Ex Christians

[Nakosis]

I would hardly call the desire not to feel ashamed of oneself "carnal". That's just the yearning for peace of mind we all feel when we are psychologically traumatized. In fact, if I believed in God, I would assume the urge to become a happier, healthier person was motivated by her.

What some do to find peace of mind can sometimes really **** someone else off.

Where we draw the line as to what we tolerate and what we find intolerable seems arbitrary.

People decide what is important to them and act on it. Then we all deal with the consequences of all our combined actions. I don't think there is a right or wrong here, just people trying to find some peace of mind.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I would hardly call the desire not to feel ashamed of oneself "carnal". That's just the yearning for peace of mind we all feel when we are psychologically traumatized. In fact, if I believed in God, I would assume the urge to become a happier, healthier person was motivated by her.

I agree. I thought I'd speak up for Jungle in case he didn't want to feel like he was calling me out specifically if he did, indeed, have me in mind with his post on giving in to these carnal desires.

 

[Alceste]

I agree. I thought I'd speak up for Jungle in case he didn't want to feel like he was calling me out specifically if he did, indeed, have me in mind with his post on giving in to these carnal desires.

It's not just you. He's also suggested I stopped going to church so I could whore around, which is kind of creepy considering the fact I was only thirteen when we stopped.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

It's not just you. He's also suggested I stopped going to church so I could whore around, which is kind of creepy considering the fact I was only thirteen when we stopped.

You have alot of nerve saying that as you're deliberately painting a picture which is unfair. You never said you were a 13 year old girl at the time. You used the word "ecstacy" to describe what you never could've gotten in Christianity. Maybe on your planet such language is common place when describing normal every day life but it isn't on mind. To say nothing of the fact that I woudn't dream of using the language "whoring around" to describe anyone. It's still ignorant to say that the Christians God's strict commandments on sexuality aren't a big stumbling block in people coming to church.

 

[waitasec]

You have alot of nerve saying that as you're deliberately painting a picture which is unfair. You never said you were a 13 year old girl at the time. You used the word "ecstacy" to describe what you never could've gotten in Christianity. Maybe on your planet such language is common place when describing normal every day life but it isn't on mind. To say nothing of the fact that I woudn't dream of using the language "whoring around" to describe anyone. It's still ignorant to say that the Christians God's strict commandments on sexuality aren't a big stumbling block in people coming to church.

regardless, just suggesting she should whore around is an indication of your insensitivity to her experience.

 

[Alceste]

You have alot of nerve saying that as you're deliberately painting a picture which is unfair. You never said you were a 13 year old girl at the time. You used the word "ecstacy" to describe what you never could've gotten in Christianity. Maybe on your planet such language is common place when describing normal every day life but it isn't on mind. To say nothing of the fact that I woudn't dream of using the language "whoring around" to describe anyone. It's still ignorant to say that the Christians God's strict commandments on sexuality aren't a big stumbling block in people coming to church.

They're not. The United Church of Canada is the largest protestant denomination in this country and pretty much only explores the teachings of Jesus Himself, which means they do not hold or teach the impression that God has strict commandments on sexuality. IOW, there is absolutely no reason that any person, gay or straight, could possibly be driven from this church because of a desire to indulge in the pleasures of the flesh. There are also Unitarian Universalist churches in every major city, which do not preach against sex. The obsession with sexual rules from obscure parts of the Bible that have nothing to do with the philosophy of Jesus Christ is not a universal feature of all forms of Christianity. So the opinion that your sect's fascination with other people's sex lives is what drives people from Christianity in general is unsustainable. Maybe it drives them from your sect, but if it weren't for other problems with Christianity they'd just be strolling to the nearest UU church, not "bailing on Jesus", a you put it.

 

[Shermana]

It's still ignorant to say that the Christians God's strict commandments on sexuality aren't a big stumbling block in people coming to church.

Do you believe in a works-based salvation? I do. But most "Christians" don't. If you don't either, where does actually obeying the commandments have any place in your belief regarding Salvation? Why include the Levitical sexual commandments but not the rest? If you believe in a "Grace-based" salvation, where does obedience to any commandment fit in? Are you saying the grace is in fact conditional unlike what most "Christians" say?

