Warning

 

Close
Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Cancel Confirm
AR15.COM
Previous Page
/ 2
Next Page
4/24/2007 7:04:07 PM EDT
Hi all,

This year I'm celebrating my first full year of freedom from religion.  I wrote up my deconversion experience a while back and I'd like to post it here for your perusal.

I'm not trolling and I want to do this with the utmost respect for my Christian/Hindu/Bhuddist/Sihk/etc friends, but I just think that we could use perhaps one more perspective on this topic.  There are 6 parts to this - I will post the first part and if you all are intersted I will post it serially.  It is quite long, but I think that such a large decision rates it.

Anyway, here it is:


Awakening - Part 1

I am going to ask you to read a passage from the Bible.  Many of you will find it to be immediately recognizable – a comfortable piece of the Universe that defines your existence.  You would usually just read over it without a thought other than perhaps a reflection on the awesome plan of God for his beloved people; perhaps a quick warm memory of a flannel board from Sunday school.  But I’m going to ask you to do something slightly different.

I want you to read this verse with the assumed knowledge that this is a true event that actually occurred in history.  Pretend if you will, that this is an account of a real man – with hopes, dreams, and fears – just like you.  Those of you who hail from more literalist interpretations of scripture already feel this to be true, but what I am trying to accomplish is for you to not distance yourself from this story.  Place your neighbor in it, place your best friend in it – place yourself in it.  For if the Bible is to be believed, this is a historically accurate account of an event that is the seminal moment for three of the worlds great religions.  Without this real moment in time neither Christianity, nor Islam, nor Judaism would exist.  And most importantly, in this real moment we have a picture of what Christianity defines as perfect faith.

Genesis 22 (RSV)

After these things God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." 2He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you." 3So Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him, and his son Isaac; he cut the wood for the burnt offering, and set out and went to the place in the distance that God had shown him. 4On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place far away. 5Then Abraham said to his young men, "Stay here with the donkey; the boy and I will go over there; we will worship, and then we will come back to you." 6Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. So the two of them walked on together. . . . .   9 When they came to the place that God had shown him, Abraham built an altar there and laid the wood in order. He bound his son Isaac, and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to killa his son. 11But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven, and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." 12He said, "Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me."


A man is asked by an invisible voice to take his only son, the miraculous offspring of he and his aged wife, to bind and kill him with a knife, and then to burn the body as an act of worship.  Place yourself in the story . . . do you have children?  Loved ones?  What would you do?  Would you have faith enough to carry through?  Abraham did, and for this God rewards him.

I sat back in my chair, skin crawling, with the image of my unborn son in my mind as an object of sacrifice, bound and lying on a pile of wood thinking that his father was about to plunge a knife into his body.  What monster would even consider such an act?  Even more, what monster would demand it?

Mind reeling in shock, I, for the first time in my life, had actually read the Bible without preconceived thoughts.  For the first time, I had applied rationality and my innate moral sense to an object of previous blind faith.  I had read this story, like so many Christians, literally dozens of times but never once had the reality of the situation penetrated my consciousness and revealed the true horrifying amorality and bronze age barbarity of this moment in time.  How had I missed this all of this time?  How had I justified it?

I immediately knew that one of two things was true: either this was not truly a historical moment or that this story was a true account of a past event.  If the story never occurred and the simple, declarative historical narrative of the Bible was not based in reality, then the Bible could not be an object of faith.  If the story was true . . . well, if it was true then God was completely and ultimately evil.  There were (and are) no other options that can rescue this situation.  All of the Christian apologetics on this issue that I had read and absorbed simply missed the point – any being that demands such an act as a demonstration of faith can simply not be good.  Any man that would submit to such an authority can not be moral.  In fact, the opposite is true – our innate sense of morality rises in revulsion of such an idea.  What would you think of any man who would willingly kill his child for an idea?  

So what of my faith?

My faith demanded that I believe that this was not only a true historical event, but that it was initiated by God himself.  

My faith demanded that I not only believe that this was initiated by God himself, but to declare it morally correct.

My faith demanded that I not only declare it morally correct, but that this should be an example of a moment of perfect faith.

A couple of verses from the 2nd chapter of James rang through my mind in that moment:
“21 Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?  22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness, and he was called God's friend.”

He was called God’s friend?  Credited to him as righteousness?  What in the hell was going on here?
At that moment my innate moral sense came into direct conflict with the presumptive authority of the received moral laws that I had learned at the knee of faith.  In that split second of intellectual clarity I had to choose – my faith or my moral integrity.  I stood at the fork in the road; one way led to the promised friendship of God and the gift of righteousness through blind faith, the other led to the road that is truly less traveled.  

I arrived at this point, this nadir, after a series of events that I would like to offer to you, my gentle reader, as a sacrifice of my own.  A sacrifice, in part as a catharsis, but also as an opportunity for you to re-examine any received faith that you hold - to see it through open and honest eyes.  Perhaps you will find your beliefs reflect the truth and reality that you perceive . . .  or perhaps you will find the world of faith to be dark and inhumane as I did on one warm fall day.

End Awakening 1

Shall I post more?
4/24/2007 7:51:35 PM EDT
[#1]
Welcome to the few who have read this passage with reflection. But the meaning is far far more significant than you - or countless atheists before you - even suspect. The point of that sacrifice - or willingness to make the sacrifice is that Adam chose not to make a similar sacrifice (in his case, his very life) for his beloved and so we all lost paradise.

The cure for that fall runs through the heart of every father - Abraham was the first big one, but others have followed suit leading to Jesus' own sacrifice.

Rather than resist the dragon for his wife's sake, he was silent and let her be corrupted. Then instead of being faithful himself, he chose to join her sin and thus sealed the fate of all his children to disaster.

Old men and dads in general would rather die - be killed themselves than suffer the loss of their only son so in a sense, asking Abraham for his own life would not have been a really big sign of his total commitment. But asking him to offer up in holocaust the one thing he valued above his own life was the only way to prove to himself and every one else that he was totally committed to Yahweh.

Moses too was tested with being made a new Abraham at the price of losing the people he led out of Egypt. But he did not desire offspring, he desired to liberate the people, so he too passed the test.

But all of us will be faced with a similar test - to offer up what Isaacs we hold more dear to our hearts than God's will. Adam doubted that God could resurrect him from the dead, Abraham knew that if God could give him a son in his old age, he could also raise Isaac from the grave - since this boy was the son of promise, the one through whom the future race would come to number the stars of the sky. He believed that God could raise Isaac to new life - so much so, that he was willing to offer him up in worship.

Naturally the devil apes God and so there have always been dads and moms eager to offer their offspring to demons - the ancient Greeks did so, as did the pagan peoples who worshipped Moloch and now we Americans and Europeans do so in abortion - worshipping the gods eros and convenience more than our offspring. But these abominations are done for selfish reasons, not self-less ones as Abraham was called to do - he was disposed to obey without understanding the full meaning of that obedience, as when Peter stepped out of the boat on the moving water to "come to Jesus".

Is our Isaac freedom? Sex? Possessions? Pride? guns?

To use a Star Trek example; for the entire season and several of the movies, the ship, the Enterprise was part and parcel of the whole sheebang, it's survival (and that of its crew) was always in peril and always saved by the intrepid Kirk. But when it was a matter of saving a friend or losing the ship, Kirk was unhesitatingly in favor of letting the Enterprise self-destruct if it would contribute to his saving his friend.

Abraham's chief love and friendship was with God, not the gifts of long life, power, possessions and even offspring that friendship brought to him. Because he was willing to give EVERYTHING up, not only did he NOT lose his son, he didn't lose all the rest of it.

Ditto with Kirk - he lost one ship, but gained a friend and got another ship back that was even better.

Yes I have sons. And yes I find it easier to imagine dying that they might live than raising my hand in violence against them. But Abraham did not kill his son, and Moses did not allow the people to perish, and a Lamb was found to take the place of Isaac...

the message was this: Adam failed to offer up the sacrifice required to defeat the serpent at the beginning so we have all been presented the choice of holocaust of our dearest held possession in exchange for fidelity to God's will. The devil claims this is loss, but the paradox of the cross constantly leads us to marvel that what was lost is replaced 100 fold.

I highly doubt you have studied irreligion or religion as much as I have, but all men eventually come to an Abraham moment of truth. You perhaps are stuck on square one of thinking God is totally arbitrary and cruel and not seeing the bigger significance of human life and our reality in this valley of tears.

Irreligion will not spare you or your son from the cruelty that the flesh, the devil and the world can deliever. It's not going to spare you hardship, pain, and ultimately death. Those who let go of God for anything else eventually lose God and what they prefer to God, whereas those who choose God, gain him and everything else. Only in this way can we enter a place that does not admit mercenaries, but only "friends".

Why would God allow Adam to be faced with a wise serpent "the wisest of all the creatures in the garden" - it's "unfair" and yet it happened. Adam first failed to do battle to protect his wife, and then failed to keep the faith with God. He chose surrender of supernatural life to protect his physical life and ended up losing even that.

Thus it is and will always be for the good - always unpopular, hard, and "uncool" yet still the right thing to do. It's always considered to be a waste to be good and yet in the long run, it's the only good investment. Worshipping God from the beginning always involved a sacrifice of the BEST we had to give (like the spotless lamb, the one that otherwise would have been the perfect stud to raise up perfect herds).

It's not for a lack of Love for Isaac that Abraham was prepared to offer him up in sacrifice to God, but precisely for that love. And it's not for lack of Love for God's Son that Jesus came into this world for the hour that would lead him to be "raised up"; in both cases, the son was offered up for love in the belief that death is not the end and that he who gives life will give it again.

But none of us who follow him are offering up kids on altars. That sacrifice has been made in the Son of God. Our sacrifices such as they are are only analogous to His. So tell me about God's cruelty again? It doesn't make much sense in 2007 to be discussing what happened in 2700 BC as though we're all supposed to do exactly the same thing.



4/24/2007 9:07:10 PM EDT
[#2]
Going on with God being evil, you forgot to mention that He created satan, knowing full well he would fall into sin.

You forgot that He gave Adam and Eve a choice in the garden- an opportunity to sin and thus condemn humanity to the lake of fire for eternity.

You forgot that God, creating everything in this physical dimension, did not nix the rule of death from His reality that He created.  Nor pain, suffering, hunger, thirst, disease, famine, pestilence, wars, bloodshed, murders, strife, ect....

I have gone much deeper than the story of Abraham and Isaac.

In doing so, I found it to be a picture of the future- God was going to give His Son on the cross for His enemy- mankind.

Abraham's faith was so fully in God, that he believed God would raise Isaac from the dead when he killed him.  It is only by faith that we are justified.  Justification brings about a declaration of righteousness, which brings eternal life.

I found it.  I have it.  It is for everyone.  You only have one shot to get it.  Once you get it, it will never let you go- you have it regardless of what you do, say, or believe.

I know this doesnt jive with the "evil" character of God.....

Dont get me wrong......please do post more.
4/25/2007 5:30:03 AM EDT
[#3]
Keep in mind that Abraham was not acting in blind faith.

He had walked with God for many years.  He had learned that God was trustworthy.  He knew the sound of His voice.

God had promised to make Abraham the father of many nations.  Yet here he was, being asked to sacrifice his only son with his wife Sarah.  How could this be?  Wouldn't his line be cut off?

The how was God's problem.  Abraham heard and believed.

Notice also, that the same God who put him to this test also sent an angel to prevent him from following through with it.

Do you recall what Abraham said in reply to Isaac's question about not having a sheep for the sacrifice?  He said, "God will provide Himself a sacrifice."

After Abraham's hand was stayed from killing Isaac (Keep in mind, Isaac was demonstrating faith too.  Abraham was over 100 years old and Isaac was a strong young man who could have overpowered his father if he wished.), they found a ram caught in a thicket by its horns.

A ram is an adult male sheep.

Horns are symbolic of power.

Here we see wonderful symbolism of the Lamb of God who set aside His heavenly power to be the sacrifice for us all.

There is more to the story than meets the eye.

Would I offer one of my children as Abraham did?  Thankfully I've never had to make the choice.
4/25/2007 9:06:16 AM EDT
[#4]
Great responses  . . . but honestly this particular point of scripture was not what deconverted me - it was the straw that broke the camels back.  I understand your objections, but I guess you'll need to read the rest to understand.  

Since some of you seem to be reading this, I'll post the next section:



Awakening Part 2

. . . I lay weeping in the hot sun on a filthy New York barrio street, my face buried in my hands.  The message of the play that we had just performed for a group of street children had finally burrowed its way into and struck home in my 14 year old heart – God, the King of the Universe, without sin or guilt, had come to Earth to die for me.  He would have come if it were only me, suffered unimaginable torture and rejection, and gladly met His fate; His love for me was so great.  I would have happily, with my head held high, died for Him or His message – any deprivation, pain, or act of sacrifice on my part could never even to begin to repay the debt that I owed Him or His cause.  It was so real to me – His love and His sacrifice were so present to me in that moment that I could practically feel His great hands comforting me.  While the rest of the drama troupe packed up to head back to the New York School of Urban Ministry, I just sat and quietly talked to Him, telling Him of my love.

