Ex Christians

[Alceste]

I'm sure the people involved in that thought they were doing a good thing. I suspect most people do what they do because they think it a good thing.



All them Catholics thought they were doing a good thing too.

If you and I happen to have different morals, who is to say who is right and who is wrong?

If I don't agree with your morals should I take it upon myself to apologize to others for the moral values you happen to have?

Yes, the churches that carried out the government's residential school program thought they were doing good. The schools were nevertheless genocidal in design (if we interpret genocide to include the intentional destruction of a distinct culture by assimilation), hotbeds of physical and psychological abuse, and did enormous social harm. An honest acknowledgment that the policy was wrong, regardless of what people thought at the time, is necessary to reconciliation between the victims of the residential school program and the state.

The United Church of Canada offered an apology for its own part in the program long before the government came to its senses, which I think was also a necessary step toward reconciliation between first nations and the Christian community.

It wouldn't make sense to have the government apologize on behalf of the church, or vice versa, but to have a statement from each organization acknowledging the wrongdoing of former members makes perfect sense.

 

[Nakosis]

Hmm they may be inoccent to you, but not to God, and God's not like you.

God did kill them, but whoa!! Are you sure you want to say they NEVER did anything wrong? You really beleive not one of those people ever lied, stole, or commited adultery?

You don't believe that everyone(at some point in their lives) has done,said, or thought of aything that goes against God? I've never heard of anyone like this?

I think what it is is I don't accept that your religion or any other gets to determine for everyone else what God does and doesn't want.

I've never really done anything against God. I may have broken some of rules your religion though. I don't agree however that those rules are necessarily God's rules.

Just claiming they are God's rules is no reason for anyone else to accept them as such. Personally I've nothing against God. Just not too happy with some of the people who claim to be speaking on God's behalf.

 

[Nakosis]

Yes, the churches that carried out the government's residential school program thought they were doing good. The schools were nevertheless genocidal in design (if we interpret genocide to include the intentional destruction of a distinct culture by assimilation), hotbeds of physical and psychological abuse, and did enormous social harm. An honest acknowledgment that the policy was wrong, regardless of what people thought at the time, is necessary to reconciliation between the victims of the residential school program and the state.

The United Church of Canada offered an apology for its own part in the program long before the government came to its senses, which I think was also a necessary step toward reconciliation between first nations and the Christian community.

It wouldn't make sense to have the government apologize on behalf of the church, or vice versa, but to have a statement from each organization acknowledging the wrongdoing of former members makes perfect sense.

I apologize to people sometimes, not because I think I did anything wrong but just to make them feel better about what I did do. But then again I don't pretend to represent any one but myself.

I suppose that is the real intent. making people feel better about what happened regardless of where guilt or blame lay.

I guess it provide a little acknowledge that it was wrong and some certainty it won't happen again.

Except in my case.

Probably not in the governments case either. It all seems a bit manipulative.

Do you ever sincerely apologize?

 

[Vadergirl123]

I think what it is is I don't accept that your religion or any other gets to determine for everyone else what God does and doesn't want.

You're right, a religion, iself, shouldn't determine what God wants/doesn't want. That's why I've said the Bible tells us what God wants/desn't want. Please notice I haven't said christianity says do this.

I've never really done anything against God.

You've never lied or stolen?

I may have broken some of rules your religion though. I don't agree however that those rules are necessarily God's rules.

I don't really think of myself of belonging to a religion.(true christianity is a relationship anyway not a religion) I mean I go to an independent baptist church, but if it started teaching things contradictory to God's word I'd leave and find somewhere else that taught God's word.

Just claiming they are God's rules is no reason for anyone else to accept them as such. Personally I've nothing against God. Just not too happy with some of the people who claim to be speaking on God's behalf.

Without the Bible you can't know anything about God(I think already said this) and which god are you taking about that you have no problem against?
Also I'm not speaking for God, I'm just quoting the Bible. I didn't come up with this stuff myself.

 

[Vadergirl123]

Good grief I think we've covered almost everything about God and the Bible in this thread hahaha

 

[Nakosis]

You're right, a religion, iself, shouldn't determine what God wants/doesn't want. That's why I've said the Bible tells us what God wants/desn't want. Please notice I haven't said christianity says do this.

