned out (later) to be called "the Bible". I suspect you have heard about how most of the disciples (perhaps all with the exception of John) were violently killed --- (I do understand here however that some of the folks who frequent this site do not trust the "historical sources" which say how the disciples were killed - supposedly as a result of their "sticking with their stories" which some might construe to support the concept of how men should fear God and keep His commandments - especially the commandment (which the gospel of John says is from Jesus' lips) to "love one another as I have loved you". I will refrain from posting chunks of scripture in quote boxes here - because I know you (and others who may read this) are very capable (and perhaps even willing) to go to some site like http://www.biblegateway.com in order determine if I am accurately representing what the Bible really says. I'm not actually trying to be overly argumentative here - but I am wondering if (and if so what specifically) you may have meant to imply by that second paragraph? Did I "get it" correct? Dennis !!! WAIT - STOP THE PRESSES !!!! I think I just learned a lesson here. I was almost ready to click on the "Add REPLY" box - when I reread your post (maybe for the 4th or 5th time) and now I "get it" - (I was wrong before!). I completely misread what I see now was probably the intent of what you were saying! (Man - now I can understand better why my wife says sometimes even though I may hear what she is saying I am not really LISTENING to her.) OK - now I will take another stab at responding to what you said in your second paragraph. ... Yes - I agree with you that people may be more likely to follow rules when they have the fear of God in them - (perhaps concerning what may happen to them if they don't follow the rules?). I think there are (at least) two primarily motivations for how anyone acts: 1) The desire to experience pleasure. 2) The desire to avoid experiencing pain. I suppose a person could make a case that "the fear of God" could certainly be useful in the number 2 incentive to get people on board in following an agenda about what society is "all about" - and I also think that some definitions I have heard about what the Bible means when it talks about the fear of God might also be applicable to the number 1 incentive. The concept of reverential respect and awe, for some people (at any rate) invokes a deep type of pleasure. In fact, the concept of worship (again for many though I am not certain about most), can be a very pleasurable experience. OK - I'll stop for now. Dennis Posted by: Doug2 Apr 27 2004, 11:21 AM QUOTE ... "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." Dennis, I like your quote, but shouldn't jesus have thrown the first stone? Posted by: SOIL Apr 27 2004, 01:04 PM QUOTE (Doug2 @ Apr 27 2004, 11:21 AM) QUOTE ... "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." Dennis, I like your quote, but shouldn't jesus have thrown the first stone? The answer to your question is one of the main reasons why I picked this scripture to put in my signature. Short Answer: Given the way I understand what Jesus was teaching, I think Jesus was the only one who was qualified to throw a stone at (judge) her. At any rate, I believe that to be true - after he had "accomplished/finished/fulfilled" - what he came to do - (concerning the law anyway - see Matthew 5:17-18 and John 19:30). The fact that though He alone was qualified to stone her - yet - he choose NOT to judge her - I personally think is one of the best things we see in scripture because it provides for us a clear picture showing the way God desires to act toward us. (IMHO anyway) Long Answer: Maybe I should/could? start a different thread to provide the "Long Answer" version - since to do so in this thread - I would be really getting even more "off topic" - (which I apologize for already doing in my last several posts). Dennis Posted by: TexasFreethinker Apr 27 2004, 01:33 PM QUOTE (SOIL @ Apr 26 2004, 09:04 AM) Christians (or me anyway) think God gets to make the "rules" - I guess I can let you folks tell me who You think should get to make the rules? Hi Dennis, welcome back. I've been wondering how and where you were. I think that society gets to make the rules. That means that communities of humans (at various levels) make the rules. They also make decisions about adjustments to the rules and make judgements about events that don't fit neatly within the rules. Christians and other theists do the same thing. They (as humans) interpret what they think the bible says (with quite a bit of disagreement over most topics), and they provide human punishment for people who disobey those rules. In the end, both systems are based on human decisions - however the secular approach isn't weighed down by appeals to ancient (and sometimes outdated or irrational) human rules masquerading as commandments from a supernatural being. Posted by: Doug2 Apr 27 2004, 01:43 PM QUOTE The fact that though He alone was qualified to stone her - yet - he choose NOT to judge her - I personally think is one of the best things we see in scripture because it provides for us a clear picture showing the way God desires to act toward us. So has god again changed his mind on this topic now that he judges us to hell? Also should we remove judges from our nation since jesus tells us not to judge? P.S. I working out some bugs with Webmaster with my account, then I will move this to a new thread. Posted by: SOIL Apr 27 2004, 01:58 PM QUOTE (TexasFreethinker @ Apr 27 2004, 01:33 PM) This is really getting away from the topic of this thread. Maybe we should begin another one to discuss theist vs secular morals and laws. Hi Tex! It is good to see you jumping in on this topic about: Who gets to make the rules? -- what you refer to as "theist vs secular morals and laws". I think this kind of came to my mind when I was reading through the various things you guys (and gals) were putting into the thread where you were warning various Christian passers-by about what you don't want them (us) to say here. One of the things was something to the effect that we Christians should not assume that ex-christians don't have any "morals" or maybe I should say "rules to live by" - just because you no longer acknowledge the same reasons which Christians may claim - as pertains to why "they" try to live the "Christian lifestyle" (sorry - I always use a lot of words - maybe I should have gone back and just copied what was said in the other thread - but I think I have the main idea anyway). Dennis Posted by: SOIL Apr 27 2004, 02:01 PM QUOTE (Doug2 @ Apr 27 2004, 01:43 PM) QUOTE The fact that though He alone was qualified to stone her - yet - he choose NOT to judge her - I personally think is one of the best things we see in scripture because it provides for us a clear picture showing the way God desires to act toward us. So has god again changed his mind on this topic now that he judges us to hell? Also should we remove judges from our nation since jesus tells us not to judge? P.S. I working out some bugs with Webmaster with my account, then I will move this to a new thread. Good questions Doug2 - Let me know where the new thread is - or if I can just respond here - and then later you will move what is here to the new thread? Dennis Posted by: TexasFreethinker Apr 27 2004, 02:40 PM Dennis, I'm curious to what extent you would like to see christian (your god's) rules become laws. Do you think that all of your god's commandments should be codified into human laws? If not, how would you decide which ones should become laws and which ones shouldn't? Posted by: SOIL Apr 27 2004, 03:58 PM QUOTE (TexasFreethinker @ Apr 27 2004, 02:40 PM) Dennis, I'm curious to what extent you would like to see christian (your god's) rules become laws. Do you think that all of your god's commandments should be codified into human laws? If not, how would you decide which ones should become laws and which ones shouldn't? Well Tex, I should have already given this subject more thought than I have. However this does come to mind (and I think it is relevant given some of what is happening here in the U.S. just now): In the book, Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis suggests that he would like to see two types of marriage ceremonies - one that is performed by the Church (and with this one the participants submit themselves to the "rules" which they believe the Bible associates with a marriage which they think God approves of) -- and another marriage ceremony which is "sanctioned" (maybe I shouldn't be using that word here) by the secular government only. I don't think, in a pluralistic society that all people should be "forced" to live under rules which are based on a worldview to which they openly do not subscribe. I will add this though -- provided the thorny issue of "as long as they don't hurt anyone else" is dealt with. I suspect you probably agree that no matter what standard you are trying to use in order to make a system of laws - this "not hurting anyone else" provision can pose a challenge to deal with --- since people's worldviews can effect what they may consider to be "hurting someone else" (tisk, life is seldom simple). Overall, I remember Jesus staying pretty much away from pushing for changes in secular government, for instance - when his enemies talked with him about the money issue - he mentioned that we should give to Ceaser those things which "he" controls - but to God those things which are "God's". Sorry for the brevity of how I am trying to just take a quick stab at an answer to your question - but there is not much more daylight left today, and I am hoping to still fix my lawn mower and get some grass mowed before it gets too dark. Dennis Posted by: TexasFreethinker Apr 27 2004, 04:17 PM QUOTE (SOIL @ Apr 27 2004, 06:58 PM) In the book, Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis suggests that he would like to see two types of marriage ceremonies - one that is performed by the Church (and with this one the participants submit themselves to the "rules" which they believe the Bible associates with a marriage which they think God approves of) -- and another marriage ceremony which is "sanctioned" (maybe I shouldn't be using that word here) by the secular government only. I advocate something similar. I think any community should be able to offer marriage to their members. It would be up to the community to determine their own rules for marriage, and any other community would be free to determine whether or not to recognize the marriages of other communities. There would be absolutely no legal responsibilities or rights conferrred by such a marriage. The government would be in the business only of registering secular unions that would have no basis in religious rules. QUOTE I don't think, in a pluralistic society that all people should be "forced" to live under rules which are based on a worldview to which they openly do not subscribe. I will add this though -- provided the thorny issue of "as long as they don't hurt anyone else" is dealt with. If people aren't forced to live under religious rules it seems to me that you're in the same position as secularists - the rules that pertain to all citizens would have to be secular, not religious in nature. (A rule wouldn't be based on revelation from god, but on reason). QUOTE I suspect you probably agree that no matter what standard you are trying to use in order to make a system of laws - this "not hurting anyone else" provision can pose a challenge to deal with --- since people's worldviews can effect what they may consider to be "hurting someone else" (tisk, life is seldom simple). I agree that there will be disagreements on exactly what constitutes harm, and no system (secular or otherwise) will satisfy all citizens in all instances. In other words, there is no black and white and therefore there's a need for mechanisms to adjust laws and settle disputes in the most just way possible. It seems to me that all of these are arguments for secular laws and morals as opposed to religious ones in a community (beyond whatever additional religious rules and morals people people want to place on themselves). Posted by: SOIL Apr 27 2004, 08:10 PM QUOTE (Doug2 @ Apr 27 2004, 01:43 PM) QUOTE The fact that though He alone was qualified to stone her - yet - he choose NOT to judge her - I personally think is one of the best things we see in scripture because it provides for us a clear picture showing the way God desires to act toward us. So has god again changed his mind on this topic now that he judges us to hell? Also should we remove judges from our nation since jesus tells us not to judge? P.S. I working out some bugs with Webmaster with my account, then I will move this to a new thread. I will go ahead and respond (with short version) here in this thread - thinking that when you get the capability - you can switch some of these posts to another thread (or maybe a couple of 'em). "So has god again changed his mind on this topic now that he judges us to hell?" Well, this is going to get complicated (and as always, I don't claim to be able to understand the ways of God) - but I will try to put into words the way I see