I had known this when I accepted Christ at 13 while reading C.S. Lewis’s classic Perelandra,  but the reality of it fell out of the sky like an anvil that day.  

I arrived in the world in the year of 1970, the product of the improbable union of two unlikely parents – a 17 year old enforcer for the Pagan motorcycle gang and a 15 year old runaway.  Although my parents loved me as best they could, their marriage dissolved rapidly and violently culminated in a particularly messy divorce in about 1975.  My mother, who became a Christian, retained my custody and remarried a few years later into a relationship that was in some ways a repeat of her marriage with my father.  My stepfather was a good man in his own way, but their marriage was marred by spectacular violence and upheaval that eventually led to its dissolution in about 1983 – when I was 13.

I was a quiet, and dare I say intelligent, child whose greatest love was reading.  During summer recess, I would often be waiting in the morning at the library for the doors to open and, much to the annoyance of the librarian, have to be bodily thrown out at closing time.  The library was my escape from a world gone completely mad – my doorway onto an island of peace and rationality in a sea of insanity.  In some ways due to my perceptive mind and in other ways due to the instability of my early life, I had a difficult time making friends and maintaining relationships with children my age.  I felt that I spent most of my childhood alone, wrapped in a world of imagination and thought.

At 13, during the most difficult time of my mother and stepfather’s divorce, I was introduced to a man who was to become both a mentor and a second father to me – the youth pastor of the church that my mother had began to attend.  He introduced me to a group of youth and young adults that was to form the nucleus of almost every meaningful relationship that I had up until I left for college.

These people were Christians – believers in the power of the death and resurrection of Christ.  As an Assemblies of God church, but relatively non-denominational, we were a small ripple that grew into the evangelical tidal wave that is now so socially dominant in the United States.  Socially conservative, openly charismatic, and both socially and theologically evangelical they pulled me into their group when I was in the midst of one of the most difficult times of my young life.  Hungry for human contact and desperately needing any kind of acceptance, I quickly found myself accepting their beliefs.

Accepting Christ made me part of a diverse group of youth bound together by a common set of beliefs that we learned were accepted and vindicated through faith.  Looking back, I can still see the unconditional acceptance of the others within that group – kindness and love that I am still grateful for even in light of the disillusionments to come.  On my own as a child, I had come to believe in a very naturalistic universe, without a god of any sort, ruled by the blind chance of evolution.  The system that these people professed required that I reject that and instead accept a mostly literal and inerrant view of the Christian scriptures.  I happily shrugged off my beliefs – I had found a place to belong and I would have moved heaven and earth to maintain my place there.

I’m not sure if any of you, my gentle readers, have or are possibly still enmeshed in a system of unconditional faith.  If not let me attempt to describe it to you, to let you live for a moment in my young adult shoes.  We truly believed.   We were joined together in a belief that was so strong and real that we actually sat and planned together our Heavenly mansions that we would win after the drudgery of this life was over, casting our crowns of glory at His feet.  We would always say at parting “See you there - or in the air” – a reference to the imminent Rapture of the Saints that we expected literally at any moment.  As a band of brothers and sisters following the ways of our Lord, we were led by our earthly leader who we respected above all men.  Doubts would always gnaw around the edges of my faith, but by immersing myself in Christian culture and reading I found a safe haven from the “world” that I was taught to despise and distrust.  

What I learned was faith.  "Faith is the evidence of things hoped for, the substance of things not seen" according to the author of Hebrews.  It was only through faith that God could be known, that his goodness could be expressed, that his salvation could save you.  It was by setting your eyes upon Jesus and turning away from the world that truth could be found.   To believe in his salvation in the face of the absence of any empirical evidence was not only the norm, but it was considered to be the highest virtue.  

What I am painting a picture of in these words is the almost absolute belief that I held in my faith.  I totally and absolutely had accepted and integrated the Christian worldview as my own.  The reality of sin, the atoning work of Christ, His indwelling presence, and His imminent revelation were as real to me as the sun and air.  As an older teen I partied a bit and experimented with drugs (much to my guilt), but my base belief system was not effected.  These beliefs bent my worldview in ways that I am only now discovering.  The ideas that all men are innately and unrecoverably evil, that Jesus came to die to save those who would accept his message, that there was a definite end that was soon to come, that God was a loving yet stern judge who would condemn the wicked to eternal torment were an integral part of my worldview.  It shaped my every thought, my view of politics, my view of history, and most of all my view of myself.  

How do you convince people to believe with this kind of faith?  Let me propose a method.  Take children, as young as humanly possible, and convince them using emotionally driven, simplistic arguments that the earth is flat.   This should be simple – children and youth are idealistic creatures and easily led through emotion, especially those who are already physically or spiritually hungry.  Introduce them to and have them memorize the writings of men that believed in the blessed flatness of the earth thousands of years ago, telling them authoritatively that the words of these documents are directly inspired by the hand of God and without error.  If a contradiction, an error of fact, is found then certainly the translation or the context is in error for the true text is inerrant.  Surround them with a cadre of well meaning and loving people who have the same beliefs.  Let them go on “mission’s trips” where they publicly pronounce their belief in the flat earth and the godlessness of the present Copernican system and attempt to convert others to their worldview.  As they grow a bit older, teach complex apologetics that support their beliefs and present them with simplistic arguments for use against any opposing system.  Tell them that to be good and moral the truth of the flat earth must be held absolutely.  Take it all a step farther and tell them that to deviate from this belief is to court eternal damnation in a real and literal hell that was constructed originally for the arch-Copernicans, but because of the false belief in a round earth has become the final resting place for the majority of mankind.  When you are done, have an outsider try to convince them of the error of their beliefs.  No fact, no evidence, no NASA photographs will dissuade them from their belief – they have been safely inoculated against the hellishly deceptive round earth.  Replace the flat earth with belief in Allah and you have just reinvented the madrasah – replace it with Jesus and you will find a perfect picture of the state of religious education within the Western evangelical church.

“Let me ask you a question” I said to a friend of mine.  We sat in his living room in downtown Richmond, bare feet on well-worn hardwood floors.  

“If you saw a man with a gun walking into a building to shoot a child, what would you do?”

“I would try to stop him” my friend replied.

“How?  If you had a gun would you shoot him?” I asked.
“Of course . . . who wouldn’t” he answered rhetorically.

“How is an abortionist’s execution of unborn children any different from murdering newborn children with a gun?  Why shouldn’t we try to stop them . . . just because something is illegal doesn’t mean that it’s wrong Johnny.  Why don’t we do something?”

Johnny just looked at me.  After a minutes thought he said “If you ever want to do something - really do something, give me a call”

Thankfully, we never did anything.

I remember another specific time that I found a short article in the newspaper that sent me scrambling for my Bible – Turkey was planning a series of dams on the Euphrates – a river that was mentioned in Revelations 16:22.  I remembered from reading Hal Lindsay’s The Late, Great Planet Earth that the hordes of the Antichrist were supposed to come across land from the East and I saw this dam as the mechanism that would allow the “Kings of the East” to cross on dry land when the Sixth Angel poured out his Vial of judgment upon the Earth during the Tribulation.  I remember trembling with excitement – I had found one more proof of the veracity of the eschatology that so shaped my youth.   Hands sweating, I read the passage from the pulpit of my church and exulted with my fellow believers in the coming of the end.   Every news clipping, every story of turmoil and pain was one more sign of the apocalypse that we so fervently hoped for.  Our faith demanded it.

Finding God’s purpose for my life was an obsession.  There was a constant undercurrent of internal pressure to discover precisely what we were created to accomplish – our great work to press forward the mission of the Kingdom of God.  The idea of a “normal life” was not included in this – our models were the Apostle Paul, Russian Bible smugglers, and of course the characters of C.S. Lewis.   We were looking for an adventure that would connect us back to the great events of the Bible; we wanted to win the world for Christ.  Our youth leader studied the bible with us and purchased books for us to read that would increase our faith – garbage in/garbage out was our motto, so we tried to avoid “worldly” knowledge and filled ourselves with the knowledge of Christ and His teachings.

I remember one book that we read especially clearly.  Like a Mighty Wind by Mel Tari chronicled the miraculous events that were taking place in the revivals of Indonesia – the dead were being raised, the sick were being healed, the lame were leaping with joy.  We so desperately wanted to experience a “revival” of God’s power.  As Evangelicals and Pentecostals, we fervently believed in miracles and the miraculous.  After all, didn’t God create the entire Universe in six literal days by His word alone?  If He could do that, anything was possible.

I especially wanted to see the miraculous, but for a different reason than most.  Unfortunately for my developing spiritual life, I was cursed with a relentlessly empirical mind.  My greatest (and guiltiest) earthy love was science – I had chemistry sets, microscopes, telescopes, and electronic parts always scattered about my lab bench at home.  I was always fascinated by the Universe around me, especially by astronomy.  Many cold winter nights were spent lying on my back in the yard, looking at the stars through an old pair of binoculars or my little refractor.  The sheer magnificence of the Orion Nebula or the awesome wonder of the Andromeda galaxy would captivate me for hours; I loved to read astronomy books to learn more about what I saw in the sky.  Unfortunately, most of what I read there directly contradicted my religious worldview so I desperately wanted some empirical evidence for my beliefs.  I felt the Lord’s indwelling power, but my weak human nature demanded physical proof of my Creators existence. I wanted to see the lame walk, the blind to see – the dead to rise – to prove that my beliefs were correct and that science was misguided by turning its eyes away from its maker.   I was taught that “blessed are those who do not see, yet believe”, but I always secretly wanted to see.  I wanted a miracle – but never received one.  I had rejected evolution as part of my faith, so instead I turned to Young Earth Creationist authors, especially Henry Morris and AE Wilder-Smith.  No one in public school or outside of it ever attempted to challenge my understanding of the Universe in a meaningful way, so I moved forward comfortable in my beliefs.  The fact that the vast majority of scientists whose works I read disagreed with me on almost every point was a source of irritation but not challenge.  I willingly closed my eyes – in the name of faith.

Carl Sagan especially frustrated me – his beautiful prose and amazing knowledge of the inner workings of the Universe were squandered in a vain attempt to construct a Universe without a Creator.  I had, in some ways, almost worshipped him before my acceptance of Christ which made it an even bitterer pill to swallow when I felt that I had to disagree with him on theological grounds.  I specifically remember praying for him often, that God would show him the error of his ways and save him.  When he died in 1996 I spent an hour praying for his soul, that God would have mercy on him.  I was convinced that Sagan was being tortured for his unbelief in a literal hell of fire and brimstone – a place so horrible that it could not even be described in the English language.  These torments would continue for eternity – if only he had turned to Christ in his life!  Unfortunately, his vain human arrogance had silenced the call of God in his heart.  He was condemned to an eternity of hideous, vile, and unspeakable anguish because of the unregenerated state of his soul at death.  Through faith, I was a believer in the original sin of man and the efficacious work of Christ – to die without it was to be doomed.  I remember that I was particularly bothered by this at Sagan’s death; the punishment didn’t seem to fit the crime in my mind.

When I graduated from high school in 1988, I still didn’t have a firm grasp on what I felt God’s call was for my life.  I never had any visions or dreams like some of my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ to lead them, so I decided to study Chemistry in college.  In some ways, I think that I chose this subconsciously as a “safe” science that would not bring me into conflict with my faith.  So, I spent a year each at the Virginia Military Institute and the Virginia Commonwealth University working on my BS in chemistry.  But all along, I just didn’t feel in my heart that this was God’s call for my life.  Chemistry was far too pedestrian and unimportant in the larger scheme of the Universe for a “real” Christian – who cares about Markonikov’s Rule when there are billions of souls at stake?  I decided, with regret, to quit science and go into the ministry.

. . . and it was in Bible school that my faith was first ever truly challenged, in a way that almost inevitably led to a certain warm fall afternoon that was related in the beginning of this narrative.

End Awakening 2




Shall I keep posting?
4/25/2007 11:24:21 AM EDT
[#5]
Believe whatever you want. I understand where you are comming from, just know that you are looking at (in a lot of your cases) Jewish stories, in Jewish books...yet you are seeing it through Christian eyes.

You also dont have all of the story.

For example...In the Abraham and Isaac story, There is much more to the story but did you know...to the Jews, and their thinking on this Jewish story in a Jewish book, Isaac was 37 years old. This passage is also called "The Binding of Isaac" and was Isaac's test, not Abrahams. (In the Hebrew Parsha...division of the text, the person it is named after is very important) It was Isaac's test of submission, not Abraham's test.

Just pointing out you are making a lot of life choices with out all the information that is out there. I never understood that about Christianity. They claim to have the only truth, end of story and it is the most important thing you will ever do and dictates what happens to you forever. That is a pretty powerful claim. Many people accept that without even checking it all out. Doesnt make sense to me....but then again, I guess it doesnt have too because I am not responsible for the choices others make and why they make them...although I do have to deal with it quite often (as so many do)
4/25/2007 11:42:53 AM EDT
[#6]

Quoted:

I’m not sure if any of you, my gentle readers, have or are possibly still enmeshed in a system of unconditional faith...    Doubts would always gnaw around the edges of my faith, but by immersing myself in Christian culture and reading I found a safe haven from the “world” that I was taught to despise and distrust.  