Ok, but the Bible, I don't have any great reason to trust that the authors had any authority to speak for God. Not any more then you do. I'm sure you are a nice person but just because you might claim to speak for God mean I'm going to accept that.

You've never lied or stolen?

Yes but I felt I was justified in doing so. When my parents abandoned me as a kid I stole some food from the local school. The people I stole from forgave me. They didn't require a sacrifice from me. They didn't ask for any punishment of me. If they can forgive me, why does God still need to punish me for that?

I lie when the truth will cause more harm to people then good. I used to really be against lying. But then I realized the truth sometimes hurts people and there was no benefit gain telling the truth just for the sake of telling the truth regardless of who gets hurts by it.

I don't really think of myself of belonging to a religion.(true christianity is a relationship anyway not a religion) I mean I go to an independent baptist church, but if it started teaching things contradictory to God's word I'd leave and find somewhere else that taught God's word.

Without the Bible you can't know anything about God(I think already said this) and which god are you taking about that you have no problem against?
Also I'm not speaking for God, I'm just quoting the Bible. I didn't come up with this stuff myself.

I disagree. I don't think the Bible is necessary to have a relationship with God. In fact I think in some cases people have a relation with the Bible instead of God.

I ask people sometime why they believe in God not because I don't think they should but because I don't think they should believe just because of the Bible.

I'll accept for the most part the Bible is people talking about their experience. I just don't think that should be a substitute for actual experience.

God can't be just something you read about in a book. And if God is real, what do you need the book for?

 

[Father Heathen]

Oh, the irony.

I'm being willfully ignorant? Of what? Speak up, son.

 

[Father Heathen]

Well who doesn't like humility, and that's very honorable of your to be so kind to unbelievers and admit to our many sins. (not being sarcastic)

Now in following, I would like to apologize to God on your behalf for totallying maligning what you call "Conservative Catholicism" stands for, and what they have to done to cause division or prohibit the love of Christ going forward. You simply are being a demagogue, in my own personal opinion, and that can have dangerous ramifications.

I would like to apologize to god on your churches behalf for presuming to represent him and speak for him, all the while systematically abusing children and attempting covering it up.

 

[thau]

I would like to apologize to god on your churches behalf for presuming to represent him and speak for him, all the while systematically abusing children and attempting covering it up.

We already have, but thanks.

However, the presumption charge is spurious. We are merely doing as Jesus commanded and ordained.

 

[thau]

Originally Posted by vanityofvanitys
"I do not believe you see at all, sorry to say. I think you are intelligent and cordial, but when it comes to trying to disprove the deity of Jesus Christ, many of your talents and integrity (to a point) are left behind."

Show me where I've tried to do that?

And bear in mind I'm asking you to show me, not tell me, or say "it seemed like you were saying. . ."

This is the internet, everything we say is right there where anyone can quote it as it is.

Well, are you on record with your beliefs here in print? Or have you not rendered an opinion yet as to whether you believe Jesus is as He claimes, i.e. the Son of God, or that he is not?

If you have not said either way, then I apologize for assuming you had done so via my inference. But if not, why not?

So let us assume for the sake of my charges that you have cast doubts about Jesus being the Son of God. Have you ever acknowledged that some empirical evidence submitted pointing to the Christian God had some truth to it although you were hesitant to say for sure? Or are all the inexplicable facts behind the events at Fatima, Zeitoun, Akita, The Shroud, Guadalupe, Padre Pio’s wounds, exorcisms not worth a second look in your court of honest judgments?

Or are you going to ask me “What facts?” for the nth time? Note that all of those miracles can only point to Jesus Christ and Christianity or the devil, nothing else. You cannot, in my opinion, with any logic say “they could be talking about any deity.” So if you reject my empirical evidence pointing to the Christianity then it is tantamount to you attempting to disprove the deity of Jesus Christ, in my estimation.

 

[Quagmire]

Originally Posted by vanityofvanitys
"I do not believe you see at all, sorry to say. I think you are intelligent and cordial, but when it comes to trying to disprove the deity of Jesus Christ, many of your talents and integrity (to a point) are left behind."




Well, are you on record with your beliefs here in print? Or have you not rendered an opinion yet as to whether you believe Jesus is as He claimes, i.e. the Son of God, or that he is not?

If you have not said either way, then I apologize for assuming you had done so via my inference. But if not, why not?

