Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I left because it was incompatible with what I'd learned about the shape of the universe and the history of the world as anything other than a lie. The desire to liberate myself from the restrictive patterns of behavior that Christianity imposes only came years later.

[Folly]

Question for the ex-Christans: did you leave to free yourself from something in Christianity, or did you leave to gain something that Christianity did not have?  Or a combination. As previous comments have shown, I'm interested in the distinction between a particular community vs. the core philosophy, too.

I left to gain a few hours of sleep and cartoon watching on Sunday mornings.

[McTraveller]

Ok I have to admit I'm curious - shape of the universe?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I'm also curious about how the history of the world is a "lie" from Christianity, other than perhaps just an allegory or something?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The universe is ancient and not human-centric in any way - this doesn't disprove theism, but it does effectively disprove human religions since all such religions are human-centric. Disproval of theism functionally grows from this point in that as you continue to discard elements of describing the reason anything exists, you eventually come to the point where still asserting a "creator god" is just holding onto a cultural bias.

It's Christianity that's the lie, not the history of the world. What history demonstrates is that Christianity is not special in any way - it merely succeeded where countless other cults failed, but because it was similar to those other cults this is clearly happenstance rather than anything about Christianity itself. Someone was liable to succeed eventually.

[Folly]

What history demonstrates is that Christianity is not special in any way - it merely succeeded where countless other cults failed, but because it was similar to those other cults this is clearly happenstance rather than anything about Christianity itself. Someone was liable to succeed eventually.

It was not random luck that accounted for the success of Christianity. The overwhelming majority of today's Christian faithfuls can be traced back to an ancestor who was forced to convert at the point of a sword. Christian numbers surged due to brutally effective recruitment methods.

[Frumple]

I mean, it kinda' is? Lucky to be in the right place at the right time to ride the coat tails of conquest. I don't think there's any religion of note that hasn't spread by the sword at some point or another. Some just happened to be attached to larger empires, more or less.

[Loud Whispers]

The primary function of the human digestive system is to filter out poisons. In small quantities pesticides and herbicides are entirely safe to eat. Anyone who says otherwise is just trying to sell you some crap that they put half as much effort into producing so that they could charge you twice as much.

Not entirely, hell eating spicy food regularly is going to increase risk of colon cancer, strong pesticides sure as hell will do more

[McTraveller]

Yeah I thought the primary function of the digestive system was, you know, digestion?

[Folly]

Yeah I thought the primary function of the digestive system was, you know, digestion?

Digestion is just a fancy word for letting the good stuff through while keeping the bad stuff out.

[Telgin]

So a completely different line of conversation, since I think we exhausted the previous one:

Question for the ex-Christans: did you leave to free yourself from something in Christianity, or did you leave to gain something that Christianity did not have?  Or a combination. As previous comments have shown, I'm interested in the distinction between a particular community vs. the core philosophy, too.

A little of both, depending on which direction you look at it from.  The big one for me was escaping the paralyzing fear that I'd do or say something and be tortured eternally for it.  That also meant gaining some freedoms, such as the belief that I could drink something with alcohol in it without burning in Hell forever, for example.  Most Christian sects understandably think that's ridiculous since Jesus himself made wine, but somehow the fundamentalists around here have decided that drinking is eternal punishment worthy.

[itisnotlogical]

Question for the ex-Christans: did you leave to free yourself from something in Christianity, or did you leave to gain something that Christianity did not have?  Or a combination. As previous comments have shown, I'm interested in the distinction between a particular community vs. the core philosophy, too.

To be honest, not really. It was a pretty lateral move. I only benefited in losing my compulsion to do the Catholic morning prayer. I might not be the best example though since my entire family (and by extension, myself) are/were Christians in name only. They talk big when called upon, but otherwise we all live like godless unmarried heathens.

Most Christian sects understandably think that's ridiculous since Jesus himself made wine, but somehow the fundamentalists around here have decided that drinking is eternal punishment worthy.