What I learned was faith.  "Faith is the evidence of things hoped for, the substance of things not seen" according to the author of Hebrews.  It was only through faith that God could be known, that his goodness could be expressed, that his salvation could save you.  It was by setting your eyes upon Jesus and turning away from the world that truth could be found.   To believe in his salvation in the face of the absence of any empirical evidence was not only the norm, but it was considered to be the highest virtue.  



Yes, it does require faith.

Too many people exercise blind faith.  I can't.

My heart and my head were made to work together, not be in conflict.

My faith and my reason must function in harmony.  (By the way, a very excellent book addressing these principles is Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey.)

I was a Christian for about 6 months when I had a crisis of faith.  I had tons of enthusiasm, but little true knowledge.  When my beliefs were challenged my only response was, "In my heart I know it's right."

It sounded pretty hollow to my ears.  

I realized that it was OK for my subjective experience, but it wasn't very convincing to others.

I decided to research the historicity of the Christian faith.  I was fully prepared to abandon it if it was less than true.  Life is too short and too serious to spend it chasing fairy tales and myths.

I looked at the cases presented by skeptics and those presented by Christian apologists.  I read Lewis and Schaefer (anybody who claims Christianity is for non-thinkers hasn't read their works.  My next project is to get my hands on some Plantinga, but that's for another thread).

If by "unconditional faith" you mean blind faith, any leader who would require that is a pinhead.

God is not afraid of the tough questions.  He never says, "Shut up and believe."  Rather, in the book of Isaiah He says, "Come now, let us reason together."

If you honestly, sincerely seek Truth, He will show it to you.


ETA: And yes, keep writing.
4/25/2007 11:49:30 AM EDT
[#7]
Just curious, what did you write this for? What made you write it in the first place?

With apologies, _disconnector_, I do not see humility in your writing - you may have believed, but you always (seemed, in your writing,) to be expecting more. You wanted to be shown the "man behind the curtain" but we rarely get to meet Him before we die.

I have felt the unseen hand of God in my life on a regular basis. Perhaps you haven't, or have rationalized it away as coincidence...

This post is not intended to detract one bit from your life experiences, or the writing of those experiences. Just a few things I noted in your writings.

Maybe I need to write my "conversion experience" down sometime.

PS- Search and replace "earthy" for "earthly"
4/25/2007 12:28:12 PM EDT
[#8]

Quoted:
Just curious, what did you write this for? What made you write it in the first place?

With apologies, _disconnector_, I do not see humility in your writing - you may have believed, but you always (seemed, in your writing,) to be expecting more. You wanted to be shown the "man behind the curtain" but we rarely get to meet Him before we die.

PS- Search and replace "earthy" for "earthly"


As to your first question, I originally wrote this for Dr. Richard Dawkins (of the blind Watchmaker fame).  We met through the internet and he encouraged me to write out my experience for inclusion on his website.  They are still getting it together, so the section with columns is still under development.  The site is at www.richarddawkins.com.  I kind of pulled away from those guys a bit because of their militance . . I'm not militant for anything except for freedom anymore.

Secondly, I didn't write this with an eye towards humility.  It was written as a truthful statement of my feelings and beliefs.  I spent too much of my life in a state of "religious" humility and I am glad to be free from it.  

Thirdly, no problem . . .correction made

I'll post more in my next post

_Disconnector_
4/25/2007 12:37:49 PM EDT
[#9]
Awakening Part 3

I entered Bible school as a committed, idealist, and dare I say naïve, young man.   I enrolled in the schedule of courses that would lead me into a BS in Bible with a concentration in Youth – I wanted to be a youth minister just like the heroic youth pastor of my teen years.  I renounced dating for the first semester and completely focused my energies on studying scripture and prayer.  Everything was exactly as I had foreseen; God had foreordained my life and I was eager to fulfill my role as His agent of forgiveness and love.

Valley Forge Christian College was built on the grounds of the old Valley Forge Army Hospital in Phoenixville, Pennsylvania. The last time that I drove through the campus in 2004 I literally could barely recognize it with all of the brand new buildings and Frank Lloyd Wright inspired architecture, but in 1990 when I began to attend the college it was a dilapidated trash heap.  We literally had rooms where the floors were nearly falling into the basement, the heat was often off during the cold Pennsylvania nights, and the food in the cafeteria was beyond horrific.  I remember a specific example where I kept a piece of liver from dinner one night on my dorm desk for nearly a year – it never attracted flora or fauna; even bacteria were too discriminating to attempt to colonize it. My wife’s parents, upon first seeing the facility, begged her to come back home with them.  But I didn’t care, because I was preordained by the will of God to be there, to receive training, and go out to preach the good news to a dying world.

I met the woman that was to become my wife on the first day while in line for class registration.  We ended up sitting a couple of seats from one another in chapel, where I spent most of my first year in that room attempting to stare at her out of the corner of my eye.  We began to date in the second semester of my freshman year and were wed in the summer of 1992.  

I was attending the school with the intention to become a youth minister, so I jumped at the opportunity when a local pastor invited me to join his church as youth pastor.  Finally, I was a pastor with a flock of my own!  I also preached from the pulpit and helped the senior pastor to manage the small church.  It should have been an ideal situation – I was in school for youth ministry and I had the ideal laboratory to test all of the ideas that I had begun to formulate after my experiences as a young adult and my time in Valley Forge.

Unfortunately, I soon found myself in philosophical and social conflict with the senior pastor and the church board.   I was bringing in large numbers of inner-city kids to the church and I could see that the regular rank and file of the church felt threatened by the increasing urbanization of their youth program, especially those with children that were already in the youth group.  I also found myself becoming less interested in pastoral work and more interested in teaching and theology.  My wife and I tried desperately to save the ministry that we had founded; but I resigned after about a year and a half of service.   I knew after the dissolution of that ministry that youth ministry was not God’s plan for my life, though I stayed in school working on my degree.  I knew that God had something else up his celestial sleeve; all I had to do was to wait for it and to continue studying.

My favorite instructor in college was Dr. Bruce Marino, a professor of Biblical and Theological studies that taught almost all of my theology courses.  Dr. Marino was a unique character at Valley Forge; he actually encouraged intelligent discussion and would tolerate dissention from the party line of the Assemblies of God.  He would tell us tales of his libertine college years; LSD and comparative religions seemed to have been a heady mix for him.  He was approachable, erudite, and intelligent – one of the first Christian men that I had ever met that I felt actually used their mind to perceive the world.  It was in one of these theology courses that an event occurred that was to shape my future in ways that I could not foresee.

Dr. Marino was one of the few professors at Valley Forge that appreciated academic rigor and he would assign us a thesis project for each class.  Sometimes the topic was assigned directly, other times he would allow us to choose a topic of our choice within a range of study.  For my Theology II class I chose to defend the Young Earth literal view of Creationism from a scientific viewpoint.  I thought it would be a simple trouncing of the idiotic concept of the “Big Bang” – surely all of the concepts that I had read as a youth from men such as Henry Morris would allow me to make logical mincemeat out of something as silly and “unscientific” as a universe created from nothing.  What I found instead would rock my world to its core.

In writing this thesis, I decided that I would start with three basic assumptions.  First, that with the correct interpretation, Scripture is the revelation of God to man. Secondly, that with the correct interpretation, data reveals God’s actions in creation.  Lastly, God does not “trick” us (miracles excluded).  These assumptions were, and still are, rationally and theologically foundational to any study of science from a theist perspective.  With these three basic assumptions in hand I, for the first time, really began to lay out the evidences for what I believed to be true and to rationally compare them to modern science.  

. . . and deep in the dimly lit library, I knew that the numbers simply did not work.  I prayed, I sweated, I doodled copious notes, but no matter how I thought about it, no matter which angle I approached it, there was no escape from the conclusion that faced me – I was wrong and Carl Sagan was right.  

As I studied the data that was available, in light of my basic assumptions, I almost immediately ran into a simple, unassailable problem with the Young Earth – the visible event horizon.  I had considered this problem before, but never with the assumptions that I had logically chosen.  If light travels at a finite speed, then objects appear as they did in the past due to the transit time of light.  We can see objects that are empirically and scientifically provably billions of light years away which inescapably means that they are at least that old.  This left me with only three possible scenarios – God created the light in transit (which violated my third assumption), the speed of light is not constant (which would invalidate almost all astrophysical data and partially invalidate assumption two and three), or the Universe was billions of years old.  All of the data pointed to an old, inflationary Universe that began with a high energy event – all of the Young Earth data was obviously created presupposing the literal account of Genesis.  No greater violation of the scientific method or simple rationality was imaginable and in my mind the theory fell to dust.  Carl had been right all along and I wrote my thesis in light of that new view.  I still have the document and I treasure it as a monument to my reascendant rationality.

I can still remember both the shame and exultation of my discovery.  I felt a deep shame in that I had believed such errant nonsense so such a long period of my life, but I can remember the feeling of power that came from my first attempt to understand the world through reason since my conversion.  I felt that a door that had closed in 1983 was reopened a crack – I could see the sunlight streaming in.

My view was not a popular one at Valley Forge.  After I graduated, I spent a short period of time as a professor teaching what passed for science in the Christian institution.  From the beginning, I made it clear that I held a slightly different cosmological view than most and that I would not disguise my beliefs in the name of orthodoxy.  Word of my beliefs spread and a few students contacted me to offer their support to my position, while others contacted the administration to express their disapproval.  After I finished the semester, I was never asked to return.  

Understand, if you will, that my faith in God was not shaken in the least.  There were and still are many writers in the Christian community who believe in a “Big Bang” event and this idea in no way invalidates their faith.  My newly found ideas were not antithetical to my Christian worldview; in fact they reinforced it in a vaguely Newtonian way.  The breaking point for me though was the application of reason and rationality to an object of previous faith.  For the first time since my conversion I examined a faith based belief outside of a religiously conceived frame of reference in a rational way.  The die was cast, the Rubicon was crossed - and my life could and would not be the same.

End Awakenings Part 3
4/25/2007 2:10:39 PM EDT
[#10]
I find myself in agreement with some of what you post and how you seem to say you feel. I think sometimes I feel the same. I am still a Christian, but a doubting one.

But for different reasons.

In fact, I find it interesting that you picked reasons totally different from mine.

Please post more.

cujet

4/25/2007 3:45:22 PM EDT
[#11]
Oh I see. Your problem is you were never exposed to classic Christianity - the Catholic type with real theology and philosophy; you fell in with anti-intellectual ones early on, then progressed to watered-down second hand intellectual light weights and finally got flumoxed at college. Big whoop. It's not like you got the strongest pro-Christian or pro-faith argument and then got unsettled by "science".

Not to knock you but to point out that your idea of "faith" is not exactly the same as "what Christianity per se consideres "faith" to be. It's more akin of "belief" which yes can be and is manipulated all day long for secular groups.

Global warming for example - most who believe in it passionately are not triple Ph.Ds who personally collected the samples and wrote the studies. But they believe we're all gonna die and the ice caps are all gonna melt on the testimony of their "priests" or "prophets" the men in the lab coats.

Others have given their lives to the proposition that socialism is the wave of the future and will usher in utopia. Millions still believe this - against all experience and all data.

They BELIEVE for a million reasons parallelling your experience of "faith" that's based on word of mouth rather than experience.

In contrast Judaeism and Catholicism were founded by direct experiences - not by deduction from a book taken a priori as true.

4/25/2007 3:49:09 PM EDT
[#12]

Quoted:

In contrast Judaeism and Catholicism were founded by direct experiences - not by deduction from a book taken a priori as true.



Hmmmm . . . so you have personally experienced all of the miracles of the Bible?  I'll bet that 99.9999% of your beliefs are taken from a book you consider to be a priori true.

But I am enjoying the insightful comments . . . it's nice to communicate with intelligent folks.

But I do agree with what you said about classic Christianity . . . let my story continue and you will see that I actually DID roll there for a while.

More to follow . . .

Disconnector
4/25/2007 3:59:04 PM EDT
[#13]
Awakening Part 4

I will condense years into sentences, but the next 10 years were quite eventful.  I graduated from Valley Forge with my BS in Bible and soon found that knowledge of scripture and theology does not immediately translate into food and rent payments.  While waiting for the Lord to show us what He wanted us to do in lieu of youth ministry, I found an unexpected talent in the computer sciences and gained employment as a network engineer (like almost every minister that I know that didn’t go directly into the ministry – there is an interesting correlation here).  Eventually, we moved back to Richmond Virginia to be closer to my family and to start a family of my own.  

I began to work in my church in the worship ministry, playing guitar for Sunday morning worship.  Our church was musically very progressive, so I was able to pour my heart out through my electric guitar to about 4,000 people a week.  At the request of my senior pastor, I began to create a ministry to appeal to post-modern young adults, which I relished.  I just slid back into my role in the church, better educated and ready to do whatever God set before me.