So let us assume for the sake of my charges that you have cast doubts about Jesus being the Son of God. Have you ever acknowledged that some empirical evidence submitted pointing to the Christian God had some truth to it although you were hesitant to say for sure? Or are all the inexplicable facts behind the events at Fatima, Zeitoun, Akita, The Shroud, Guadalupe, Padre Pio’s wounds, exorcisms not worth a second look in your court of honest judgments?

Or are you going to ask me “What facts?” for the nth time? Note that all of those miracles can only point to Jesus Christ and Christianity or the devil, nothing else. You cannot, in my opinion, with any logic say “they could be talking about any deity.” So if you reject my empirical evidence pointing to the Christianity then it is tantamount to you attempting to disprove the deity of Jesus Christ, in my estimation.

You made a charge, I asked you to show me where I did what you were saying I did. Obviously, you can't. Everything else in your post is just fluff.

 

[Father Heathen]

We are merely doing as Jesus commanded and ordained.

Can Jesus sing while your priest drinks from a glass of water?

 

[thau]

You made a charge, I asked you to show me where I did what you were saying I did. Obviously, you can't. Everything else in your post is just fluff.

Whatever.


Of course I did not expect you to answer my simple question proposed. (but still not sure why)


I'll move on.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes I can see how you'd have a problem with that statement, but God won't punish people who don't have a chance to know him.

So now you're pulling a U-turn? Earlier you claimed that everyone had a chance to know him.

Why do you seem to think that God had no right to punish sin? I've already said that yes he could've done something else. However for him to have let the sin slide by and his chosen people to have their hearts turned away from him would've been inconsistent with his character.

You're talking about God like a character from fiction. One thing that is clear from what you have said so far is that you have no real clue what God's supposed "character" actually is. By the way you explain it, God is inconsistant, bipolar, contradictory and completely indifferent to human life. To say that something is not "in his character" is absurd unless you can accurately and concisely explain God's personality, motivations and personal philosophies without jumping to baseless conclusions. So far, everything you've said indicates that God doesn't have anywhere near an identifiable or consistant character.

Yes he does, but again you don't have to follow/obey him. It's your life.

Saying "yes he does" is not an argument. Just because God created life doesn't give him the right to wipe it out based on his own arbitrary rules. There's such a thing as responsibility in this world, and why God feels he shouldn't take responsibility for his creation rather than just lording over it like a sadistic, abusive parent is beyond me.

Avoiding the point? I answered your question of what else he could''ve done.

That wasn't the point of what I asked. You set up a false dichotomy, basically saying that God's only two options were to either destroy the medianites or allow them to turn Israel away from him. Considering that God is supposedly omnipotenent and all-knowing, how could those possibly be the only two options? In fact, an omnipotent, all-knowing God wouldn't even be limited by any number of options. They can literally do anything, and yet they supposedly chose genocide as their most reasonable course.

That doesn't not sound "consistant with God's character" if you believe God is wise and all knowing now, does it?

Nope, what the Midianites did was reprehensible to God. Sin is reprehensible to him.

So why doesn't he just get rid of it, or prevent them from sinning? He's God, he can do that.

I don't know which god you're thinking of. The biblical God can't stand sin, and as I said he has every right to punish it.

What do you mean he "can't stand it"? Isn't he perfect? How can a perfect being be incapable of tolerating something?

And no, they do not have every right to kill people just because they "can't stand" something they do. Responsibility.

So to answer your question then yes a loving God can punish sin, which is what God does. Again you're NOT understanding how reprehensible sin is to him.

And I don't think you understand a thing I'm telling you. The God that you're describing makes absolutely no sense and is internally contradictory. A perfect being shouldn't "not stand" anything, and an all-loving God wouldn't feel the need to punish (much less kill) the things he loves because of something they choose to do - even if they do find it reprehensible. The God that you are describing is either incoherent, illogical and malevolent, or so self-contradictory that they cannot possibly exist.

Haha you don't have to believe in him(he;s not going to force you too), and yes it must look crazy to you.

It doesn't look crazy, it is crazy.

Yes it does,

No, it doesn't, and I've gone to great length to explain why. If your only response is "yes it does because that's how much he hates sin" then you've already lost the point. I really hate people talking on the mobile phones in the movies - doesn't mean they deserve to die for it.

as I've said before you're not grasping just how much God can't stand sin. To you sin is almost no big deal, but God doesn't think that way.