Bringing Jesus into your personal grudges, or vice versa, is as old as Christianity itself. God must say "Don't presume to know what I know, just follow the rules and let me handle the judging" I don't know how many dozens of times in the Old Testament alone. Yet in almost every Christian sect, you find people bolting their own ideas about morality on to a system that isn't that complicated.

With alcohol, you can at least make the argument that overconsumption of alcohol lowers your inhibition which can lead to you inadvertently sinning, or that drinking too much booze falls under gluttony. For things like surgery, birth control, genetic modification, etc. that didn't exist at all when the Bible was written? Those fall under how you interpret the words--or, more accurately, how your pastor and/or parents interpret those words and then teach you, hoping that you never actually read the Bible and decide for yourself.

[Frumple]

Drunkards are explicitly called out at some point or another at least once that I'm aware of, for what it's worth. No need to try to shuffle it under gluttony or whatever, it stands on its own about as well as some other things. Don't remember if it was in old or new, though. Some denominations care about that, sorta. Sometimes.

There's also some commentary on some forms of birth control, but the one I see referenced the most has a moral that basically boils down to "don't pull out if you're banging your dead brother's widow". Which is, uh. Fairly specific.

Also there might be some things in there on animal husbandry? Might count for genetic manipulation!

[wierd]

This was because of a cultural obligation in ancient hebrew culture:


If a man dies without a son (to inherit his name, property, and lands), then his brother was to stand in, and perform the needful to supply that heir in his brother's stead.

This was intended to be a one-time kind of thing, for the sole purpose of this utilitarian objective.  In the case of Onan, the guy was abusing this cultural requirement to bang his brother's widow repeatedly, denying her the child (by said pulling out.)  God punished him for the transgression.

Despite what many strange people may claim, it is not about wasting semen on the ground, or a prohibition against non-reproductive sex in general.  It was a prohibition against abusing what was meant to be a solemn familial duty, into a license to fuck somebody other than his wife, while denying the actual intended result (which as the whole reason for the practice in the first place), and likely to try to claim his brother's property and lands once the woman became too old to bear children.

As far as I know, there is precisely zero prohibition against non-reproductive sex, or against masturbation in the bible. The only restriction is that sex is meant to be 1) with people, 2) with the opposite sex and 3) after marriage.   Exactly what kind of kinky crazy assed sex that married couple wants to do is completely unrestricted.


In terms of alcohol consumption, the bible actually ADVOCATES for drinking wine, at least in moderation. See for instance, 1 Timothy 5:23.

[SHAD0Wdump]

For me, I'm not strictly one who has left christianity, but rather the many, many mainstream denominations in favor of removing myself from the drama and terrifying implications of what people have done with it.

 There is one thing however that I have relating to the bible that I cannot resolve in favor of it.

 There are many cases in the old testament of god stating something will happen. When, will, whatever he says that shall be is. But there's also many cases where he says if, in those cases he often is offering a promise, most often to Isreal. I have found that when god uses 'if' then the humans fail and bad things occur.
 So here's the logic to derive with this, we have an omnipresent being presenting warnings, why would he warn about something that wouldn't happen? Sure you might say to prevent it from happening due to fear but... That sure hasn't seemed to work in the bible a whole lot has it?

 Now, go to the end of the bible, near the end of revelation. There is a warning there about changing the text of that book. Why would god say anything about that if it wasn't going to happen? This invariably leads to the conclusion that the bible will have been tampered with and what's being read right now is a product of such.

 Look into it and realise it's true, compare catholic and niv bibles, either one has added entire books or the other has removed some or both. Which do you trust? Probably neither at least to the extent of the complete blind faith people express.
 And there's clear telephoning going on too. Take fornication as a word, niv bibles today say 'sexual immorality', a far more vague term that has clear context implications.

 This has me sceptical of how much and exactly what pertains truthfully to reality with the bible and leads me down the path of conspiracies that honestly just forces me out of my prior belief system. It's like I can't help but vomit it out only to try to stir the puddle I just formed to find out what the hell I consumed.

[scriver]

I'm not sure fornication is any kind of less vague to be honest.