In an extremely unexpected way, the death of Pope John Paul II in April of 2005 was to be the final beginning of the end for my faith.  As a Protestant, I had never given any thought to the Papacy or ever learned much about Catholic beliefs or tenants outside of a couple of Chick tracts that even the majority of my fellow church members recognized as insane.  Watching the ceremonies on CNN sparked an interest in me to discover what these Mary-worshipping idolaters really believed – once again, in my hubris, I figured that my Protestantism would certainly prove to be superior in every way – for goodness sake, the maniacs believed in transubstantiation!  So I began to investigate the claims of the Catholic Church and compare their arguments for their beliefs to mine.  What I found astounded me.

On a point by point basis, the Catholic theology was in every way as scripturally supported and in some ways more rational than the beliefs that I held.  Sola Scriptura and Sola Fides were the hinge points that most of the disagreements revolved around and to my amazement, the Catholic answers were persuasive.  For the first time in my life, I actually began to realize that it was possible that the faith that I had been raised in and had built my world around was not the correct one.  My presumptions and hubris had kept me from ever reading or hearing any arguments could have changed my mind or even honestly challenge my faith.  If you have ever faced this moment, you will agree how shattering it is – all of the innate superiority and bigotry that you have ever produced within yourself turns on you, pointing back at you like the finger of Charon.  For the first time, I allowed myself to think that perhaps I had been taught incorrectly – and if they were wrong about this, what else in my mind was waiting to be overthrown?  Was my faith simply an accident of birth?  If my mother had become a Muslim, would I be asking my questions to Allah instead?

This was both an intensely frightening and paradoxically exhilarating time in my intellectual life.  I knew that no person, no book, no website could solve this problem for me because every person, book, or website that I consulted presented the rationale of the scriptures from their own presumed point of view.  I, for the first time in my life of faith, could not lean on presumptive authority to determine truth from fiction – I had to believe that I could trust my mind and opinions in a way that would have been unthinkable before this revelation.   As an engineer I had been responsible for multi-billion dollar financial assets, all under the direct control of my hand and mind, yet I was horrified to discover that I did not have the confidence to judge simple matters of truth and fiction in my own faith.  I now know this to be a direct result of the most dangerous kind of belief – the unreasoned and irrational faith.  

At the end of the same April, my wife and I attended a 3 day conference that was the culmination of months of preparation in small group meetings, study, and prayer.  The name of the program was “Cleansing Streams” and its purpose was to heal wounds from the past through the power of Christ in a sort of prayer based regression therapy.  It was our second trip in two years; in fact, we led a small group this time because we felt that our first experience had been so deeply impacting.  We went looking for a touch in our lives, a healing that could only come through the awesome power of Christ.  I went looking for a miracle to help me to discern the truth that I was seeking.

Instead, I found myself sitting outside on the sidewalk, fighting for breath, my mind filled with confusion and revulsion.  The pavement was warm beneath me as I sat with my back against the building – I could still hear the speaker through the wall and all that I wanted was to get away from that voice.  What he had said and the context that he had said it in had offended me in a way that I could not begin to describe.  Something awesome had awoken in me that day - I was disgusted, my moral sense was affronted, and I was finding it difficult not to go inside and drag my wife out to the car.  If I had remained in the room I would have either have screamed defiance or succumbed to his will; there was no way that I could have remained without breaking myself or my mind.  I sat until the voice stopped and then I slowly walked back in, purposeful and defiant.

I’m sure that the second conference was no different than the first, but my perceptions certainly had changed.  Maybe it was from my age or my present struggle with my questions concerning my faith, but I was overwhelmed by the anti-rational, anti-thought, anti-personal, and overly emotional atmosphere.  We were told to pray, to line up, and to recite prayers specifically without thought or reflection.  We were specifically told not to think, but to do and that God would take care of the details.  In the hyper-charged emotional air of the meeting, I was immediately struck by the unhesitant willingness of all of the participants to do what ever they were told to do.  I told my wife later that if they had started handing out grape Kool-aid a la Jonestown, everyone in the room would have immediately lined up and gone to their deaths.  The horrifying unthinking faith of the participants to do what ever they were told struck me as demeaning and in some deep way evil.  

Had I followed such a voice without thought?  Had I willingly given up my personal moral integrity in the name of faith?  Was I one of those who simply followed without reason or rationality?  These questions burned in my mind, demanding an answer.   In confusion, I remember praying for God to please answer me, to give me some understanding of what I was feeling – to just respond.  There was no answer; the sky was shut.

When we left to return to Richmond, I carried with me a cold emptiness and confusion that I was determined to conquer.  My method was plain before me – I would rationally and without presupposition start to read the scriptures and determine the truth about my faith.   I would seek God and His heart to determine the truth no matter what the cost.

In a last attempt to find the answers that I sought within my childhood faith, I arranged a special prayer meeting with some trusted leaders in my church to specifically address my concerns.   I simply poured my heart out to them, communicating my doubts and fears.  We began to pray, fervently seeking God – and I could feel the same unconscious manipulation of being told to say certain words, to not think, to in effect give up myself in the name of healing.  I remember disappointment building into tears – tears that drove me to my knees in pure anguish.   Not anger at the people I was praying with, for they were and still are well intentioned, but at the unthinking belief that had brought me to this place.   I determined that night that whatever I had believed in the past, I would never again reject the power of my own mind or the simplicity of my innate moral sense.  That night I became an individual, much to the detriment of my faith.

After the meeting I remember getting into my car and telling God that I simply needed him to show up.  I needed him; I begged him to reveal himself to me, to please help me find the answers to my doubts and questions.  I needed a touch from heaven – and I never received it.

I was determined to find the truth.  Why was my innate self pressing back so furiously against my experiences?  My religious teaching told me that it was simply rebellion against God and his working in my life, but I knew in my heart of hearts that this was simply false.  I knew that I sincerely wanted to know God and experience him, but it seemed that every avenue of faith led to a dead end, to an abandonment of my true self; an abandonment of my mind.  I was even more determined to prayerfully search the scriptures and find the truth – to find my path.  

And I would find my path, though it would lie in a completely unexpected direction.

This, my gentle reader, brings me full circle back to that certain warm fall day.

End Awakening Part 4
4/25/2007 6:07:19 PM EDT
[#14]
Miracles happen - so yes, as a matter of fact, my Catholic faith is based on a personal encounter with the living Jesus. I've met others who had similar albeit unique experiences which left no room for doubt -at least for them.

Our faith isn't "book based" it's person based - thus the central role and meaning of Communion in Catholic worship - of course we read the Bible during our Sunday service and of course the priest or deacon explains it in a short homily, but ask almost anyone and they'll say that the Mass isn't complete without the Eucharistic liturgy; it's not enough to just read the word. We go to "church" to meet and commune with THE WORD.

Now perhaps most people don't experience communion as a personal encounter with Christ. But that's not because it's not so, but because as we saw in ACTS for some reason the risen Christ was hidden from some and not others. Ditto with the Bread come down from Heaven - for some it's just a symbol not a Person. But then for some people even people are not persons, just blobs of tissue or "sub-humans" to be owned or gassed.

But personal experience of God is part and parcel of the story; men meeting God through theophanies, angelic visitors, visions, dreams, major miracles in their lives or that of the community. Why should we be surprised that people still see angels, still meet Jesus in the breaking of the bread or still have visions, dreams, or theophanies?

So it's not true that we believe merely because someone told us to believe or used clever philosophy to convince us. Faith as a doctrine is intelligible but Faith as a virtue is by definition participatory, an act of God's presence in our souls.

So there's a proper distiction we must make now: when we say "faith" it's important to distinguish between the supernatural virtue by which we believe what is revealed and passed on, and the DOCTRINE that is passed on and understood.

Faith as a virtue, grows or weakens depending on many factors, not all of them conscious or moral acts. Fatigue, scandal, emotional crisis can all make the act by which we believe difficult or almost impossible.

And faith - as a virtue - being of the will, naturally any negative emotion will drag it down and deaden it.

Catholic mystics experience this experience described by you in their terminology of the black night of the soul where feelings of joy or conviction vanish and one does not "feel" like believing or feel the need for further trust etc.

But then as a doctrine Faith is science-able, know-able, debate-able. Theo-logical.

I.e you can bring the full power of man's reason to bear on it and it won't break.

Most of your faith was admittedly the sola scritura, anti rational "faith" heavily reliant on emotion - which means, once the emotion is stripped away by real life, the faith crumbles along with it.

And when you seek to bring "reason" to bear on this weak faith, it melts away with the light of day as it SHOULD because not all belief is true.

Now belief becomes Faith with grace; so it's not entirely possible to read or study your way into Catholicism; somepeople just never 'get it'. Mortimer Adler for one, took a life time before he converted and he was one of the sharpest tools in the box. Far sharper than virtually all American philosophers (most of whom make basic, 101 errors in their premises but I digress).

Once you have Faith - in part personal experiential knowledge, in part doctrine that can be explained rationally, in part doctrine that surpasses full explaination - not because it's irrational, but because it surpasses understanding and it's sustained by 2000 years of insight, meditation, erudition and practical experience, there's nothing - no emotional upheaval, no 'argument', no zinging one liner that will 'wipe it out'. Fpr a mathematical example, not everyone understands certain concepts, but this doesn't make them 'irrational'; most don't 'get' Trinitarian theology either, but that doesn't make it "irrational' (this is BTW why Muslims don't accept Christianity; they think, using an erroneous Aristotelian metaphysics that the trinity is 'impossible' whereas it's not, just unlike anything in this world).

When I studied in Rome we didn't sit around only reading Catholic theology; we read the best and brightest atheists, agnostics, Jews, Muslims, and "others" that produced philosophical and theological threatises in English, German, Italian and Spanish.

There's a whole lot of thinkers in the non-English speaking world and they've thrown up some pretty good anti-Catholic and anti-theistic arguments or "OK but what about THIS" type charges.

But not only did my faith not crumble it was sharpened. Not by me coming up with proof texts and one liners, but by further experiential knowledge of the Risen Lord and systematic study of the CRITERIA for credibility - about which I've written dozens of pages on ar15 posts.

You are - by spelling out how you came to lose faith - actually on the road BACK to faith because you've begun to separate chaff from wheat; sort out false criteria from valid ones for belief or faith.

Faith or belief that is based MERELY on authority figures is the weakest of faiths.
Faith or belief based entirely or mostly on emotion or convenience (as in, it's easier to just go with the flow of society than buck it and risk persecution or death) is slightly stronger but just as prone to collapse.

Faith or belief based on the apriori presumption that a given book is divinely inspired obviously is stronger but also hinges on whether or not this book really makes sense and is not contradictory or irrational. So for example, Jehovah Witnesses with their New World Translation "from the greek" have massive crisises of faith when they run into Catholics who actually know Greek and can pull out their Latin-Greek New Testaments to compare with "the New World Translation".

Or take Muslims for example; if the Qu'ran is truly inspired and indeed the very word of God, then the game's up. But what makes them believe this hodge podge of verses is in fact God's last message to humanity other than "my army is bigger than your army"?

The only criteria for faith that is truly humane would be personal experience coupled with a doctrine that a) leads to holiness of life b) agape, self-less love, and c) is not irrational.

There are many Catholics for example who believe they seen an apparition of Mary; but the Church doesn't rush out and promote these apparitions to the four winds. Instead there is a discernment of spirits and of those who make these claims; what was 'revealed' - is it rational? does the seer lead an impeccable lifestyle? are they good people? i.e. good fruits?

If not, then the Church rejects as false claims of marian apparitions or visions of Jesus etc.

If you continue to be honest with yourself about all your motives and criteria I think you'll be celebrating "your re-conversion" anniversary in not so long...
4/25/2007 7:40:16 PM EDT
[#15]
Wow!  What a bunch of great, well thought out posts.  I appreciate the time that it took you all to post your thoughts.

I couple of points though (I can't get them all):

I've seen miracles too.  So have most Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses, etc have too. One of the most foundationally important things that I have realized through all of the meditation, prayer, and pure skull-sweat that I have poured out is this simple fact:

Personal experience and belief is completely irrelevant in discerning truth . . . only reason and the scientific method are useful tools in this arena

If personal experience (ie miracles, visions, religious emotional states, etc) are useful in determining truth, why does almost every human culture disagree as to the nature of truth?  To me, this is an obvious sign that religious belief and the concepts of truth are mostly cultural constructs that lack any foundation in objective reality.  Belief != truth no matter how fervently its held.

Stick with what is provable and objective  - I've found that god or any supernaturalism just disappears like the morning dew in the bright light of reason.  And yes, I've studied Aquinas . . . he makes certain axiomatic presuppositions that were inherent to his worldview that seem to wreck his arguments for me and most folks that have studied it outside of a theologically presuppositional mindset.

As far as returning to the faith, I'm ready at any time.  The wonderful thing about being an atheist is that I can look at ANY sytem without immediate prejudice.  Like I tell my frineds in the church - if god somehow proves his existence to me, I've crawl back to the altar tomorrow.  I simply want to follow the path of truth and reason.  But I won't hold my breath, OK

Once again, thanks for your time and effort everyone!

4/25/2007 7:41:59 PM EDT
[#16]
Awakening Part 5

I began my search in a similar way that I began a certain thesis from 10 years before – with a set of presuppositions that were derived from my experiences.  I would trust my mind and my ability to make correct decisions, I would trust my innate moral sense, and I would reject presumptive authority.  I would read the scriptures that I had been taught were the inerrant words of an omnipotent, infinite, all-loving God.  I would prayerfully and intently search for the truth that I so desperately needed.