things at this point in my ever-changing (evolving? - or - God helping me to understand 'through a glass darky"?) way of looking at things. There are many paradoxes in the Bible - where it looks like it is saying two things which appear to be directly opposite of each other (see for instance the skeptics annotated Bible for many examples of things like this - which I am currently referring to as "paradoxes"). The specific case in point I am talking about here - is how the Bible says in several places that Jesus did not come to judge this world (e.g. John 3:17, John 8:15-16, John 12:47) --- however the Bible also says that the words that Jesus has spoken do judge people (see John 12:48 - the very next verse after the last one I just put in the earlier category!). Also, when I look at passages such as Matthew 25 (the sheep and the goats) - I see that people are "judged" (my word) based on how we act toward Jesus (he determines this based on how we act toward our needy neighbors - who Jesus refers to as "the least of these my brethren") So - in a way Jesus (or at least His words anyway) is the one who judges (or will judge) us all. QUOTE John 15:22-25 (ESV) [22] If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. [23] Whoever hates me hates my Father also. [24] If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin, but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father. [25] But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: 'They hated me without a cause.' I said that I believe God's desire is that He will be able to extend mercy (non-judgment) to each of us. But God has two sides to His nature - not only is He merciful, but He is also just. Concerning the specific case of the woman "caught in adultery" - we see after Jesus extended mercy, he still said "go and from now on sin no more". QUOTE John 8:10-11 (ESV) Jesus stood up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" [11] She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more." I think the issue about "sin" now (after what Jesus has done) is not so much related to a "list of laws "- like say for instance the 10 commandments. Because I think when Jesus, while he was on the cross, uttered the words "it is finished" - the law was fulfilled. At that point - I think Jesus became a new potential representative for people (the second Adam - see Romans chapter 5) - because he had fulfilled the law - and in so doing He had become eligible to be a representative - (similar to how Adam had been the "default" representative for each of us before). So now, I think the thing that constitutes "sin" is determined by how we react to Jesus, the "new" potential representative. So, what is now of paramount importance is whether we believe in Jesus - (e.g. see John 17:8) thereby appealing to Jesus to be our "new improved" representative - and when we do believe in Jesus, we will also obey His commandments (I think that obedience is a logical and natural extension of true "saving" belief - it springs naturally since we appreciate how He has removed the burden of the law from off our backs!) - so now in order to obey - we simply love one another - and he has showed us what love is - (see John15:12-13 quoted below). QUOTE John 16:9 (ESV) concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; QUOTE John 14:23 (ESV) Jesus answered him, "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. QUOTE John 15:12-13 (ESV) "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. [13] Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends. .... " ... Also should we remove judges from our nation since jesus tells us not to judge?" I think there is a difference between the type of judging that is done by secular governments (perhaps since only the body - not the soul is effected by this type of judgment) - verses the type of judgment that effects both the spirit (soul?) as well as the body of a person. So - I think we still need the government appointed judges. ... As pertains to what I said earlier about Paradoxes in Scripture: Before my recent time away from this board - I started a short-lived thread - where I quoted from G.K. Chesterton regarding how I am currently viewing what I refer to as the "paradoxes" which I find in scripture. Below I am again copying from the book "Orthodoxy" by G.K. Chesterton: QUOTE ... The ordinary man has always been sane because the ordinary man has always been a mystic. He has permitted the twilight. He has always had one foot in earth and the other in fairyland. He has always left himself free to doubt his gods; but (unlike the agnostic of to-day) free also to believe in them. He has always cared more for truth than for consistency. If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them. His spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that. Thus he has always believed that there was such a thing as fate, but such a thing as free will also. Thus he believed that children were indeed the kingdom of heaven, but nevertheless ought to be obedient to the kingdom of earth. He admired youth because it was young and age because it was not. It is exactly this balance of apparent contradictions that has been the whole buoyancy of the healthy man. The whole secret of mysticism is this: that man can understand everything by the help of what he does not understand. The morbid logician seeks to make everything lucid, and succeeds in making everything mysterious. The mystic allows one thing to be mysterious, and everything else becomes lucid. The determinist makes the theory of causation quite clear, and then finds that he cannot say "if you please" to the housemaid. The Christian permits free will to remain a sacred mystery; but because of this his relations with the housemaid become of a sparkling and crystal clearness. He puts the seed of dogma in a central darkness; but it branches forth in all directions with abounding natural health. As we have taken the circle as the symbol of reason and madness, we may very well take the cross as the symbol at once of mystery and of health. Buddhism is centripetal, but Christianity is centrifugal: it breaks out. For the circle is perfect and infinite in its nature; but it is fixed for ever in its size; it can never be larger or smaller. But the cross, though it has at its heart a collision and a contradiction, can extend its four arms for ever without altering its shape. Because it has a paradox in its centre it can grow without changing. The circle returns upon itself and is bound. The cross opens its arms to the four winds; it is a signpost for free travellers. Symbols alone are of even a cloudy