That is completely and utterly irrelevant. Please, at least try and see this from a logical point of view.

An all-loving God would punish sin, he can't stand it remember, but he's also very merciful in giving us the chance to have our sins forgiven. Could you imagine a world where sin was never punished?

Can you imagine a world where entire civilizations are wiped out because of the supposed sins of a relative few? Apparently, you seem to think you live in that world and that it is reasonable. It's not, and you don't.

Nah, I have no reason to not believe in God.

Except the complete lack of evidence and that fact that the God you're describing makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Yes and I agreed with you. Did you read my posts?

If you agree with me then stop setting up false dichotomies and red-herrings like "Sure, God didn't have to kill them all - he could have let them turn Israel against him". If you understand that God can do anything then you should understand why that argument is nothing more than a fallacy.

Hmm they may be inoccent to you, but not to God, and God's not like you.

No. According to you, God's an amoral, genocidal lunatic.

God did kill them, but whoa!! Are you sure you want to say they NEVER did anything wrong? You really beleive not one of those people ever lied, stole, or commited adultery?

I'm willing to bet a fair number of them didn't, yes. Do you really believe that every single member of an entire civilization had lied, stole or commited adultery?

You don't believe that everyone(at some point in their lives) has done,said, or thought of aything that goes against God? I've never heard of anyone like this?

I'm sure they have. It's the "they therefore deserve to die" part that I find incredibly sickening. Do you honestly believe I deserve to die? Take God out of the equation for just a moment and tell me, one person to another person, that you believe that I deserve to die for any reason. You don't have to believe it's exclusive to me, and you don't have to believe it's up to you to determine, all you have to do is use your own brain to assess me as a person and tell me whether or not you think I deserve to die.

 

[Hope]

yes and not only that you don't seem to be understanding what you are saying or why you are arguing against my point of relative morality.

No, I understand what I am saying....of course subjective morality exists----however, I don't believe subjective morality is the only morality, nor the true morality (as you seem to be claiming), nor does it negate the existence of an absolute morality. In other words, of course, we all have preferences and different viewpoints about moral issues, as I pointed out earlier, however this in no way disproves the existence of an absolute morality. You were the one who, unless I misunderstood you, said that my comparison of the empirical evidence of a blue sky was not valid because apparently morals are not empirical evidence. I was merely pointing out the validity of my comparison, and you helped me out by admitting that morals are actually empirical evidence after all.

Again, just because someone says that the sky is green (subjective, relative viewpoint) does not make the sky green. Just because one person says killing and raping are ok (subjective, relative morality) does not make killing and raping ok. For anyone to have a valid opinion about anything, that referenced something must objectively exist and have objective properties independent of the viewer's opinions. Either the sky is green or not, and either killing and raping are ok or not, totally independent of who is looking at them.

Perhaps your argument is simply that, well, scientists can prove the sky is blue, and we cannot prove an absolute morality exists. No, we certainly can't prove that absolute morality exists in the same way that we prove the sky is blue, but we can certainly prove it exists from inference, and scientists use inference quite a bit in their deductions.

i am right for me
you are right for you
there is no absolute morality.
i am bi sexual, i am right, you believe homosexuality is wrong, you are right.
so if you being a heterosexual, having sex with another woman is wrong...so don't do it.

So, in other words, neither one of us is right, is that what you're saying? How can we both possibly be right at the same time if we are saying opposite things? Either 1+1=2 or it doesn't. It cannot equal 2 and 3 at the same time. Are you familiar with the law of non-contradiction?

it's really easy, if you try.

Certainly it's easy. It just makes no logical sense.

not at all because what i think is right you think is wrong...
right?

What you or I think is irrelevant. That is why, perhaps, you don't understand my argument.

how is that a contradiction when i say morality is subjective?

because what is true for you, is true for YOU.

Then it is not true. Something that is true is true for everyone.

the authority, for lack of a better word, of empathy.
all have it, in fact the human race could survive without it, since we are social animals.

How does empathy have authority? Why is empathy good?

This is the response most relativists such as yourself give, and, frankly, it doesn't hold up.

i see a dilemma you created for yourself.