With much difficulty I was forced to reprogram my view of the words that I read – to interpret them for the first time free from presuppositions.  The difficulty in this is that part of religious education is the inculcation of a certain point of view in scriptural interpretation.  At its most successful, the victim simply no longer reads; he or she simply sees the words and the mind automatically provides a narrative that supports the view that the person was taught to be inerrantly correct.  Fighting this, I began reading the Old Testament.

What I found shocked and disgusted me. The more that I read, the more I was horrified.  The horror of Abraham and Isaac, the contradictions and foolishness of Creation and the Flood, and genocides of the Old Testament, best exemplified in Numbers 31, revealed to me a God that was neither loving nor kind.  Rapine and murder were the word of the day, all by the absolute command of God.   This same being commanded men to kill, to lie and to steal – to break all of the morality that I had been taught as a Christian.  According to the God of the Old Testament it is OK to sell your own daughter into slavery (Exodus 21) or rape prisoners of war (Deuteronomy 21).  This certainly could not be the God that I had so fervently worshipped.  

Let’s take a moment to quickly examine the mentioned passage in Numbers. Here are portions of it in the NIV translation:

The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people."
3 So Moses said to the people, "Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites and to carry out the LORD's vengeance on them. 4 Send into battle a thousand men from each of the tribes of Israel."
7 They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man.
15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
32 The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 33 72,000 cattle, 34 61,000 donkeys 35 and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man.
In this one passage we see genocide, horrific rape (why else would you want the virgins?), and slavery – all commanded and approved by God himself.  I read apologetic passages that spoke of the Midianite’s fate being due to their women attempting to lead the children of God away to false idols, but was Jehovah’s hold on his people so weak that a couple of idols moved him to destroy an entire culture? Also, what had the children done?  Imagine being a young Midianite girl and seeing your father, your pregnant mother, and your infant brother all murdered viciously by an invading army.  The men, hands still dripping with the blood of your family, bind you and carry you off to a nightmare of bondage and sexual slavery all at the command of the supposed God of the Universe.  There are some consequences to a belief in the truth of this event: If this story is real, then it was directly commanded by God and must be accepted as morally correct and good.  If you can justify this, you are as much of a monster as those who committed these atrocities. I thought about my own wife and children being brutally murdered for religious reasons.  Does not your own moral sense quail at this? This is the work of God?  I did not find God, I found a demon.  I did not find enlightenment; I found the signed confession of a psychopathic mass murderer.

I began to see that by the eyes of faith it was perfectly tolerable to burn a witch, to torture and kill inoffensive scholars whose conclusions you feel heretical – to sack and burn towns and put the inhabitants to the sword as was common in Medieval Christian Europe.  The Inquisition, the Crusades, the casual contempt for the value of human life that we see in Christian history are perfectly valid and rational if you accept that the Old Testament is truly the inspired word of God.  You see, the men and women of the Middle Ages really believed in the scriptures in a way that our post-Enlightment tempered churches cannot.  They faithfully believed then like the fanatical Muslim believes today – with the same tragic results.

I found slavery, degradation, and immorality every where I looked.  So, I moved on.

The New Testament actually spoke of love and peace, but I found several huge problems that I could not surmount.  I cannot in this short space go into detail, but here are a few glaring points.  

Slavery was common in those days – so why did Jesus, as the real presence of an all-loving God, never oppose it?  Where were the ideas of individual freedom?  

What about democracy?  No, The Son of Man would rule in the coming kingdom with a rod of iron.  

Do we find the scientific method?  No, those that believed and do not see would be even more blessed.  

What about family values?  Not here, Jesus tells us that we are to abandon our families and follow him.  

How about sexual fulfillment and normal human intimacies?  Nope, Jesus never married and Paul tells us that it is best to stay single.  The wives of the apostles are never mentioned meaningfully.

In almost every case I could not find the values that I as a human being found to be vital to my happiness and well being. All of the ideas that have truly helped man to live longer and happier lives were not there.  All I could find was a poisonous faith.

Every apologetic that I read was like salt in the wound – they tried to explain but they could never negate the actual words of the texts.  This is the best that an omnipotent, omnipresent, all-loving God could do?  His words should burst forth with light and truth – instead I found explicit support for slavery; His words should be full of knowledge and depth of thought – instead I found mounting contradictions and simple errors in fact that any elementary school age child can perceive.  His words should be captivating and morally clear – instead I found moral ambivalence and ethical confusion.  Shouldn’t a book written by God be at least as interesting as a Harlequin Romance?   What I found instead was a Bronze Age document full of justifications for horrific crimes many times worse than that of Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic – on par with Hitler, Pol Pot, or Stalin.  These were not the words of any God – they were the words of particularly corrupt and offensive men.

I began to read the history of Christianity that is never taught in churches or Bible Colleges.  I found the innumerable persecutions and tortures that were committed in the name of God.  One would think that people that were indwelt by the presence of a living God, saved by the power of Christ, would have a modicum of forgiveness and mercy, especially to fellow Christians.  Instead, I found the rack and the gallows, the breaking on the wheel and the question extraordinaire.  I found ignorance, hatred, and racism at every turn – this was the heritage of my faith?  All of the tolerance and love that I found in today’s church was an aberration, a historical anomaly, in the history of Christianity – the product of the humanist Enlightenment of the 18th century and Christianity’s inability to completely control a Western nation due to laws put in place by great men who saw with their own eyes the destruction that faith can wreak when it holds the reigns of power.

I remembered listening to Bart Ehrman’s historical analysis of the New Testament.  All of the hours and days of my teaching concerning the New Testament were not as clear and logical as just five minutes of a true historical analysis of what we rationally know about the events of that time.  For the first time, I saw someone approach the historicity of the scriptures from a scientific viewpoint free from faith – with devastating results.  These were obviously the works of men, how had I missed all of the simple inescapable facts?

If scripture does not reflect the God that I grew up believing, then was I to believe?  Without scripture, I had no basis for any knowledge of any God or superior being.  The crumbling of that foundation revealed the sand that the entire structure was built upon – the sand of faith.

As a techno-geek, I found several websites that challenged my faith in ways that I had never considered.  A site that struck me particularly forcefully was http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/ .  This site presents a lucid, empirical, and rational method for testing the existence of God that simply blew me away with its clarity.  Why didn’t I think of this?  The wall of faith prevented me, but as a seeker after truth I would not be deterred.  If God was real, he needed to answer these charges – but never once did he answer even one of real, honest questions that I asked of him.  

Hurt and confused, I began to pray desperately, begging God for relief.  I spent all of my time in my car in conversation with God, trying to find a reason – ANY reason to believe in his existence.  Finally, I came to the end of my rope and the end of my faith.  I gave God one more chance to reveal himself, to defend himself, and he simply never showed up.  

Amazed, I found solace in the works of Bertrand Russell, Ayn Rand, Richard Carrier, Richard Dawkins, Robert Price, Hyam Maccoby, George Smith, and the incomparable Robert Ingersoll.  Their works showed me a world that I had never imagined – a world of peace, happiness, morality, and joy without God.  I initially fought against it; this couldn’t be true!  Their arguments supported my every supposition, every precept, every innate moral sense that I felt was rationally and logically explained by a beautiful mechanistic world that needed no creator.  But still I fought, terrified of the consequences of disbelief.

I will never forget it.  It was late one night and I had been reading Anthem by Ayn Rand.  I read the last paragraph, leaned back in my chair, breathed a sigh of relief, and gave it up.  I gave up my faith in any supernatural being, power, or existence.  I surrendered to reality.

And like a dream that passes as you wake, my faith evaporated and I was free.

End Awakenings Part 5
4/26/2007 3:47:36 AM EDT
[#17]
_disconnector_,

You write quite well, and are thoughtful. But I do not think your argument would be sufficient to "deconvert" a faithful person.  I find myself in very much the midway point in your deconversion, with an uncanny level of parallel thoughts and actions.

But, I also "want to believe" for lack of a better term. Is this human nature?

Couple this with the fact that the classic Chistian faiths do not take scripture as inspired word for word. The approach seems to be more of a "this is how the ancient Christians understood this" way. They see the other faiths as getting 'some things right".

I know nothing of C.S. Lewis, but I've been told that he understood ancient text as simply "that's how they wrote back then". Is this an argument for faith? Were they simply not able to document events literally?

My reasons for doubt stem from my very basic understanding of human nature. The centuries of "faith" in God, no matter the time in history. From the world over, the result is always the same, belief in something. That, my good friend, seems to be the nature of man. To put meaning into life.

I also have serious issues with the technical nature of modern man's world. This is a HUGE development in the history of mankind. It was not fortold in any ancient text that I can find. In fact, I think one could place blame on the various faiths for the slow progress of science in the early years. Put another way, ancient writings see "modern times" as still having an army with horses and crude weapons. Sup wit dat?

Looking forward to the next.

cujet
4/26/2007 3:47:53 AM EDT
[#18]
What I am seeing more and more in your posts is that your foundation was based on emotion rather than knowledge.

If it truly is the case, you will be tossed about like a wave on the ocean, not knowing which way is correct and being carried along with every opinion of man, jumping from one idea to the next.

No offense, but I also believe the charismatic movement is built on feelings and emotion and it seems like you came from that upbringing.  I also believe that they have an extremely shallow foundation that is built around miracles, speaking in tongues, prayer, healings, chants, ect...

I am seeing something in your stories.  Either you were never saved to begin with or you are saved, but you are back-sliding.

If you are saved, no matter what you do from here on out, you have eternal life.

If you are not saved, then you were unjustified because your faith was not in the finished work of Christ.  You missed something.

I grew up in a Bible church.  I had the gospel preached to me for 14 years.  I was baptized, prayed a lot, read the Bible, was a good person.

After all of these things, I realized that I inherited Adam's sin nature and was destined to the lake of fire because of my sins.  I was introduced to the sacrificial system of the old testament and realized that they were pictures of Jesus' death on the cross as a substitute sacrifice- His death for me.

I got saved- after the 14 years of church, prayer, Bible reading, baptism- I got saved and found eternal life.

My point:  You may have slipped through the cracks like I did.  Just because you were in a church and have a degree does not mean you are saved.
4/26/2007 6:22:22 AM EDT
[#19]
I noticed that you are an athiest now. After all you have been through, do you find that logical? I don't. I truly think a more logical choice would be to take an agnostic point of view.

Either:

A) it is human nature to want a God to exist and there no God.

or

B) There is a God and we have figured that much out.

cujet
4/26/2007 10:20:47 AM EDT
[#20]
I'm fascinated that you think Thomas Aquinas' work is based on irrational premises.

I think you perhaps just read Question1 article 1, saw that he takes scripture as an authority and stopped there.

Had you gone on to read Q1 Art2 you'd have read this:

Article 2. Whether sacred doctrine is a science?Objection 1. It seems that sacred doctrine is not a science. For every science proceeds from self-evident principles. But sacred doctrine proceeds from articles of faith which are not self-evident, since their truth is not admitted by all: "For all men have not faith" (2 Thessalonians 3:2). Therefore sacred doctrine is not a science.

Objection 2. Further, no science deals with individual facts. But this sacred science treats of individual facts, such as the deeds of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and such like. Therefore sacred doctrine is not a science.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 1) "to this science alone belongs that whereby saving faith is begotten, nourished, protected and strengthened." But this can be said of no science except sacred doctrine. Therefore sacred doctrine is a science.

I answer that, Sacred doctrine is a science. We must bear in mind that there are two kinds of sciences. There are some which proceed from a principle known by the natural light of intelligence, such as arithmetic and geometry and the like. There are some which proceed from principles known by the light of a higher science: thus the science of perspective proceeds from principles established by geometry, and music from principles established by arithmetic. So it is that sacred doctrine is a science because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science, namely, the science of God and the blessed. Hence, just as the musician accepts on authority the principles taught him by the mathematician, so sacred science is established on principles revealed by God.

Reply to Objection 1. The principles of any science are either in themselves self-evident, or reducible to the conclusions of a higher science; and such, as we have said, are the principles of sacred doctrine.

Reply to Objection 2. Individual facts are treated of in sacred doctrine, not because it is concerned with them principally, but they are introduced rather both as examples to be followed in our lives (as in moral sciences) and in order to establish the authority of those men through whom the divine revelation, on which this sacred scripture or doctrine is based, has come down to us."

But even with what you might consider his axioms (the relevance and authority of scripture) he doesn't just assume SCRIPTURE is right - first he proves that God exists, and then that God is personal and hence communication with man is not "irrational" or unthinkable - i.e. Divine revelation is more LIKELY THAN NOT, GIVEN WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT GOD.

Now you're right that miracles exist in other religions. And so do apparitions etc. But it's not "scientific" or rational to dismiss these personal experiences as wholly irrelevant or imaginary; people are seeing or experiencing SOMETHING.

Now maybe the message is true or not, but it's not figments of their culture; although culture no doubt is used by them to explain what it is they experienced.