value in speaking of this deep matter; and another symbol from physical nature will express sufficiently well the real place of mysticism before mankind. The one created thing which we cannot look at is the one thing in the light of which we look at everything -- Like the sun at noonday, mysticism explains everything else by the blaze of its own victorious invisibility -- Detached intellectualism is (in the exact sense of a popular phrase) all moonshine; for it is light without heat, and it is secondary light, reflected from a dead world. But the Greeks were right when they made Apollo the god both of imagination and of sanity; for he was both the patron of poetry and the patron of healing. Of necessary dogmas and a special creed I shall speak later. But that transcendentalism by which all men live has primarily much the position of the sun in the sky. We are conscious of it as of a kind of splendid confusion; it is something both shining and shapeless, at once a blaze and a blur. But the circle of the moon is as clear and unmistakable, as recurrent and inevitable, as the circle of Euclid on a blackboard. For the moon is utterly reasonable; and the moon is the mother of lunatics and has given to them all her name. (underlined emphasis mine) Dennis Posted by: Doug2 Apr 28 2004, 03:26 PM ok, I created a new thread for this topic. Go at it. Posted by: BillJ Apr 28 2004, 03:36 PM I can live life without mouthing people off, killing, stealing, raping, lying, being greedy, being selfish, hating, etc. without the Bible. It almost seems like the murder rate went up since the Bible was introduced. A true believer in the Bible should be killing non-believers, homosexuals, witches, adulterers, etc. so who has the morals now? Christians reject Biblical laws because they have a different sense of morality than the Bible and they try to rationlize the absurdities in the Bible. Face it Soil, you are not a true believer because you don't kill non-believers and the New Testament condones the Old Testament. Jesus didn't even try to speak out against slavery. Posted by: SteveFDL Apr 28 2004, 03:41 PM QUOTE (SOIL @ Apr 26 2004, 08:04 AM) Well - I have been away from this site for soo long now, I am kind of surprised that the User Name "SOIL" is still recognized! But it is - and so I think I will just say a quick thing .. and then (tisk) as usual, I need to get back to my work. I am just thinking, that even several of you folks who by your own admission were once "practising Christians" - though I suppose have now decided that is not something you "need" anymore -- at any rate - presumably, back when you of the opinion "Christianity are we" - I'm thinking you must have felt a good reason to submit yourself to be governed by "rules" - then - for a time - this site was pretty much working without much in the way of "rules", but now I sense you are of the opinion that "rules" are needed - and you are willing to submit yourself to some yet again, (though now they are produced by the almighty <no capitalization> webmaster - verses God. I am not trying to make any derogatory statements about anyone here - certainly not about Dave - (who I admire in some ways, btw) - even though I still say "Christianity is me". I haven't been reading hardly any of the content on here for a month or so - but in the last few days when I did read a few things - I remember hearing some of the non-christians mentioning that, at times, some "rules" wouldn't might even be needed to help regulate posts made even other non-christians, (feel free to correct me if I am wrong about this - as you folks have always been kind enough to do in the past). So - "rules" are needed both because of trolling Christians (maybe I have been in that category several times - with several posts) and I think also even ex-christians as well. For me this kind of reinforces my core belief that people (all of us - starting with me) need help in being who we basically all desire we could be. We want to be better that we are (or at least I do). Rules are needed to help in that regard. I think maybe the 10 Commandment issue was kind of related to what I just said. Christians (or me anyway) think God gets to make the "rules" - I guess I can let you folks tell me who You think should get to make the rules? I don't know if I am making any earth shaking points here (and if so I'm not exactly sure what it is) - and I certainly don't expect to get any brownie points for myself for through post. To tell you the truth, I'm not really sure why I am taking the time to make this post - who can know one's self? (and you are encouraged to comment on this as well). I just thought I would "be open and honest" and say what I am thinking as I have read through only the last couple of pages. I will try to come back and "take the fallout" - maybe after work today, or tomorrow. I hope everyone is still doing OK - I have missed communicating with you folks! Dennis Selfishness is selfishness, anger is anger, and morality is morality, inside and outside of religion. Religion didn't create morality. Morality stems from our ability to reason, which is an inherent quality of life. Religion tried to lay rules to morality, and generally loves to tell everyone their absolute truth(s). While this is great and all, I know firsthand being an ex-church leader that 99.9% of church funds DO NOT go to feeding the poor, or helping cure the world of AIDs. Nope. They spend a ton of money on buying people Bibles though. Sad. Did you know every 2.54 seconds someone dies of starvation? Did you know that for every SUV that drives up to your gathering could have fed 15000 children today alone? Does this make you worse than non-believers? No. But it surely doesn't prove your morality club, and its pseudo-truth to be better. Posted by: chefranden Apr 28 2004, 04:44 PM Soil, Good to see you back again. QUOTE (Soil) …So - "rules" are needed both because of trolling Christians (maybe I have been in that category several times - with several posts) and I think also even ex-christians as well. For me this kind of reinforces my core belief that people (all of us - starting with me) need help in being who we basically all desire we could be. We want to be better that we are (or at least I do). Rules are needed to help in that regard. I don’t think that this is an anarchist site. Few here are against rules in general. Everyone is against certain rules in the particular – including you. QUOTE I think maybe the 10 Commandment issue was kind of related to what I just said. Christians (or me anyway) think God gets to make the "rules" - I guess I can let you folks tell me who