(Note: I am from the perspective of having to obey ALL the commandments and that your works count for or against you in judgment regardless if you accept Jesus, but I find it strange when "Christians" who are zealously anti-Law and anti-works find a few commandments to suddenly harp on for one reason or another).

 

[waitasec]

They're not. The United Church of Canada is the largest protestant denomination in this country and pretty much only explores the teachings of Jesus Himself, which means they do not hold or teach the impression that God has strict commandments on sexuality. IOW, there is absolutely no reason that any person, gay or straight, could possibly be driven from this church because of a desire to indulge in the pleasures of the flesh. There are also Unitarian Universalist churches in every major city, which do not preach against sex. The obsession with sexual rules from obscure parts of the Bible that have nothing to do with the philosophy of Jesus Christ is not a universal feature of all forms of Christianity. So the opinion that your sect's fascination with other people's sex lives is what drives people from Christianity in general is unsustainable. Maybe it drives them from your sect, but if it weren't for other problems with Christianity they'd just be strolling to the nearest UU church, not "bailing on Jesus", a you put it.

a little bit of travel experience abroad would shed light on this truth.

being that only less than 18% of all americans own a passport

 

[Alceste]

a little bit of travel experience abroad would shed light on this truth.

being that only less than 18% of all americans own a passport

Really? That amazes me.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I'm sure he would be referencing to me as an example since he and I have had conversations in the past about my orientation and my experiences with the Christian community and it's interpretation of doctrine, and that my experiences left me feeling alone, depressed, and full of self-loathing.

Our conversations included a sentiment that if I would just stick it out and continue to pray for God's grace and to just lean on him through Jesus, that I'd be living the good Christian and moral life and not giving in to my "carnal" desires by 1) being with women, and 2) accepting my sexual orientation as natural and healthy.

Ah, hm, I stand corrected then. An aside but I am sure you already can guess my opinion of his statements about what you should do

 

[jasonwill2]

I agree. I thought I'd speak up for Jungle in case he didn't want to feel like he was calling me out specifically if he did, indeed, have me in mind with his post on giving in to these carnal desires.

Carnal desires? happyness? what have i missed! This is part of my religion's specialty!

You have alot of nerve saying that as you're deliberately painting a picture which is unfair. You never said you were a 13 year old girl at the time. You used the word "ecstacy" to describe what you never could've gotten in Christianity. Maybe on your planet such language is common place when describing normal every day life but it isn't on mind. To say nothing of the fact that I woudn't dream of using the language "whoring around" to describe anyone. It's still ignorant to say that the Christians God's strict commandments on sexuality aren't a big stumbling block in people coming to church.

So when you hear the word ecstasy you think of sex? "Dirty mind" much? Or just sexually repressed?

On another note, you don't have to stop going to church to whore around. I knew a number of Christian and sexually active girls going to the same Pentecostal school as me at the time.

People will be people, and people are dictated by their nature, which was penned by their creator God (whom's title in this case would be Satan). As such, no matter what religion they are in, they will have those perfectly healthy human desires of lust.

Without lust, no one would really enjoy sex or want to have it, and without sex, our numbers would of probably gotten so low that some disaster or another would of wiped us out, and we wouldn't be here now. Also without lust we wouldn't of become conscious of sex making babies in the first place, and hence as mindless animals we wouldn't of known that we need sex to make offspring, and so we wouldn't of gotten to the point of consciously deciding to have kids despite sex not being fun.

Hence without lust life wouldn't of evolved to the point it is now, hence lust is natural and good.

Christianity wants to tell that this is a totally different case however, and that lust is sinful and that devil wants to take you to hell for just being human and yourself. Another reason I left Christianity, it kept telling me how sinful I was for doing what I felt was right and good in my heart. I didn't need a god to persuade me to do good, I only needed my own conviction.

Hail Satan!

 

[thau]

On another note, you don't have to stop going to church to whore around. I knew a number of Christian and sexually active girls going to the same Pentecostal school as me at the time.

People will be people, and people are dictated by their nature, which was penned by their creator God (whom's title in this case would be Satan). As such, no matter what religion they are in, they will have those perfectly healthy human desires of lust.