Finally, it was precisely in Catholic Europe that "science" as an independent study apart from theology was established and flourished in CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES.

So Catholicism can hardly be considered "anti-science" or anti-intellectual.

If you are open minded and read the whole Summa I don't think you'll be able to maintain 'atheism' for very long.




4/26/2007 10:38:18 AM EDT
[#21]
It might be useful for everyone to read Q1 article 8 too - because when discussing what the human mind can know as opposed to what OUR individual minds DO KNOW we find a major difference.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't necessarily mean it's bunk.

Also it's worth pointing out that pretty much the only people studying Aristotelian metaphysics these days are freshmen in college, Catholic seminarians and Shiite mullahs in their city of Qom, Iran. But whereas American freshmen take one course - which is usually smashed by 3 more years of Philosophy from the "enlightenment" era philosophers, only Catholic order priests and mullahs take the time to study it in depth.

You you go: (from http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm)

Article 8. Whether sacred doctrine is a matter of argument?
Objection 1. It seems this doctrine is not a matter of argument. For Ambrose says (De Fide 1): "Put arguments aside where faith is sought." But in this doctrine, faith especially is sought: "But these things are written that you may believe" (John 20:31). Therefore sacred doctrine is not a matter of argument.

Objection 2. Further, if it is a matter of argument, the argument is either from authority or from reason. If it is from authority, it seems unbefitting its dignity, for the proof from authority is the weakest form of proof. But if it is from reason, this is unbefitting its end, because, according to Gregory (Hom. 26), "faith has no merit in those things of which human reason brings its own experience." Therefore sacred doctrine is not a matter of argument.

On the contrary, The Scripture says that a bishop should "embrace that faithful word which is according to doctrine, that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine and to convince the gainsayers" (Titus 1:9).

I answer that, As other sciences do not argue in proof of their principles, but argue from their principles to demonstrate other truths in these sciences: so this doctrine does not argue in proof of its principles, which are the articles of faith, but from them it goes on to prove something else; as the Apostle from the resurrection of Christ argues in proof of the general resurrection (1 Corinthians 15). However, it is to be borne in mind, in regard to the philosophical sciences, that the inferior sciences neither prove their principles nor dispute with those who deny them, but leave this to a higher science; whereas the highest of them, viz. metaphysics, can dispute with one who denies its principles, if only the opponent will make some concession; but if he concede nothing, it can have no dispute with him, though it can answer his objections. Hence Sacred Scripture, since it has no science above itself, can dispute with one who denies its principles only if the opponent admits some at least of the truths obtained through divine revelation; thus we can argue with heretics from texts in Holy Writ, and against those who deny one article of faith, we can argue from another. If our opponent believes nothing of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his objections — if he has any — against faith. Since faith rests upon infallible truth, and since the contrary of a truth can never be demonstrated, it is clear that the arguments brought against faith cannot be demonstrations, but are difficulties that can be answered.
Reply to Objection 1. Although arguments from human reason cannot avail to prove what must be received on faith, nevertheless, this doctrine argues from articles of faith to other truths.

Reply to Objection 2. This doctrine is especially based upon arguments from authority, inasmuch as its principles are obtained by revelation: thus we ought to believe on the authority of those to whom the revelation has been made. Nor does this take away from the dignity of this doctrine, for although the argument from authority based on human reason is the weakest, yet the argument from authority based on divine revelation is the strongest. But sacred doctrine makes use even of human reason, not, indeed, to prove faith (for thereby the merit of faith would come to an end), but to make clear other things that are put forward in this doctrine. Since therefore grace does not destroy nature but perfects it, natural reason should minister to faith as the natural bent of the will ministers to charity. Hence the Apostle says: "Bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5). Hence sacred doctrine makes use also of the authority of philosophers in those questions in which they were able to know the truth by natural reason, as Paul quotes a saying of Aratus: "As some also of your own poets said: For we are also His offspring" (Acts 17:28). Nevertheless, sacred doctrine makes use of these authorities as extrinsic and probable arguments; but properly uses the authority of the canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors. Hence Augustine says (Epis. ad Hieron. xix, 1): "Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing them. But other authors I so read as not to deem everything in their works to be true, merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness and learning."

Faith does require Revelation - but also involves a motion of grace, that personal experience of God I spoke of before that moves the will to act as it enlightens the mind via some experience.

I cannot argue you into faith (otherwise it would be philosophy), but I can argue as to the reasonableness of the deposit of faith. I can't prove Jesus existed like I can prove Alpha Centari exists, but I can argue that it's not irrational to believe he existed.





4/26/2007 10:50:51 AM EDT
[#22]
tag
4/26/2007 11:04:07 AM EDT
[#23]
ost
4/26/2007 11:05:36 AM EDT
[#24]
disconnetor, you mentioned about Richard Dawkin's 'Blind Watchmaker'.  If you are open, may I suggest Michael Behe's Darwin's Blackbox?

I used be an atheist until college.  My parents are still atheists.  However, after reading Michael Behe's book about evolution I started to have doubts about 'Absolutism' that Richard Dawkin preaches.

There was an English journalist who wrote a book basically stating that the Darwinian evolutionary model needs to be updated (he himself is an atheist) or revised.  Richard Dawkin wrote threat to this journalist plus labeled him 'Creationist'.  I read the book and find it to be both fascinated with scientific claims behind the journalist reasoning behind of whys.  Dawkin is not opened to any ideas.  This is not science.

This is when I lost 'faith' in Dawkin.

I am fairly open minded and will listen to both (Creationist and Evolutionist) arguments and make up my own mind.  I would like to suggest you do the same.

4/26/2007 11:21:49 AM EDT
[#25]
I find it odd the stubborn materialist - who believes that "soul", "spirit", "God" are words without meaning, or are words denoting myths, made up stories of imaginary beings, doesn't ever question why so many for so long have believed them.

Or why would the human mind conjure up non-beings to begin with if it's so much more "rational" and "progressive" to disbelieve in their existence.

Now, agnosticism makes far more sense. After all, if virtually every culture on the planet, in the entire known history of man have believed in the existence of non-corporeal beings, surely there must be SOMETHING to it.

You can call them "largely wrong" in the MEANING they ascribe to the phenomena they experience but you can't rationally call all these people totally dellusional.

For example; Catholics don't believe Mohammed saw NOTHING in that cave. Nor do we believe Pentecostals are "making it up" when they claim experiences of "the spirit". It's pretty safe to say even the Greco-Roman religions involved SOMETHING other than the poet's plays...after all, those temples and rites pre-dated Homer.

SOMETHING was going on.... just because they didn't believe the JudeoChristian message didn't mean their religions were entirely created from their own imaginations.

Then there's the little thing called "demonic possession" that rarely but nevertheless does occur which involves phenomena that simply defies a materialistic explanation - especially the cognitive phenomena (I'm willing to believe some hidden faculty of the human mind could produce anti-gravity fields, but a mind's ability to know languages - not just sounds but clear thoughts in languages it's never been exposed to points to infused knowledge, and that means 'spirit').

Thus to be 'atheistic' isn't to take into account ALL the data known to us.

4/26/2007 1:02:07 PM EDT
[#26]
I have trouble coming to grips with it all.

Why are the Jews ALWAYS the target?

Why does the bible clearly contain NON TRUTHS? Such as: Mark 16:18. Poison and poisionous snakes will not kill?

cujet
4/26/2007 4:15:27 PM EDT
[#27]
Hi all,

Sorry for the "drive by" post, but I have to run back to work (VMware HA cluster crash ***shiver****).

cujet, the simplest and most satidfying answer is that the book called the bible was written by groups of Bronze, Iron, and Classical age men without the benefit of science or the light of rationality.  There are many many many contradictions and plain mistruths in the bible.  Try THIS and read with an open mind - it could change your life and free you.

Many of you have posted intriging and extremely well thought through posts and I honestly don't have the time tonight to give them the time that they deserve.

In light of this, let me post the last section of Awakenings - - - hopefuly I can get back tonight to give my response to your posts.

Also, the last paragraph with refrences to Dawkins site has not  (and probably will not) ever come to fruition.  I'm leaving it in just for the sake of completeness.

Awakenings Part 6

A postscript

I sit writing these words on a warm summer night in my living room as my children sleep, tucked into their beds.  My wife is asleep, leaving me with time for a couple of my thoughts which I would like to share with you as a postscript to my experiences.

The realization that I came to that night in October, my surrender to reality and rationality, has led me to places that I cannot even begin to explain or truly understand.  There have been consequences to my decision, a few of which that have been truly heartbreaking.  

I have had life long relationships simply dry up and blow away, seemingly forgotten and rejected.  Even those who have accepted my decision still maintain a distance from me that no amount of reassurance can wholly cure.  Many of those who were known have become alien; in many ways, I am alone again as I search for a new group of friends that are less demanding in their theological orthodoxy.  

My extended family simply cannot and will not accept my decision.  I must just be “going through a phase” or “having a spiritual breakdown”; certainly no one could ever really question their faith and find it wanting!  It amazes me that my decision is perceived in some way to be dishonest or the product of a rejection of what I still believe to be right; I must want to commit some great sin.  They do not believe that someone can be intellectually honest and reject the faith.  No amount of humility or argument can convince them so I do not bother trying any more – in many ways it is painful to even be around them.

My wife on the other hand, who remains a believer, has been a friend and a partner through this entire process.  Never have I met a human being with such compassion or dignity in the difficult circumstances that my decisions have thrust upon her.  Although my deconversion still causes her heartache, I feel that our relationship has grown even deeper and fundamentally more loving in ways that neither of us expected or understand.  I know many men and women who have chosen the path of rationality that have been abandoned by their spouses; I can only celebrate the great spirit of the human that I have chosen to spend my life with.  I have no regret for my choice of a partner regardless of belief or creed.  She remains my shining light.

Let me explain what it means to be free.  It must be understood that the greatest bondage that a human can face is that of the mind.  The body can be coerced and enslaved, the will can be broken, but the mind can only be given.  To enslave the mind requires the willing participation of the slave – the chains are actually forged by those who will wear them.  The grave that is dug by the condemned is a comfortable place where many people find a sense of well-being and belonging.  Unfortunately, this comes with a price – the ability of the believer to truly perceive reality and act on it rationally.

Since I have rejected the false veil of religious faith my life has truly, in the deepest way that can be perceived, become free.  I would not trade one ounce of my newfound freedom for a pound of my previous irrational certainty.   I am free from superstition, guilt, and original sin – I am free from fear and free to hope.

Faith taught me that I am the product of an original sin and though loved by God, I have not the ability to do anything truly good for my very nature is innately evil; a product of a fall that I held no personal responsibility for but carried within me the burden of its rebellion.  Faith taught me that there is no good apart from God – but now I know that to be, quite simply, a lie.  I have good within me and I can celebrate the awesome wonder of simply being human.  I need not the moral judgment of a God whose own catalog of horrors is unmatched in human history to bestow dignity and value upon my life.

The amazing complexity of the Universe astonishes me now more than ever.  As I think of the billions of years of probability and randomness that leads to my life, I am both humbled and filled with awe that I live.  I have found a value in life that I cannot explain.  Every sunset, breeze, and blade of grass is a wonder to me for now I understand the amazing fragility of life in a chaotic Universe that cares nothing for any living creature.  I have found a deep spirituality in the Cosmos that I never saw before.  Not the empty spirituality of sin and redemption or angelic perfection, but the awesome wonder that is the immensity of the Universe and my true place in it, free from rank superstition.  In my eyes, a Universe that is the result of sublime physical law is vastly superior to one that somehow requires the interaction of some external force to maintain it.    Carl Sagan was right all along . . . much to my wonder and delight.

I find that I place a far greater value on human life than I did before my deconversion.  If there is no afterlife and here and now is the totality of each human life, then anything which threatens this gift is the deepest evil.  The believer fatalistically accepts war, pestilence, and death as simply part of the ongoing battle between good and evil; as an inevitable part of life in a fallen and unredeemed world.  I now know that it is this belief itself that helps to perpetuate the inhumanity of man towards man.  

To my amazement I have become a “humanist” – one who is concerned for the well being of the human race.   I was taught that humanism was a dirty word; a creed of atheistic fanatics that were bent on destroying all that was good and holy in the world.  This is the darkest of all of the lies that I willingly accepted - to believe that the highest and greatest good of man was not man, but God.  Rick Warren’s work The Purpose Driven Life stated that the very reason for mans existence is to worship and glorify God, to surrender the human for the divine.  This is the vile nonsense that drove the Inquisition, the rack, the heretics flame, and today the young suicide bomber.  I can honestly think of no more destructive creed – mans’ greatest concern should be for his fellow man, not some incorporeal being for whom our worship is neither needed nor required.  

I am also beginning to rediscover a hope for the future that was ripped from me as a child.  As a Christian who was taught a fundamentalist eschatological worldview, I knew that the world was inevitably heading towards chaos and conflict no matter what humanity tried to accomplish.  For every step toward peace, three were taken toward anarchy and death.  Humanity simply had no hope; we were to wait for the return of Christ to wipe out the evils of this earth and to establish his kingdom.  Can you imagine a more depressing worldview for an adolescent to accept?  Young folks thrive on optimism and I am finally starting to recapture the hope that I lost as a young man.  I can envision peace on Earth and good will towards men, something all religions seems to strangely lack.