You think should get to make the rules? People make the rules and always have. Sometimes it is by consensus, some times it is by consent, most of the time it is by force. Non-existent beings can’t make anything. The rules you think are from god are from people – religious leaders of long ago. I’m curious, this is something that I didn’t know as a Christian and still don’t, why does the church choose these 10 out of the 613 of the OT? Out of the 10, why does the church choose to disobey command not to work on the Sabbath and why does the church throw in a couple of other god entities that are equal if not above YHWY? And Jesus himself suggested that refusing to honor your parents (let the dead bury the dead) would be a good thing. Very few churches see coveting as anything bad either, since our whole economy is based on it. In the past at least the church didn’t even frown on theft and murder as long as you were taking, life, land, and goods from non-believers. Why didn’t the church choose 10 less troublesome laws that it could or would obey, like not eating cheese burgers, or not cutting your hair? So why these 10 or any 10 since you say Jesus fulfilled the law, which is the churches general excuse for ignoring the other 603. Are you saying that Jesus forgot to fulfill these 10? Next I would like to see a list of “Gods Rules” I don’t know of any such list except for the 603 you ignore or the 10 that also in general get ignored. I have seen no list of rules in the cannon that equals let alone surpasses those listed in the UN human rights convention. So just what are these rules that you consider superior to man made rules? chef Posted by: Madame M Apr 28 2004, 04:49 PM QUOTE (SteveFDL @ Apr 28 2004, 06:41 PM) While this is great and all, I know firsthand being an ex-church leader that 99.9% of church funds DO NOT go to feeding the poor, or helping cure the world of AIDs. Nope. They spend a ton of money on buying people Bibles though. Sad. Did you know every 2.54 seconds someone dies of starvation? Did you know that for every SUV that drives up to your gathering could have fed 15000 children today alone? Steve, this is so sadly true! We pay out $26 a month to feed a hungry child in south america as well as help him get an education. It isn't much. Most big churches have monthly budgets of over $40k a month and this goes on all over the country, in every city. Wasteful, wasteful, wasteful!!! If even 1k of that budget went to feeding kids a month, 400 would be fed. I wasted more money in church that went to no good, than any other time in my entire life. Shelling out my hard earned money for new pews and re-paving the parking lots. Posted by: SOIL Apr 29 2004, 06:45 AM QUOTE (chefranden @ Apr 28 2004, 04:44 PM) ... I’m curious, this is something that I didn’t know as a Christian and still don’t, why does the church choose these 10 out of the 613 of the OT? ... There have been several excellent replies to the pandoras box which I have apparently opened! Thanks, Doug2 for opening this thread, and moving several of the posts which originated in the other thread to here. I think you did a fair job of naming this thread - though I don't think I would have actually started a thread under this name - since it sort of looks like I don't think people can be moral if they don't believe the Bible - and actually that is NOT what I was trying to say with the post which appears as the first in this thread now. ... Having said the above however - I still am glad this thread exists at this time - and I would like to continue to hear why ex-christians do in fact continue to act in a moral way (as I am certain that you folks do - and I respect you for that). ... Now, finally to the thing Chef said in the above box. As always, Chef you made several good points in your post - but also as usual I am yet again "time challenged" - I do have some (rather lame) excuse to take my work time and post here - but I am "pushing it" - so I need to get back to work soon. As far as why the church seems to elevate the 10 Commandments - I think that is because we think that the finger of God - so to speak - actually took the trouble to write them down "engraved in stone". I think that kind of makes them special - because the other "commandments" which we find throughout scripture were inspired by God (but a human being was used in the translation) - so to speak yet again - rather than explicitly written by God Himself directly, on a rather indelible surface - rock. ... Personally, the "commandment" that I prefer is one which I quote below (I have also quoted several similar passages in other posts) : QUOTE John 13:34-35 (ESV) A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. [35] By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." (Sadly, I realize that many of us who say we are his disciples do not show that we "love one another" and I don't blame anyone for questioning whether we really "follow Christ". ... Dennis Posted by: SOIL Apr 29 2004, 07:04 AM QUOTE (Madame M @ Apr 28 2004, 04:49 PM) QUOTE (SteveFDL @ Apr 28 2004, 06:41 PM) While this is great and all, I know firsthand being an ex-church leader that 99.9% of church funds DO NOT go to feeding the poor, or helping cure the world of AIDs. Nope. They spend a ton of money on buying people Bibles though. Sad. Did you know every 2.54 seconds someone dies of starvation? Did you know that for every SUV that drives up to your gathering could have fed 15000 children today alone? Steve, this is so sadly true! We pay out $26 a month to feed a hungry child in south america as well as help him get an education. It isn't much. Most big churches have monthly budgets of over $40k a month and this goes on all over the country, in every city. Wasteful, wasteful, wasteful!!! If even 1k of that budget went to feeding kids a month, 400 would be fed. I wasted more money in church that went to no good, than any other time in my entire life. Shelling out my hard earned money for new pews and re-paving the parking lots. SteveFDL and Madame M, I hear ya. Yes, my family has also supported several children in the type of program that you mentioned ... To be honest though, I have also spent enormously MORE MONEY on stuff that is not a NEED but rather a WANT - FOR MYSELF - and MY family - while other people's kids continue to starve to death. (feel free to look at the last sentence in Bible passage I put in the quote box in my preceding post - tisk ... ). This is something I have spoken to my family about - we are now considering selling our (expensive) big place - and instead moving to a less expensive small place - so we can take