Ex Christians - why did you leave?

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Good try...

I used to look thru Buddhist glasses as well.

Jesus is God.

Ask Him to reveal Himself to you.

Maya will no longer rule your conclusions.
You don't get to dictate what rules my conclusions, try another tactic that isn't intellectually arrogant and condescending. And I don't see any reason to ask any entity to reveal itself to me, because I see no remote evidence to take seriously that they are anything more than people's delusions and fantasies
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Well where did our conscious come from? Perhaps a fish?
Consciousness is emergent and supervenient upon brain states, an abstract experiential phenomenon, but not invalid merely because of that because we have common aspects in regards to an awareness of oneself, of time, of others, etc.

What you likely meant (and didn't proofread even slightly for some reason) was conscience and that, I'd argue, is rooted in brain function as well, experiencing empathy through mirror neurons that allow us to imagine ourselves in that person's shoes (also allowing us as children to gain better understanding over time by experience of those who rear us, including the sense of language). There are societal norms linked to it, the golden rule predating Christianity easily and not remotely any kind of monopoly as some might claim. For us to have a functional society, the idea of something that is applied as principles to guide our actions is a necessary constraint so we can behave in not only a rational, but empathetic fashion to others and thus everyone, ideally, will prosper


Seems this is a dishonestly loaded question, because if I answer anything other than the affirmative, you're going to call me a hypocrite, when I never said it was okay to rape and/or murder a child, let alone an adult person.


As to logic I am admittedly lacking. And I am a walking example of a poisoned human being in need of a saviour.

If you admit you're lacking in logic, you're just shooting yourself in the foot and boil the argument down to mere conviction, which is patently simplistic and indicative of indoctrination as well.

Another question: do you think you are a good person?

I don't use good to describe myself, but my actions, so again, I'm not falling into the loaded question but correcting it by saying that I'm a flawed person, but I can also learn from mistakes to better myself. My actions can be good or bad in terms of a few standards, but if we're talking valuation of human agency, then my actions would tend towards being good, though I don't claim that absolutely

And then you proceed to engage in circular reasoning, quoting the bible to claim that your god is good when that is not a rational way to make such an argument, since the bible would already assume that in its narrative for internal consistency. It doesn't follow that this god is good from an objective or outside perspective because the standard of goodness is not necessarily or even accurately divine command ethics, where god is goodness and thus whatever god commands must be good[/QUOTE]
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
I am not presenting argument the final arbiter is relationship not logic.
So merely feelings over facts? Irony of ironies: mere experience matters more than any evidence that may contradict it, which amounts to solipsism
 
Upvote 0

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
14,667
9,977
78
Auckland
✟376,644.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You don't get to dictate what rules my conclusions, try another tactic that isn't intellectually arrogant and condescending. And I don't see any reason to ask any entity to reveal itself to me, because I see no remote evidence to take seriously that they are anything more than people's delusions and fantasies

Including your own???
 
Upvote 0

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
14,667
9,977
78
Auckland
✟376,644.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So merely feelings over facts? Irony of ironies: mere experience matters more than any evidence that may contradict it, which amounts to solipsism

No I am not talking Human feelings.

I am talking a much deeper level - direct communication with the Human Spirit, not through the senses of the body.
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Including your own???
I didn't claim I was absolutely objective, did I? If you can point out these delusions, feel free, but don't act superior because you can appeal to an absolute authority that demands obedience, that's the kind of attitude that leads to enabling totalitarians for the "good of society"
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
No I am not talking Human feelings.

I am talking a much deeper level - direct communication with the Human Spirit, not through the senses of the body.
Except you'd have to demonstrate such a spirit is a real substance and not merely some abstract concept that's not falsifiable in the slightest and amounts to magical thinking instead of anything realistic about psychology and related phenomena
 
Upvote 0

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
14,667
9,977
78
Auckland
✟376,644.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I didn't claim I was absolutely objective, did I? If you can point out these delusions, feel free, but don't act superior because you can appeal to an absolute authority that demands obedience, that's the kind of attitude that leads to enabling totalitarians for the "good of society"

Unless the absolute authority is Love itself.
 
Upvote 0

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
14,667
9,977
78
Auckland
✟376,644.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Except you'd have to demonstrate such a spirit is a real substance and not merely some abstract concept that's not falsifiable in the slightest and amounts to magical thinking instead of anything realistic about psychology and related phenomena

Fine - read my testimony here...

Jesus's Ministry
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Unless the absolute authority is Love itself.
Except love is not a substantive thing, it's experiential, you're equivocating and making a category error to boot based on a demand for a teleological origin and then conflate it with a quality ascribed to actions based on benefits
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Fine - read my testimony here...