Strangely, much of my fear of death has left me.  There is no celestial judgment; no throne room where my every action and inaction will be reviewed.  There is simply the nothingness of dreamless sleep – as in the immortal words of Epicurus "Where I am, death is not, and where death is, I am not."   How can we fear nothingness?  Lack of existence has no fear; only the theist need fear death.

I am free to look at reality and evaluate it with my senses and my innate morality; I can find truth – untouched by dogma or Bronze Age savagery.  Science and philosophy, which use to be a spiritual minefield of challenge to my faith, have become wells of inspiration and knowledge.  I can read again and see within the word the great truths that have burst from some of the greatest minds in the history of humanity.   Theology and revealed “truths” are a cloudy, stagnant mere fed by the twin streams of presumptive authority and irrational faith.  Try instead the refreshing depth of Hume, the towering power of Rand, the laughter of Voltaire, the childlike wonder of Sagan, the icy clarity of Russell, or the certainty of Dawkins and choose for yourself which better uplifts the human soul and quenches the human heart.  


Look within you and believe that you have the ability to judge right and wrong.  Trust your innate morality.  If something disturbs you, ask why and do not accept an answer of “just because”.

Reject unproven assumptions and presumptive authority.  Seek to know the world with your own senses and mind; know that you are capable of properly perceiving reality without the interpretation of an external authority.  Trust yourself.


If you are presently a believer, I beg you to consider my words.  If God is real, then He should be powerful enough to draw you even as you question.  If you are the product of divine creation, then certainly your intellect was created for use to judge the world in a rational way.  If God exists, then there is no risk for those who honestly question.  Anyone or any God who demands that you do not question is simply revealing the implicit weakness of their own irrational belief system.  Question the assumptions that you hold concerning the world, believe in yourself, and look clearly at your beliefs.  Perhaps you will walk away with an even greater faith – or perhaps you will find yourself sharing my experience of a certain warm fall day.

I would like to thank you for reading this short series of scenes from my life.  I will be continuing this column, based upon the feedback and messages that I receive.  In effect I want this to become your column, a place where you can express your own stories of lost faith, doubts, and challenges to my assertions about faith.  I need you – without your stories, this column will be nothing but my (rather boring) story.  Please, write me at [email protected] and tell me your about your experiences of faith, remembering that any vitriolic email with be sent directly to the trash unread and responded to with my favorite collection of choice Robert Ingersoll quotes.  Respect, humanity, and humility – these are the watchwords that will guide us on our journey as we discover our own paths in a world of reason, rationality, and faith.

Awakenings, by Disconnector AKA Rich Barlow


4/26/2007 7:55:43 PM EDT
[#28]
I know of this freedom that you talk about.  We may have actually experienced the same freedom, but on two very different levels.

Your level was a freedom when you got out of religion.

Mine was a freedom when I ceased from my works in trying to please God (after salvation) and realize that if I am in Christ, I am accepted as a child of God and I dont have to work for His approval.

The reason I say it may very well be the same freedom is possibly because throughout your whole "religious" vigors you were trying to please God to earn your salvation.  When you quit "religion" you then stopped trying to please God and rested from your works and experienced this freedom.

They are the same freedoms (a ceasing of works), but based entirely on different things.

If it is true that you were striving for God's approval as a "ticket" for your salvation, then your faith was not in the finished work of Christ, you were/are unjustified, you were/are still in your sins.




ETA:  If you are seriously still searching for the truth, I would encourage you to obtain a more firm foundation in the Bible.  Based on your postings, it seems to be extremely weak.

I suggest an 11 hour DVD series titled The Stranger on the Road to Emmaus

The DVD series is expensive ($100), but if you are truly searching- money can be thought of as relative in regards to finding the truth.

I cannot recommend the book unless someone was there to teach/answer the questions- although it is your freedom to choose to do so.
4/26/2007 9:29:53 PM EDT
[#29]
Perhaps he has found the truth. Maybe not.

ETA: If you are seriously still searching for the truth, I would encourage you to obtain a more firm foundation in the Bible. Based on your postings, it seems to be extremely weak.

It really boils down to a decision to believe or not to believe. If you decide to believe then you structure your whole world around that belief. If you decide not to believe you are free to interpret the world and history however you want. That is a type freedom, and it is not the same as the freedom headlice speaks of. You have to be sick to need a doctor just as you have to buy the fear tactics used by religion to need saving. As a relativist I can see the validity of either argument but don't subscribe to either.

Interesting thread.
4/27/2007 6:35:01 AM EDT
[#30]

Quoted:
Perhaps he has found the truth. Maybe not.

ETA: If you are seriously still searching for the truth, I would encourage you to obtain a more firm foundation in the Bible. Based on your postings, it seems to be extremely weak.

It really boils down to a decision to believe or not to believe. If you decide to believe then you structure your whole world around that belief. If you decide not to believe you are free to interpret the world and history however you want. That is a type freedom, and it is not the same as the freedom headlice speaks of. You have to be sick to need a doctor just as you have to buy the fear tactics used by religion to need saving. As a relativist I can see the validity of either argument but don't subscribe to either.

Interesting thread.


It really boils down to your foundation.  Like I said, when I was growing up in the church I did not have a firm foundation and the object of my faith was in myself.

Had my foundation been more solid in the facts of the Bible and not just my pre-conceived ideas of what I thought the Bible said- based on internet readings and secular pessimists and liberal theologians- I would have known what exactly was being offered to me.

How can I make a decision to believe in something when I did not even know about it?

It needs to be taught.  And the best way to understand what is being offered is to teach it in a way that makes the most sense.

I know, this is logic 101- but it is exactly this area where many theologians fail.
4/27/2007 6:52:33 AM EDT
[#31]
A few things bothered me from Part five:


Slavery was common in those days – so why did Jesus, as the real presence of an all-loving God, never oppose it? Where were the ideas of individual freedom?


Someone more advanced in theology will have to answer this one. I do not know why there was not much in the Bible about slavery... How many Christians in the days the Bible was written actually owned slaves though?


What about democracy? No, The Son of Man would rule in the coming kingdom with a rod of iron.


? God is the God of compassion, of love. If only you submit yourself to acknowledge that God is in charge, not you.


Do we find the scientific method? No, those that believed and do not see would be even more blessed.


Why is it then that the first colleges were Christian?


What about family values? Not here, Jesus tells us that we are to abandon our families and follow him.


??? uhh where did you get this? In context, does it really say that...?


How about sexual fulfillment and normal human intimacies? Nope, Jesus never married and Paul tells us that it is best to stay single. The wives of the apostles are never mentioned meaningfully.


How about "be fruitful and multiply"? I don't understand how these two examples threw you. It matters not that Jesus never married. And I do not understand what you say about "normal human intimacies"? You aren't talking about allowing sex outside of marriage are you? My understanding is once you're married, have at it! The phrase I remember from my premarital counseling at my church was "The marriage bed is undefiled". In other words, enjoy yourselves. God gave us sexual enjoyment to share with your marital partner.

Once again a theme that comes out in your "awakenings" essay is an inability to submit to a higher authority. A prideful man has a hard time with the idea of submitting to the will of a God that you cannot see. I have seen people wrestle with this at bible classes. I realize it is a hard thing to do-- to say "God, you are in control... I acknowledge your control of my life..." but once you do, and it's for real and you're not just going through the motions, you will never be the same. I had an "awakening" of my own in 1992 when I was baptized, and I am a new man as a result.
4/27/2007 10:18:48 PM EDT
[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Perhaps he has found the truth. Maybe not.

ETA: If you are seriously still searching for the truth, I would encourage you to obtain a more firm foundation in the Bible. Based on your postings, it seems to be extremely weak.

It really boils down to a decision to believe or not to believe. If you decide to believe then you structure your whole world around that belief. If you decide not to believe you are free to interpret the world and history however you want. That is a type freedom, and it is not the same as the freedom headlice speaks of. You have to be sick to need a doctor just as you have to buy the fear tactics used by religion to need saving. As a relativist I can see the validity of either argument but don't subscribe to either.

Interesting thread.


It really boils down to your foundation.  Like I said, when I was growing up in the church I did not have a firm foundation and the object of my faith was in myself.

Had my foundation been more solid in the facts of the Bible and not just my pre-conceived ideas of what I thought the Bible said- based on internet readings and secular pessimists and liberal theologians- I would have known what exactly was being offered to me.

How can I make a decision to believe in something when I did not even know about it?

It needs to be taught.  And the best way to understand what is being offered is to teach it in a way that makes the most sense.

I know, this is logic 101- but it is exactly this area where many theologians fail.



You are operating under the assumption you are right; ie if I, he, or you just had it presented correctly it would all make sense. This is a common claim in these forums, if you disbelieve, fall away or can't make up your mind then it is due to a lack of understanding of scripture or, from the predestination crowd, god don't like you. At some point you decide to believe, then fill in the blanks. Without the desire or implied need to believe, the blanks never get filled in. This applies to most any concept that has little or no real proof. You could try and tell me all day long the world is flat and give all your ideas and theories to back it up, but, only if I make an internal decision to believe will any of that stuff start congealing into a belief structure.

It could be that he has decided that he just doesn't buy it and doesn't see the need to spend time or effort trying to see things through someone else's lens. I won't argue that people don't experience their religion, I just argue that it's a choice and it affects your life because you desire it to, you choose it. If someone doesn't see things your way and chooses not to participate in that facet of life then it's their choice. They aren't missing out on anything unless they feel they are. If they have the right buttons pushed during their childhood the stage will be set for them to look for "something". For some it ends up being God, for others it's spaceships, buddhism, or baseball.
4/27/2007 10:40:27 PM EDT
[#33]

Quoted:
A few things bothered me from Part five:


Slavery was common in those days – so why did Jesus, as the real presence of an all-loving God, never oppose it? Where were the ideas of individual freedom?


Someone more advanced in theology will have to answer this one. I do not know why there was not much in the Bible about slavery... How many Christians in the days the Bible was written actually owned slaves though?


What about democracy? No, The Son of Man would rule in the coming kingdom with a rod of iron.


? God is the God of compassion, of love. If only you submit yourself to acknowledge that God is in charge, not you.


Do we find the scientific method? No, those that believed and do not see would be even more blessed.


Why is it then that the first colleges were Christian?


What about family values? Not here, Jesus tells us that we are to abandon our families and follow him.


??? uhh where did you get this? In context, does it really say that...?


How about sexual fulfillment and normal human intimacies? Nope, Jesus never married and Paul tells us that it is best to stay single. The wives of the apostles are never mentioned meaningfully.


How about "be fruitful and multiply"? I don't understand how these two examples threw you. It matters not that Jesus never married. And I do not understand what you say about "normal human intimacies"? You aren't talking about allowing sex outside of marriage are you? My understanding is once you're married, have at it! The phrase I remember from my premarital counseling at my church was "The marriage bed is undefiled". In other words, enjoy yourselves. God gave us sexual enjoyment to share with your marital partner.

Once again a theme that comes out in your "awakenings" essay is an inability to submit to a higher authority. A prideful man has a hard time with the idea of submitting to the will of a God that you cannot see. I have seen people wrestle with this at bible classes. I realize it is a hard thing to do-- to say "God, you are in control... I acknowledge your control of my life..." but once you do, and it's for real and you're not just going through the motions, you will never be the same. I had an "awakening" of my own in 1992 when I was baptized, and I am a new man as a result.




Paul's writings do seem to come from a sexually repressed individual, but you have to remember he was not a "normal average guy" according to history. You could expect him to place sexuality pretty low on the pole and in turn, project his feelings onto the flock.

why is that any time someone questions or chooses out of religion the issue of submission vs pride comes up?  When I read his posts I hear someone who finds the evidence lacking and after "choosing out" feels relieved. I understand that a believer cannot buy that because their programming says "the message is correct so his disbelief is due to .........whatever".  He just wants to possess his own mind. I respect that. Of course, he should expect the arguments here , you're just doing your Christan duty. I'm just here supporting his right to believe whatever he wants.
4/28/2007 11:50:38 AM EDT
[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
Perhaps he has found the truth. Maybe not.

ETA: If you are seriously still searching for the truth, I would encourage you to obtain a more firm foundation in the Bible. Based on your postings, it seems to be extremely weak.

It really boils down to a decision to believe or not to believe. If you decide to believe then you structure your whole world around that belief. If you decide not to believe you are free to interpret the world and history however you want. That is a type freedom, and it is not the same as the freedom headlice speaks of. You have to be sick to need a doctor just as you have to buy the fear tactics used by religion to need saving. As a relativist I can see the validity of either argument but don't subscribe to either.

Interesting thread.


It really boils down to your foundation.  Like I said, when I was growing up in the church I did not have a firm foundation and the object of my faith was in myself.

Had my foundation been more solid in the facts of the Bible and not just my pre-conceived ideas of what I thought the Bible said- based on internet readings and secular pessimists and liberal theologians- I would have known what exactly was being offered to me.

How can I make a decision to believe in something when I did not even know about it?