some of our income which we only "need" because we are living in such luxury (when compared with how most people in the world are living - I learned this during my recent trip to Nepal) - and use it to help some of those who are actually in real situations of genuine need. But alas - to think about doing something (and even to pray about it) is a lot different than to actually do it. QUOTE James 2:8 (ESV) If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing well. QUOTE James 2:14-17 (ESV) What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? [15] If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, [16] and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? [17] So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=James+1%3A22-27&version=NIV Dennis Posted by: Madame M Apr 29 2004, 07:31 AM Dennis, YOu seem like a nice person. I don't think you need to sell your house. YOu could probably stop funnelling 10% of your finances into your local indoctrination station and, volia- money to help those in need. My point is not that Christians should downsize personally, but that churches are a waste of resources. when I was a Christian, the last year before I de-converted. I used to say that all the pastors should be fired. I think there should not be one pastor, priest or reverend on a payroll anywhere at anytime. And please, for the love of god, close down TBN, the 700 club and all the tele-whores vampiring off of people's wallets in god's name. Anyway, the reason I think pastors need to be fired- is 1.) save money. 2.) nobody can always be spiritually up, that is too much to put on any one person. 3.) other people in the church's talents go to waste. I think (thought) that those in the church who had been deemed spiritually mature over time, could rotate in and teach. someone is doing good- they get too teach, someone is weak spiritually, they get fed spiritually. I also think that denominations waste resources. If every 3-5 chruches combined themselves, all those left over buildings and thus leftover monetary resources could be funnelled into the community and provide Christians with lots of volunteer mnistry oportunities. YOu could have homeless shelters, job training centers, free youth after school centers, crisis pregnancy, soup kitchen's, drug rehab, homework mentoring, free clothing, food pantry's, free clinics..etc, in those buildings. Could you imagine if even 1/30 of allt he churches turned themselves into a place where the homeless could come and learn a trade, have a place to live so they could get lucratively employed and back on their feet? OR a family in dire financial crisis, who is in danger of homelessness or being broken up? Where does Jesus say to build a big church building, fill it with fancy pews and other stuff, pay a pastor to sit on staff and teach a couple times a week and bilk the congregants for 10%. He said to feed his sheep. Christians don't live the way their religion purports. I know, I didn't either. Christians want a social club to come hang out at and feel superior to the "hell bound". Those who sacrifice and give of themselves, do so because it is their nature. They would do so as a Hindu, Buddhist, agnostic..etc. The rest do token sacrificing or sacrifice out of fear (God will strike me down financially if I don't submit by giving the tithe every week). Not that Christians can even agree on who is right and who is wrong. Everyone says they are guided by the holy spirit, and nobody agrees. Dennis, it's all a farce. It's a farce. The holy ghost posession does less to change a person than a demon posession. And I thought god was stronger. If god was stronger, our old man would really be dead and we would really just go and sin no more- that sin nature being gone and all. Nothing the Bible promises really happens. Sometimes people change their behaviors, but I think it has more to do with expectation and peer pressure. Prayers are not always answered, even though Jesus said they would be. The old man doesn't die and we are not free from sin, even though Jesus says we would be. Christians are just people with a religion. They like their religion because it gives them some comfort when a loved one dies or alleviates their own fears of dying. That's it. Nutshell. Posted by: chefranden Apr 29 2004, 07:57 AM QUOTE (Madame M @ Apr 29 2004, 09:31 AM) Where does Jesus say to build a big church building, fill it with fancy pews and other stuff, pay a pastor to sit on staff and teach a couple times a week and bilk the congregants for 10%. He said to feed his sheep. Madame, You have made many good points here, but I would like to make a small defense of pastors, or maybe just myself as a pastor. My best year in the ministry moneywise was $16,000 out of which I had to provide my housing and car/travel expense, and, of course, a tithe. I worked 60 hr weeks (kept a record of my time and activities, a good bit of it manuel labor for parishioners that needed help with this and that) and was always on call. And of course I always got that old, "I wish I had a job that I only had to work two hours a week at." joke. Posted by: Madame M Apr 29 2004, 09:03 AM QUOTE (chefranden @ Apr 29 2004, 10:57 AM) QUOTE (Madame M @ Apr 29 2004, 09:31 AM) Where does Jesus say to build a big church building, fill it with fancy pews and other stuff, pay a pastor to sit on staff and teach a couple times a week and bilk the congregants for 10%. He said to feed his sheep. Madame, You have made many good points here, but I would like to make a small defense of pastors, or maybe just myself as a pastor. My best year in the ministry moneywise was $16,000 out of which I had to provide my housing and car/travel expense, and, of course, a tithe. I worked 60 hr weeks (kept a record of my time and activities, a good bit of it manuel labor for parishioners that needed help with this and that) and was always on call. And of course I always got that old, "I wish I had a job that I only had to work two hours a week at." joke. I hear you, Chef! Sounds like you were the kind of pastor who cared. I definately know that pastors do more than just work 2 days a week. I used to be a secretary for a pastor. There are definately pastors who get the bad end of the stick, they won't ask for more or don't want the congregants to feel pushed to give. Then there are the ones who have no problem bilking the congregants. Unfortunately, what I have found is that those who seem to have not conscious on the issue, and just bilk, bilk, bilk- are the ones with very charismatic/magnetic personalities and they tend to push their salespitch well, and fill their