Without lust, no one would really enjoy sex or want to have it, and without sex, our numbers would of probably gotten so low that some disaster or another would of wiped us out, and we wouldn't be here now. Also without lust we wouldn't of become conscious of sex making babies in the first place, and hence as mindless animals we wouldn't of known that we need sex to make offspring, and so we wouldn't of gotten to the point of consciously deciding to have kids despite sex not being fun.

Hence without lust life wouldn't of evolved to the point it is now, hence lust is natural and good.

Christianity wants to tell that this is a totally different case however, and that lust is sinful and that devil wants to take you to hell for just being human and yourself. Another reason I left Christianity, it kept telling me how sinful I was for doing what I felt was right and good in my heart. I didn't need a god to persuade me to do good, I only needed my own conviction.

Hail Satan!

I don't know where this hail satan folly is coming from, but to your point about lust. You do agree some lustful acts are bad, of course? Like rape and pedophilia and public displays of it as well I hope? So you just set the bar lower than God to what is acceptable. Good for you.

Maybe you need to realize that man is not an animal as much as man is rational. That is why we are light years in difference with animals, as God so intended. So for you to assure us all that it doesn't matter how lustful we are, am I to assume you also believe that gossip and pride and envy and deceit are not sins either? If that is the case, why should anyone give your philosophies a second thought? You really believe this world is here by happenstance, or maybe those in history more obedient and virtuous than evil made your life and my life much more free and fulfilling? IOW, don't pretend you believe in God (or Satan), you don't.

 

[thau]

IOW, there is absolutely no reason that any person, gay or straight, could possibly be driven from this church because of a desire to indulge in the pleasures of the flesh.

Gays are not driven from the Catholic Church either. We do not drive aways sinners else all would have to leave.

The obsession with sexual rules from obscure parts of the Bible that have nothing to do with the philosophy of Jesus Christ is not a universal feature of all forms of Christianity.

Well coming to that conclusion sure makes it easy to go forward conscience free. As I just mentioned to someone else in this thread, I am sure you and your favored church still consider some sexual acts to be lustful, you just set the bar lower than what almost all Christian churches do. And the lessons on sexuality are not found only in obscure parts of the Bible. Or do you, who believe in Jesus, think he let St. Paul's false teaching confuse his own in the same book?

 

[jasonwill2]

I don't know where this hail satan folly is coming from, but to your point about lust. You do agree some lustful acts are bad, of course? Like rape and pedophilia and public displays of it as well I hope? So you just set the bar lower than God to what is acceptable. Good for you.

Maybe you need to realize that man is not an animal as much as man is rational. That is why we are light years in difference with animals, as God so intended. So for you to assure us all that it doesn't matter how lustful we are, am I to assume you also believe that gossip and pride and envy and deceit are not sins either? If that is the case, why should anyone give your philosophies a second thought? You really believe this world is here by happenstance, or maybe those in history more obedient and virtuous than evil made your life and my life much more free and fulfilling? IOW, don't pretend you believe in God (or Satan), you don't.

Emphasis added.

rape and others: bad, but happens even in nature
pride: good when not counter productive
envy: drives ambition
gossip: generally very destructive and bad as it is so full of lies

Also I believe in Satan as one of many titles for this thing we call "God", however you ordering me to not "pretend" to believe in something I clearly do, is boarding on against the rules if not right-out against them.

Satan is a title of God; if you want to declare that I am a liar, you are merely acting as an opposing accuser, and Satan does mean "accuser, opposition, adversary" after all, proving that Satan is inside you as well as me! God truly does "Extend Within and Without"!

 

[waitasec]

Gays are not driven from the Catholic Church either. We do not drive aways sinners else all would have to leave.

plaaaaaaeeeeeez

'we love the sinner, not the sin'

sure the church will marry people who have committed fornication
but won't marry 2 ppl of the same sex

give me a break

 

[thau]

Emphasis added.

rape and others: bad, but happens even in nature
pride: good when not counter productive
envy: drives ambition
gossip: generally very destructive and bad as it is so full of lies

Also I believe in Satan as one of many titles for this thing we call "God", however you ordering me to not "pretend" to believe in something I clearly do, is boarding on against the rules if not right-out against them.