Jesus's Ministry
Anecdotes are insufficient and if you think it'll change anything, you're hopelessly simplifying standards of what is true

And even just skimming over it, this is confirmation bias and question begging. If Jesus is assumed to be true merely because of novelty or supposed fulfillment of prophecies (which is nebulous at best in trustworthiness, given prophecies create a paradox in their fulfillment based on people's interpretations of it, like preterism versus futurism or such in Christian eschatology), then you haven't demonstrated it apart from the book that already assumes from a skewed narrative that Jesus was alluded to in the OT rather than offering evidence that isn't biased towards the conclusion in its premises

Anyone can spin that things will happen that fit their warnings about the world getting worse, given that such a thing isn't an unreasonable conclusion with fallible humanity in the first place: we screw up, bad things happen because of various factors even if we progress to become better by other standards (life expectancy, etc)

You're starting with the idea that I need to take Jesus seriously when I haven't agreed to that, nor do I see reasoning that isn't biased towards the conclusion by faulty assessment of supposed evidence. And taking Jesus seriously doesn't mean I buy into the dualist metaphysics you espouse separately from that and potentially tie back into Jesus' ministry or whatnot, the leaps in logic are astounding and not in a good way
 
Upvote 0

RoseCrystal

Active Member
Supporter
Jun 10, 2018
354
227
Australia
✟294,530.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Saving doubters from doubt sounds like an awfully insecure thing to try and do, @cloudyday2.
The conspiracy of silence. See the most loving, kind, together family, a family of “brilliant apologists,” (who the topic creator won’t discuss apologetics with) clearly aren’t great apologists, right? If your family were the most brilliant people wouldn’t you want to lean on their great qualities and try to follow them. They’re wonderful, but not so wonderful I “buy” what they’re selling. Instead there’s silence.
.

FYI, My family is very close with our parish priest, and the bishop, who both went to University for theology and have done a lot of extra courses on top of that, I have also done countless apologetics adn faith-based classes myself through our church. I study my faith very seriously. And just because I don't come out and say "I'm thinking of leaving Christianity" to these people certainly does not mean that I am not engaging in apologetic conversations with them.
 
Upvote 0

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
14,667
9,977
78
Auckland
✟376,644.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Anecdotes are insufficient and if you think it'll change anything, you're hopelessly simplifying standards of what is true

And even just skimming over it, this is confirmation bias and question begging. If Jesus is assumed to be true merely because of novelty or supposed fulfillment of prophecies (which is nebulous at best in trustworthiness, given prophecies create a paradox in their fulfillment based on people's interpretations of it, like preterism versus futurism or such in Christian eschatology), then you haven't demonstrated it apart from the book that already assumes from a skewed narrative that Jesus was alluded to in the OT rather than offering evidence that isn't biased towards the conclusion in its premises

Anyone can spin that things will happen that fit their warnings about the world getting worse, given that such a thing isn't an unreasonable conclusion with fallible humanity in the first place: we screw up, bad things happen because of various factors even if we progress to become better by other standards (life expectancy, etc)

You're starting with the idea that I need to take Jesus seriously when I haven't agreed to that, nor do I see reasoning that isn't biased towards the conclusion by faulty assessment of supposed evidence. And taking Jesus seriously doesn't mean I buy into the dualist metaphysics you espouse separately from that and potentially tie back into Jesus' ministry or whatnot, the leaps in logic are astounding and not in a good way

Well.. enjoy your day - some have ears to hear, some don't.

By the way I don't believe in the rules of argument, or the tool of the intellect when dealing with spiritual matters.
 
Upvote 0

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟568,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Saving doubters from doubt sounds like an awfully insecure thing to try and do, @cloudyday2. Doubts aren’t usually dangerous but rather they’re healthy, although if there’s anything shameful to do with doubts, it’s sometimes the foundation upon which some doubts are fostered.

For example, a couple of men could hold the same belief about you but ground that belief upon different (unequal) foundations. The belief is that you’re a person of low moral character (just for a thought experiment.)

Mr. Smart believes you’re a person of low moral character because you often cheat him in games of chance, lie about your achievements and slander your other half while in his company.

Mr. Silly believes you’re a person of low moral character because he doesn’t much like the colour of your skin.

The same beliefs, both correct beliefs insofar that yes you’re a cheat, liar and verbally abusive to or about your other half. You’re a person of low moral character and each man has your number. It’s the foundation of Mr. Silly’s belief where the problem appears, his issues to do with race are no doubt a source of harm and upset to him and everyone he shares them with (his family included.) He pulled the trigger on you out of ignorance and pride rather than dare admit to having a misguided foundation upon which his beliefs were built, that’s often unbelief in a nutshell (minus the correct conclusion.)



Or as the old saying goes “Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.” ;) jk jk jk lots of luv honest

There’s loads of content to respond to if you or @RoseCrystal want to exchange on the more exciting parts of this topic, points that might bring about a more enlightening conversation for everyone, rather than going deep into “someone did this” or “you’ll never believe who’s getting fired.” Or worse the conspiracy of silence, which says more than you or I ever could about the openness of the people we are writing to.