Please enlighten me?

well i'm not blaming god for killing innocent girls.
i'm blaming a misogynistic society who uses god to justify their sense of what is right


have you heard of the term:
for the sake of argument

Ok. Fair enough. You and I have different motives then, it seems, for arguing on this thread.

yes you are. because what happens to be "the truth" is ... your truth

Again, if it is simply "my" truth, or "your" truth, then it is not truth. Truth is independent of viewpoint or feelings.

lets get this straight, i never said that my truth is better than anyones. my truth is my truth, and i don't expect my truth to be your truth. i'm curious though, what did i say that gave you that idea?

Most of your arguments on this thread give me that idea.

I'll leave you with this quote by the philosopher John Hospers to chew on:

"If ethical relativism is correct, it is clearly impossible for the moral beliefs of a society to be mistaken because the certainty of the majority that its beliefs were right would prove that those beliefs were right for that society at that time. The minority view would therefore be mistaken, no matter what it was. Needless to say, most people who state that 'in morals everything is relative' and who proceed to call themselves ethical relativists are unaware of these implications of their theory."

 

[waitasec]

No, I understand what I am saying....of course subjective morality exists----however, I don't believe subjective morality is the only morality, nor the true morality (as you seem to be claiming), nor does it negate the existence of an absolute morality.

ok then please provide objective empirical evidence for objective morality?
to make such a claim one would require objective empirical evidence...

So, in other words, neither one of us is right, is that what you're saying? How can we both possibly be right at the same time if we are saying opposite things? Either 1+1=2 or it doesn't. It cannot equal 2 and 3 at the same time. Are you familiar with the law of non-contradiction?

oui...
no. if it is wrong for you to have sex with another woman, it's wrong for you.
there is no objective morality.

Certainly it's easy. It just makes no logical sense.

if you were to go against your own conscience, you are being immoral to yourself and your truth.

Then it is not true. Something that is true is true for everyone.

prove it. where is the objective empirical evidence that supports objective morality?

How does empathy have authority? Why is empathy good?

because we can put ourselves in the shoes of others.
it is good because without it we can not form a sense of solidarity in order for our species to survive.

Please enlighten me?

haven't you noticed you have not provided objective empirical evidence to support your claim of objective morality?

Again, if it is simply "my" truth, or "your" truth, then it is not truth. Truth is independent of viewpoint or feelings.

where did you get the idea that morality is supposed to be objective?
as you said earlier in this post:
"of course subjective morality exists" where is the objective empirical evidence for objective morality?

Most of your arguments on this thread give me that idea.

then you are just being silly. never have i ever said my way is better...
i just ask questions to unsupportable claims and the questions usually entail how does one come to a particular conclusion without any evidence to support it...that or you are projecting....but really, only you can know that for sure.

 

[Nakosis]

Then it is not true. Something that is true is true for everyone.

If it's something I'm not aware then it is not true for me.

How does empathy have authority? Why is empathy good?

It doesn't have any authority. Empathy is not necessarily good, it just happens to be what some have come to value.

This is the response most relativists such as yourself give, and, frankly, it doesn't hold up.

Neither does supernatural morality hold up. It can't be validated. If it can't be validated then it can't be justified. And what good does supernatural morality do if there is no apparent enforcement of it? It has no real worth or value.

I'll leave you with this quote by the philosopher John Hospers to chew on:

"If ethical relativism is correct, it is clearly impossible for the moral beliefs of a society to be mistaken because the certainty of the majority that its beliefs were right would prove that those beliefs were right for that society at that time. The minority view would therefore be mistaken, no matter what it was. Needless to say, most people who state that 'in morals everything is relative' and who proceed to call themselves ethical relativists are unaware of these implications of their theory."

That's were we have civil laws. To limit the power of the minority and protect the minority. We don't have to have that but we do. Man evolved his system of government into that. It's up to us to choose to support it. We don't need objective morals for that. Just a willingness to cooperate which we seem to have.

 

[waitasec]

It doesn't have any authority. Empathy is not necessarily good, it just happens to be what some have come to value.

i would say "most" instead of "some".

 

[Nakosis]

i would say "most" instead of "some".

You know I think the story of Jesus had a lot to do with that regardless of how Christianity turned out.

 

[waitasec]

You know I think the story of Jesus had a lot to do with that regardless of how Christianity turned out.

i think you are right.