Satan is a title of God; if you want to declare that I am a liar, you are merely acting as an opposing accuser, and Satan does mean "accuser, opposition, adversary" after all, proving that Satan is inside you as well as me! God truly does "Extend Within and Without"!

I said it that way merely to see how you might react to it. Surely, I would not flinch for a second if someone told me I was a phony Christian, a hater, and I did not believe in God at all. It would amuse me. But in your case, I see a bit more indignation and even a rules threat. Does it really cause you that much harm? If so, my sincerest apologies to you and perhaps that limits my ability to respond to anything else you might have to say?

As to your own brand of theology, i.e. Satan being one of the many titles of God, I merely have pity. You are speaking with the voice of one or two rebels in the past who put together some fancy theology appealing to man's darker side. Be what you may, but I am certain there is great folly in your words. God is merciful, God is love, Satan is the absence of God. That is hell.

 

[thau]

plaaaaaaeeeeeez

'we love the sinner, not the sin'

sure the church will marry people who have committed fornication
but won't marry 2 ppl of the same sex

give me a break

I do not follow you at all, and I am quite certain you do not follow me either.

The Catholic Church does not condone adultery or premarital sex, but we do not oppose those who partake in it from being part of the Church. The same goes for those who engage in gay sex. What that has to do with demanding we marry them in order to prove our love for all people, I have no idea? You and others seem to keep insisting that the Church holds out gay sex to be the great sin that sends man to hell, but that all other sins are not that bad. Neither of those propositions could be further from the truth.

 

[jasonwill2]

I said it that way merely to see how you might react to it. Surely, I would not flinch for a second if someone told me I was a phony Christian, a hater, and I did not believe in God at all. It would amuse me. But in your case, I see a bit more indignation and even a rules threat. Does it really cause you that much harm? If so, my sincerest apologies to you and perhaps that limits my ability to respond to anything else you might have to say?

As to your own brand of theology, i.e. Satan being one of the many titles of God, I merely have pity. You are speaking with the voice of one or two rebels in the past who put together some fancy theology appealing to man's darker side. Be what you may, but I am certain there is great folly in your words. God is merciful, God is love, Satan is the absence of God. That is hell.

So you test me, like a Satan? I must applaud you. But don't you realize that your testing of me in this fashion is EXACTLY in the same spirit of how Ha-Satan tested Job? For all I know you are an unwitting person being used by Satan/God to teach me to perhaps hold my tongue a bit' tighter.

Is the reminder that you are close to breaking a rule a threat? Or a warning that breaking the rules may result in appropriate action via the actions of the staff as you accepted the terms and conditions to obey the rules of the site when you registered?

Also "Satan" is not just one title of God as I seemed to have implied, but is one of his primary titles. Satan in his original Jewish form is not what you are saying, it was just a title meaning "accuser, opposition, adversary" go to the Jewish DIR and ask them if you don't believe me.

And who are these two rebels? Anton LaVey and someone else? Their dogmas are not mine, and Satan is not the "darker" side of my nature, HE IS MY ENTIRE NATURE, as he is a neutral force and entity that made me, as well as all life. Satan is a title, and if I choose to call God Satan, then by definition Satan can't be the absence of god.

Also don't pity me, my view is that of Theism, Anton LaVey was an atheist, and the other one, I know not who you speak of. Of all the names that come to mind, not even Alister Crowley is close as Satan wasn't a symbol for a "dark" side of humans. He venomously said that he was not a Satanist. (I assume that was the other one you referred to).

But is this a topic about understanding why ex-Christians are no longer Christians, or is this a topic for you to argue with me and tell me that my non-Christian religion is utter garbage?

My response was such because you had the audacity to be as pompous and arrogant as to tell me what I believe. The problem I think you have understanding my response is that it's the fact of the act itself occurred. I shouldn't be expected to ignore such an insult while you are allowed to spit it out, and I am looked down on for calling you out on it. Such a thing is like hitting someone in the face, then crying that they wronged you when they hit you back. And at that, I merely was being assertive about my position on it, since you seem to think you know me better than I do.

Or was this all a test? Is that hardly Christ-like, or does Christ encourage you to intentionally try to provoke other people in order to "test" them? Isn't that the role of Satan?