churches to capacity. While the former is more concerned about quality over quantity adn their church doesn't grow. Alot of Christians have the "full service" mentality in church. I paid my 10%, now serve me church. "I don't need to do that, this is why I pay my money, so the pastor can do it." "I don't need to study my Bible, I pay the pastor to do that and he better turn out a good show on sunday." The pastor gets spiritually drained and the congregants get spiritually stagnate. For example, one tiem the pastor of this church got up and gave a lame-o sermon. His neice had just died and he really just hadn't had the time to study or the heart to preach. Yet he got up and did it. What he really needed was to sit down in a pew. I'm sure there were people in the pew briming over with inspiration. Without a pastor, the congregants would be forced to divide and share the load of preaching, teaching, helping those ni need..etc. The church wouldn't be streamlined into one man's interpretation and vision, but would be a mix- and would probably be more balanced. Plus, it would protect the congregants and the pastor from abuse. Yes, there are pastors who become tired and spiritually tapped otu, and the congregants are cracking the whip for him to get up and preach. When any one of them is capable of tapping into their holy ghost posession and studying and putting something together. I'm sorry you got treated so shoddily as a pastor. I think it is a disgrace to pay someone who is a qualified working professional 16k a year and not to pay them according to the expected hours of work. BTW, do you have a de-conversion testimony written up anywhere on this site. I am always interested to read the stories of ex-pastors. It has to be much harder to walk away when you have made Christianity your professional career. You are leaving much more than just the church. Posted by: SOIL Apr 29 2004, 09:23 AM Wow Chef, I am with you in the spirit of what you said in that last post - all the way! I am in computer programming myself (and have been for approx. 20 years now) - however - many of my close relatives are pastors (or pastor's wives). Since I make a very lot of money - in comparison with the income from being a pastor which several of my relatives make, I sometimes like to offer to help them out - since I respect what they are doing for a living - and I desire to see them get to enjoy more, some of the things money can buy. For the most part though, they (like most pastors) are simply not in it for the money and hence they seem content to use their people skills working for the things that money cannot buy. IMHO the skills that are required to be a successful pastor, if used in many secular jobs, would produce much more income - however, I think most pastors just simply feel like they would rather use their life on this earth doing the many, many things which pastor's do for the community they chose to minister to, (eg. visiting sick folks in hospitals, presiding over weddings and funerals, encouraging people throughout the many challenges which everyone faces in life , etc... etc...) Since I know better, it bugs me when I sometimes (I didn't necessarily get this impression from Madame M's post though), hear other people expressing the opinion that most pastors are just getting rich by milking the sheep. I am not saying that there are not some "pastors" who are doing that - but my experience (even in fundie churchdom) tells me that is not the median type of pastor. Well there's my 2 cents, Dennis Posted by: chefranden Apr 29 2004, 09:30 AM http://exchristian.net/testimonies/2003_10_05_archive.php So, I don't know if it answers your question. I was fired as a minister. The excuse given was for calling on women to pray in the assembly. (Interestingly enough it was 2 women that brought the complaint to the elders.) My wife was fed up with church life, and did not support my search for a new congregation to serve. She told me if I got another call that she would come to worship, sit in a front pew and smile and that would be the extent of her support. That kind of took the wind out of my sails and after about 3 months I gave up looking for a new calling and went to work in a factory. Although I had begun questioning my faith before being fired, it came out in challenges to silly doctrine, like women being silent in the assembly. After I was fired, I could be more honest about questions since I didn't have to preserve my unlively livelihood as well as the faith. I was preaching at a little community church while I was working as at the factory, but I was doing it for nothing, and Sweetie refused to attend and to allow the boys to attend. I found that I was questioning my own sermons as I gave them there. That was an odd experience, saying something you thought was profound when you wrote it, but that you saw was BS as soon as it left your mouth. I gave that up after a year or so, and just kept reading and trying to find a way to believe. One day I just admitted it was BS and didn't feel bad but relieved. Posted by: B_Sharp Apr 29 2004, 10:09 AM QUOTE (SteveFDL @ Apr 28 2004, 05:41 PM) Selfishness is selfishness, anger is anger, and morality is morality, inside and outside of religion. A = A; B = B That is real stupid meaningless logic. QUOTE (SteveFDL @ Apr 28 2004, 05:41 PM) Religion didn't create morality. Morality stems from our ability to reason, which is an inherent quality of life. You have poor reasoning skills. Your post suggeests that you are economically illiterate, environmentally illiterate, scientifically illiterate. Like you, people cannot reason, hence the need for Religion. For the first time in your life, someone told you the truth about your illiteracies, you can now go forward and change. QUOTE (SteveFDL @ Apr 28 2004, 05:41 PM) Religion tried to lay rules to morality, and generally loves to tell everyone their absolute truth(s). That is not what the First Amendment says. QUOTE (SteveFDL @ Apr 28 2004, 05:41 PM) While this is great and all, I know firsthand being an ex-church leader that 99.9% of church funds DO NOT go to feeding the poor, or helping cure the world of AIDs. Nope. They spend a ton of money on buying people Bibles though. Sad. It is their money. Bug off. Instead it is YOUR own co-dependency that wants to save the world. QUOTE (SteveFDL @ Apr 28 2004, 05:41 PM) Did you know every 2.54 seconds someone dies of starvation? Did you know that for every SUV that drives up to your gathering could have fed 15000 children today alone? Lies. Starvation is a political issue. If vehicles got 70mpg, more people would just crowd into cities. You