The conspiracy of silence. See the most loving, kind, together family, a family of “brilliant apologists,” (who the topic creator won’t discuss apologetics with) clearly aren’t great apologists, right? If your family were the most brilliant people wouldn’t you want to lean on their great qualities and try to follow them. They’re wonderful, but not so wonderful I “buy” what they’re selling. Instead there’s silence.

They’re by the sounds of an earlier message blamed by the TC for being too emotional, due to which the topic creator doesn’t feel confident in having an open conversation with them (lest they worry.)

Again silence. So far as I can read there’s no full disclosure here (because who are we to have access to something so private,) but there’s also no full disclosure or unguarded communication in the real world either (where a loving family do deserve an open and honest opportunity to share life together.)

Of course if none of this applies I’m sure there will be no hard feelings, just thankfulness that their situation is so much better than the one I mistakenly described! If any of the above applies however, it takes courage and honesty to admit to that.
I'm a little puzzled by your post, but if I've offended you somehow then I'm sorry.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Robban
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

hluke

Active Member
Jul 28, 2020
214
158
23
Melbourne
✟22,274.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
because if I answer anything other than the affirmative, you're going to call me a hypocrite
Not true at all. I am not trying to expose you or throw stones at you. It is a legitimate question people answer with difficulty

you're just shooting yourself in the foot
I'm trying not to shoot myself in the foot...
My actions can be good or bad in terms of a few standards
I guess this is not the place to debate so I would simply ask. Do you see morality objectively or subjectively? From an internal source, or an external source?
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Well.. enjoy your day - some have ears to hear, some don't.

By the way I don't believe in the rules of argument, or the tool of the intellect when dealing with spiritual matters.

Yeah, the condescending tone really helps, why not just say you won't throw your pearls before swine to dig the knife in?

Ah, so special pleading and question begging, yet you fully admit you don't care about any consistency as long as you're convinced personally. Just admit you're a solipsist then, other people's opinions might as well not matter in the slightest, especially for spiritual matters. If you happen to throw the goalposts out for spiritual matters, so much the better, because then you don't have any scrutiny whatsoever, which allows you to persist in thinking you're right with no standards except whatever you think apply, yet still allow you to be right
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Not true at all. I am not trying to expose you or throw stones at you. It is a legitimate question people answer with difficulty

Bull, people pretty much always would condemn rape and murder because they're defined that way. And it's not circular, it's a specific qualification about the acts in question that are violating human autonomy and agency, either by taking their life or violating their informed enthusiastic consent to a sex act.

A better question would something like, is consensual sex between two people not married moral? Because then you have differing opinions and standards for what makes that particular act moral or immoral rather than being agreed upon to be wrong by definition, as in the case of rape, which applies as wrong regardless of who it is done to, child or adult


I'm trying not to shoot myself in the foot...
Maybe take a step back and consider with humility whether an argument made, however sincere, could still be flawed instead of already starting with the conclusion you're right

I guess this is not the place to debate so I would simply ask. Do you see morality objectively or subjectively? From an internal source, or an external source?

Somewhat loaded question because you haven't qualified what is meant by your use of objective and subjective, which don't have singular usage in meaning. I would say it's more by an internal source that has external agreement, which is to say it seeks objectivity, it isn't something objective, because then we can't really assess it at all, since morality is not a science. Us starting as subjects in assessing morality does not mean that is the only standard, but we should not merely subject ourselves to an authority and accept that as right, it's slavish and totalitarian to go to the other extreme of dogmatic absolutist morality versus relativist/nihilist morality
 
Upvote 0

hluke

Active Member
Jul 28, 2020
214
158
23
Melbourne
✟22,274.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Bull, people pretty much always would condemn rape and murder because they're defined that way. And it's not circular, it's a specific qualification about the acts in question that are violating human autonomy and agency, either by taking their life or violating their informed enthusiastic consent to a sex act.

A better question would something like, is consensual sex between two people not married moral? Because then you have differing opinions and standards for what makes that particular act moral or immoral rather than being agreed upon to be wrong by definition, as in the case of rape, which applies as wrong regardless of who it is done to, child or adult



Maybe take a step back and consider with humility whether an argument made, however sincere, could still be flawed instead of already starting with the conclusion you're right



Somewhat loaded question because you haven't qualified what is meant by your use of objective and subjective, which don't have singular usage in meaning. I would say it's more by an internal source that has external agreement, which is to say it seeks objectivity, it isn't something objective, because then we can't really assess it at all, since morality is not a science. Us starting as subjects in assessing morality does not mean that is the only standard, but we should not merely subject ourselves to an authority and accept that as right, it's slavish and totalitarian to go to the other extreme of dogmatic absolutist morality versus relativist/nihilist morality
Okay. I hope you can find some peace today/tonight. Have a good one!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
14,667
9,977
78
Auckland
✟376,644.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Just admit you're a solipsist then

[Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind]

I certainly do not hold that position.

I have stressed that real knowing is a function of the spirit of man not the mind of man.
 
Upvote 0