 

[waitasec]

I do not follow you at all, and I am quite certain you do not follow me either.

The Catholic Church does not condone adultery or premarital sex, but we do not oppose those who partake in it from being part of the Church. The same goes for those who engage in gay sex.

then the church should marry those who want to marry a same sex partner...
it's a double standard.

What that has to do with demanding we marry them in order to prove our love for all people, I have no idea?

luke 6:30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full.

seems pretty clear to me...
but unless you think what paul has to say is more meaningful then maybe calling your self a christian isn't accurate, a paulian would suit the church better.

You and others seem to keep insisting that the Church holds out gay sex to be the great sin that sends man to hell, but that all other sins are not that bad. Neither of those propositions could be further from the truth.

then the church should marry those that wish to be married.
whats the big deal?

 

[thau]

So you test me, like a Satan? I must applaud you. But don't you realize that your testing of me in this fashion is EXACTLY in the same spirit of how Ha-Satan tested Job? For all I know you are an unwitting person being used by Satan/God to teach me to perhaps hold my tongue a bit' tighter.

Is the reminder that you are close to breaking a rule a threat? Or a warning that breaking the rules may result in appropriate action via the actions of the staff as you accepted the terms and conditions to obey the rules of the site when you registered?

Also "Satan" is not just one title of God as I seemed to have implied, but is one of his primary titles. Satan in his original Jewish form is not what you are saying, it was just a title meaning "accuser, opposition, adversary" go to the Jewish DIR and ask them if you don't believe me.

And who are these two rebels? Anton LaVey and someone else? Their dogmas are not mine, and Satan is not the "darker" side of my nature, HE IS MY ENTIRE NATURE, as he is a neutral force and entity that made me, as well as all life. Satan is a title, and if I choose to call God Satan, then by definition Satan can't be the absence of god.

Also don't pity me, my view is that of Theism, Anton LaVey was an atheist, and the other one, I know not who you speak of. Of all the names that come to mind, not even Alister Crowley is close as Satan wasn't a symbol for a "dark" side of humans. He venomously said that he was not a Satanist. (I assume that was the other one you referred to).

But is this a topic about understanding why ex-Christians are no longer Christians, or is this a topic for you to argue with me and tell me that my non-Christian religion is utter garbage?

My response was such because you had the audacity to be as pompous and arrogant as to tell me what I believe. The problem I think you have understanding my response is that it's the fact of the act itself occurred. I shouldn't be expected to ignore such an insult while you are allowed to spit it out, and I am looked down on for calling you out on it. Such a thing is like hitting someone in the face, then crying that they wronged you when they hit you back. And at that, I merely was being assertive about my position on it, since you seem to think you know me better than I do.

Or was this all a test? Is that hardly Christ-like, or does Christ encourage you to intentionally try to provoke other people in order to "test" them? Isn't that the role of Satan?

Everything the Bible teaches, everything the Catholic Church teaches, everything revealed to the Church by the saints completely and utterly refutes your belief system. So you think both can be right? You think both are ordained paths to salvation? They are diametrically in opposition to each other.

Jesus speaks of Satan, as he said he saw him fall from heaven like a lightning bolt. I assure you he was not speaking of God the Father.

What’s your point anyway? Give us your grand theology about salvation, heaven and hell in so many words and see who embraces it. I think it is pure evil. Did I hurt your feelings again? Spare me the rules violations and just be tough enough to endure a little criticism. As I said, you calling me a liar or a deceiver or a false teacher does not ruffle one hair on my head. But neither am I going to be a coward and let you have your way around here without speaking out upon the dangers of it.

You find my words so objectionable because I “tested” you. Well, sorry for my unfair play, but the trials we are subject to on a daily basis are every bit as important of tests as anything being exchanged on the internet. We are all being tested continuously and the choices we make will define our character and our hearts, not some slip up of words on a page.

No, I was not referring to LeVay or Crowley, I was only guessing your theology came from some source of ancient times, like the Kabala or some other esoteric meanderings filled with half truths and deceptions. Both of us can never be right, don’t you agree? The eternal fate of a soul is at stake, no less, or is that not a part of your beliefs either?