are economically illiterate. Environmental lies. Call up your Gov't School teachers and tell them they failed you. QUOTE (SteveFDL @ Apr 28 2004, 05:41 PM) Does this make you worse than non-believers? No. But it surely doesn't prove your morality club, and its pseudo-truth to be better. The road to reason is a long one. The sooner you get started the better. My guess for a good start is Dr. M Scott Peck, "The Road Less Traveled". Posted by: Rameus Apr 29 2004, 10:55 AM I am assuming that most people consider the basic moral structure of the bible to be the 10 commandments: Given that the 10 commandments existed long before the Old Testament was written, and that the original conceivers were not the Hebrews; I think it's safe to say that morality has always and will always exist outside of the bible. Rameus Posted by: Madame M Apr 29 2004, 10:59 AM QUOTE hear other people expressing the opinion that most pastors are just getting rich by milking the sheep. Actually, I try to be fair to the few pastors I have known who did not bilk the congregants, and some were treated unfairly. But on the flip side, I have known too many who actually did get rich by milking the sheep. And unashamedly too! Example: Young pastor talks from the pulpit after a moving worship service, about how he is praying in faith for God to give him 20,000 to put down on a house. Elderly widow suddenly feels called to dig into her life savings and give him the money. Halleljuah, God answers prayer! What kind of a serpent takes 20k from a widowed old lady who has to live off of her savings and just wants to please God by being God's vessel by which this pastor's faith prayer is answered? Of course, he uses this answered prayer to teach faith, so that the wide eyed congregants would keep tithing and offering in hopes that God would richly bless them too with a financial windfall to help them out of their financial dilemmas, that would likely be solved if they held on to their 10%+ that they are giving away to the church. Posted by: SteveFDL Apr 29 2004, 11:28 AM QUOTE (Madame M @ Apr 28 2004, 06:49 PM) QUOTE (SteveFDL @ Apr 28 2004, 06:41 PM) While this is great and all, I know firsthand being an ex-church leader that 99.9% of church funds DO NOT go to feeding the poor, or helping cure the world of AIDs. Nope. They spend a ton of money on buying people Bibles though. Sad. Did you know every 2.54 seconds someone dies of starvation? Did you know that for every SUV that drives up to your gathering could have fed 15000 children today alone? Steve, this is so sadly true! We pay out $26 a month to feed a hungry child in south america as well as help him get an education. It isn't much. Most big churches have monthly budgets of over $40k a month and this goes on all over the country, in every city. Wasteful, wasteful, wasteful!!! If even 1k of that budget went to feeding kids a month, 400 would be fed. I wasted more money in church that went to no good, than any other time in my entire life. Shelling out my hard earned money for new pews and re-paving the parking lots. Its getting out of hand. Half the churches in my city of 40,000 are either rebuilding, or thinking of rebuilding. Church growth has completely adopted secular capitalist thinking, and truly believes it will boon with a consumer-driven product. It just might. Posted by: SteveFDL Apr 29 2004, 11:32 AM QUOTE (SOIL @ Apr 29 2004, 09:04 AM) QUOTE (Madame M @ Apr 28 2004, 04:49 PM) QUOTE (SteveFDL @ Apr 28 2004, 06:41 PM) While this is great and all, I know firsthand being an ex-church leader that 99.9% of church funds DO NOT go to feeding the poor, or helping cure the world of AIDs. Nope. They spend a ton of money on buying people Bibles though. Sad. Did you know every 2.54 seconds someone dies of starvation? Did you know that for every SUV that drives up to your gathering could have fed 15000 children today alone? Steve, this is so sadly true! We pay out $26 a month to feed a hungry child in south america as well as help him get an education. It isn't much. Most big churches have monthly budgets of over $40k a month and this goes on all over the country, in every city. Wasteful, wasteful, wasteful!!! If even 1k of that budget went to feeding kids a month, 400 would be fed. I wasted more money in church that went to no good, than any other time in my entire life. Shelling out my hard earned money for new pews and re-paving the parking lots. SteveFDL and Madame M, I hear ya. Yes, my family has also supported several children in the type of program that you mentioned ... To be honest though, I have also spent enormously MORE MONEY on stuff that is not a NEED but rather a WANT - FOR MYSELF - and MY family - while other people's kids continue to starve to death. (feel free to look at the last sentence in Bible passage I put in the quote box in my preceding post - tisk ... ). This is something I have spoken to my family about - we are now considering selling our (expensive) big place - and instead moving to a less expensive small place - so we can take some of our income which we only "need" because we are living in such luxury (when compared with how most people in the world are living - I learned this during my recent trip to Nepal) - and use it to help some of those who are actually in real situations of genuine need. But alas - to think about doing something (and even to pray about it) is a lot different than to actually do it. QUOTE James 2:8 (ESV) If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing well. QUOTE James 2:14-17 (ESV) What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? [15] If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, [16] and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? [17] So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=James+1%3A22-27&version=NIV Dennis Believe me SOIL, I wasn't attacking you by posting this. I wasn't a big fan of the market-driven, Rick Warren style of religion when I was a Christian. Posted by: SteveFDL Apr 29 2004, 11:42 AM QUOTE (B_Sharp @ Apr 29 2004, 12:09 PM) QUOTE (SteveFDL @ Apr 28 2004, 05:41 PM) Did you know every 2.54 seconds someone dies of starvation? Did you know that for every SUV that drives up to your gathering could have fed 15000 children today alone? Lies. Starvation is a political issue. If vehicles got 70mpg, more people would just crowd into cities. You are economically illiterate. Environmental lies. Call up your Gov't School teachers and tell them they failed you. I don't depend on others to feed me truth. Not sure if you really believe starvation is a lie, or if that was sarcasm. Either way, have a nice day. P |