It needs to be taught.  And the best way to understand what is being offered is to teach it in a way that makes the most sense.

I know, this is logic 101- but it is exactly this area where many theologians fail.



You are operating under the assumption you are right; ie if I, he, or you just had it presented correctly it would all make sense. This is a common claim in these forums, if you disbelieve, fall away or can't make up your mind then it is due to a lack of understanding of scripture or, from the predestination crowd, god don't like you. At some point you decide to believe, then fill in the blanks. Without the desire or implied need to believe, the blanks never get filled in. This applies to most any concept that has little or no real proof. You could try and tell me all day long the world is flat and give all your ideas and theories to back it up, but, only if I make an internal decision to believe will any of that stuff start congealing into a belief structure.

It could be that he has decided that he just doesn't buy it and doesn't see the need to spend time or effort trying to see things through someone else's lens. I won't argue that people don't experience their religion, I just argue that it's a choice and it affects your life because you desire it to, you choose it. If someone doesn't see things your way and chooses not to participate in that facet of life then it's their choice. They aren't missing out on anything unless they feel they are. If they have the right buttons pushed during their childhood the stage will be set for them to look for "something". For some it ends up being God, for others it's spaceships, buddhism, or baseball.


I believe you are wrong.  I think that if someone is presented with the gospel clearly that then they would know what they are being offered and can make that clear choice.  I believe when someone understands fully, they will clearly see the divine message that lies throughout the Bible, how from beginning to end the plan of salvation was in the works even before the foundation of the world.

Just look at the concept of syncretism.  One of the most evident examples is when missionaries go into tribes and preach the message of justification by faith.  If it is not clear to the person, when the believers are getting baptized these unbelievers want to get baptized so they can have eternal life.  They missed the message of justification by faith and are needed to be retaught.

There are also instances of whole churches starting out with the belief that baptism saves you and their whole doctrine is works based.  This happens more often then not with catholic missions.


ETA:  Dont get me wrong- I also believe in personal choice/free will.  My friend is a great example of this.

I presented the gospel from creation to Christ very clearly and he understood it.  I asked him if he believed it and he said that he could not believe it.  Basically, he was still hung up on the theory of evolution and chose to remain unjustified.  At this point, I dont think I will ever see him again when he leaves this life.
4/28/2007 1:02:52 PM EDT
[#35]
We are created for God's own pleasure. Our purpose in life is to glorify him as his creation, and nothing more.

It doesn't matter what we like, or feel, or think, or reason, or discuss. If we don't glorify God with our lives, then we are not doing what we were created to do. We have become useless to him. But even though we may be useless to him, we can continue our lives until its end. In the meantime, we can rail against God or embrace other religions, but that does nothing to diminish the Lord's true sovereignty. Ultimately, we like everyone else on this planet, shake hands with Death.

Like it or not, God made the rules, and as his creation, we must live by those rules. They are not negotiable. We can, however, do as we please - we can NOT live by those rules if we see fit, we can even deny God's existence. But since everything is under God's control, we must accept to pay for not following those rules.

God does not care if he fits our puny sense of morality or offends our sense of justice. Someday you will die and that will be the end of that. Creation is all his, and he is the Master.

If you read the Bible, he is painted as one who is jealous, one who you can please, or displease, one who you can anger or one who you can appease. He IS a distinct personality, and not just an idea or a state of mind.

And that...is the Truth.
4/28/2007 1:10:17 PM EDT
[#36]
Your account is going to get locked because you didn't include islamo-fascists in your little caveat (Christian/Hindu/Bhuddist/Sihk/etc.).

Way to go, Nero.
4/30/2007 6:25:18 AM EDT
[#37]

Quoted:
Your account is going to get locked because you didn't include islamo-fascists in your little caveat (Christian/Hindu/Bhuddist/Sihk/etc.).

Way to go, Nero.


4/30/2007 7:39:02 AM EDT
[#38]
Poor you...
4/30/2007 9:59:54 AM EDT
[#39]
Tag for later, don't have time to read the whole thing right now.  
4/30/2007 10:41:57 AM EDT
[#40]

Quoted:
Tag for later, don't have time to read the whole thing right now.  



I read the whole thing.

WOW.

As a Catholic, who has ALWAYS had questions due to my logical nature, this is scary.

Unfortunately, the guys defending God are using arguments that pale in comparison to the OP.
<SNIPPED>
TXL
4/30/2007 10:59:54 AM EDT
[#41]

Quoted:
snip

Paul's writings do seem to come from a sexually repressed individual, but you have to remember he was not a "normal average guy" according to history. You could expect him to place sexuality pretty low on the pole and in turn, project his feelings onto the flock.

why is that any time someone questions or chooses out of religion the issue of submission vs pride comes up?  When I read his posts I hear someone who finds the evidence lacking and after "choosing out" feels relieved. I understand that a believer cannot buy that because their programming says "the message is correct so his disbelief is due to .........whatever".  He just wants to possess his own mind. I respect that. Of course, he should expect the arguments here , you're just doing your Christan duty. I'm just here supporting his right to believe whatever he wants.


Submission vs. pride comes up because you cannot be a Christian without submitting to a higher authority...

And thanks for another post that makes us Believers out to be drones ("Programming", "He just wants to possess his own mind")...

I think he should believe however he wants as well... But 1: he invited thoughtful discussion, and 2: I can't help but think to myself, whenever I see someone leaving the flock or not believing but being eloquent about it, that it would be so much better if that individual was still a Believer.
4/30/2007 11:04:19 AM EDT
[#42]
RE: the "Why won't God heal amputees?" website ... I gave this some serious thought this weekend and could only come up with one thing...

It's the same reason why God doesn't just swoop own and make Heaven on earth or solve all our problems right now... He's required that we make a leap of faith before we go ahead and believe.

If it was a slam dunk, and God walked visibly among us performing miracles, everybody would pretty much be a Believer. God gave us free will to believe or not believe - and disconnector is exercising his. I just would love for him to have had an experience as profound as the ones that I've had... then he would be an asset to the flock, and not on his own. This is not to slight your experience one bit, disconnector, but I felt I needed to say it.
4/30/2007 4:51:05 PM EDT
[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:
snip

Paul's writings do seem to come from a sexually repressed individual, but you have to remember he was not a "normal average guy" according to history. You could expect him to place sexuality pretty low on the pole and in turn, project his feelings onto the flock.

why is that any time someone questions or chooses out of religion the issue of submission vs pride comes up?  When I read his posts I hear someone who finds the evidence lacking and after "choosing out" feels relieved. I understand that a believer cannot buy that because their programming says "the message is correct so his disbelief is due to .........whatever".  He just wants to possess his own mind. I respect that. Of course, he should expect the arguments here , you're just doing your Christan duty. I'm just here supporting his right to believe whatever he wants.


Submission vs. pride comes up because you cannot be a Christian without submitting to a higher authority...

And thanks for another post that makes us Believers out to be drones ("Programming", "He just wants to possess his own mind")...

I think he should believe however he wants as well... But 1: he invited thoughtful discussion, and 2: I can't help but think to myself, whenever I see someone leaving the flock or not believing but being eloquent about it, that it would be so much better if that individual was still a Believer.



I was just pointing out that what I read from the op'er was more of a deliberate, well planned exit than an "I don't need anyone telling me what to do or how to act"  attitude. Frequently the "prideful" angle is used when it doesn't apply as a swipe at the character of the non-believer. I'm not saying that's what you had in mind, I'm just saying it is a common tactic.

Religious belief is "programmed" whether you like it or not, programming is not always bad ,just look at the Marine Corp. You are led and taught what to believe, progressively, repetitively, in an emotionally charged environment. Ritual is used, group activities are used, a "sacred text" is used, you use rhythmic activities like music and song, there is a "mystery element" that you must keep trying to figure out..... and on and on.

As for the last comment , you just hate that someone who is not an arrogant asshole left because A.it makes it harder to attack him  and B.he would have been a good spokesman for the cause.
4/30/2007 5:07:20 PM EDT
[#44]
think we could double space for the old guys?  The words all kinda blend together & I'm "only" 40
4/30/2007 5:08:39 PM EDT
[#45]
will someone please tell me what Markonikov's rule is?

ETA: yes I googled and Halides & alkene means absolutely nothing to me.
4/30/2007 7:52:16 PM EDT
[#46]
First of all it's not a coicidence that "science" rose in Catholic Europe and not Buddhist East Asia or Muslim Middle East. The Bible - and Catholic teaching long taught that insofar as God is intelligent, all he created is INTELLIGIBLE -I.E. KNOWABLE. measurable, name-able.

In other words, creation is not chaos but order and as such can be classified, understood, discerned and yes, used.

So for starters, Christianity was not anti-science or anti-intellectual until the Protestant upheavals resulted in some break away sects being anti-intellectual (by no means were ALL protestant groups anti-reason, just some).

Look at the history of all the great universities and you'll find Papal backing...Oxford, Paris, Naples, Madrid, etc.

Latin, as the "lingua franca" of Europe also provided a common language for scholars to debate in - thus also helping share info.

Now as for God.

It's safe to say that most posters here haven't written a book on the topic, and most aren't consulting their pastors, etc. responding. So it's kind of apples and oranges to conclude from fellow posters that God's losing the argument.

The "proof" of an evil God is taken from the Bible on the one hand (and specifically stories in the Old Testament taken to be LITERAL NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS of events, blow by blow, play by play, accurate numbers and all).... on the one hand, and the more universally accessible historical record of evil on the other with the presupposition: if I were God, I'd not allow XY&Z therefore, God's either not good, or he doesn't exist.

Curiously the atheists who make this either/or dilemma never conclude out side this box that perhaps this being just doesn't act like THEY WOULD.

So let's consider the alternative: that God exists, but doesn't use his power as WE WOULD. Doesn't necessarily make him morally guilty for the acts of men inasmuch as men are free moral agents.

But then there's another overlooked question and that is the very irrationality of evil itself. How can we understand what is ultimately irrational and thus defies understanding?

If God is described as "ipsum esse subsistens" (I AM), the "he whose essence is to exist" and being is eminently intelligible because He is intellect itself, then evil as irrational would be inherently not God, a defect, an irreal reality.

I'm not saying "evil doesn't exist"; obviously it does and we're distressed by it. But the running definition of God is opposed to irrationality; thus if something happens that's not intelligible, I don't think we can lay it at "his feet".

Which is why even the ancient writers ascribed to Satan the introduction of evil into the Garden (note the word "garden" implies a pre-existing order of things).

Philosophers have long pondered the phenomenological evidence of some inchoate sense of goodness in man... our very anger at evil suggests we have some concept of what "ought to be"; thus some sense of the world "not being right" or "being broken" which again points back to some earlier innocence and "garden of eden", a "before" the fall or introduction of irrationality/evil into our relationships with God, one another and ourselves.

I could go on, but this isn't a book. The question is a good one and deserves a book of an answer.

But let's consider the atheistic humanist's ethical challenge: trying to create a rule of life in a random, impersonal universe that doesn't care if humanity is snuffed out by a super-nova or not.

If the macro universe is cold, dead, and otherwise doesn't give a damn, then in what OBJECTIVE sense do we have in declaring anything we do "good" vs. "evil"? Wouldn't it all be subjective to what floats my boat?

One speaks of "preserving the species" or colonizing other words. But eventually, no matter how advanced the race gets, it'll die off. It's the way of things. There's no evidence of moral "progress" in human affairs even as our technology advances, so it's as likely our chances of survival DECREASES with the advance our our technological power, such that if all you hope for is that humanity somehow survives, going primitive is more conducive to that end than going hyper advanced.

In any event, it doesn't really matter - if there's no big meaning to it all. If individual humans are doomed then the race is doomed. And if the race is doomed, then what value other than our subjective tastes does any particular individual or the whole race have?


5/1/2007 3:15:33 AM EDT
[#47]

Quoted:
snip
I was just pointing out that what I read from the op'er was more of a deliberate, well planned exit than an "I don't need anyone telling me what to do or how to act"  attitude. Frequently the "prideful" angle is used when it doesn't apply as a swipe at the character of the non-believer. I'm not saying that's what you had in mind, I'm just saying it is a common tactic.

Religious belief is "programmed" whether you like it or not, programming is not always bad ,just look at the Marine Corp. You are led and taught what to believe, progressively, repetitively, in an emotionally charged environment. Ritual is used, group activities are used, a "sacred text" is used, you use rhythmic activities like music and song, there is a "mystery element" that you must keep trying to figure out..... and on and on.

As for the last comment , you just hate that someone who is not an arrogant asshole left because A.it makes it harder to attack him  and B.he would have been a good spokesman for the cause.


Well,

A: I don't see anyone attacking anybody here, and furthermore I see more nonbelievers attacking believers than anything, but that's another thread...

and

B: To borrow your Marines analogy, I think the Marines are bummed when they lose a good man too. Nothing wrong with that. Try not to turn it into a celebration if you would.
5/1/2007 7:18:35 AM EDT
[#48]

Quoted:
ETA:  If you are seriously still searching for the truth, I would encourage you to obtain a more firm foundation in the Bible.  Based on your postings, it seems to be extremely weak.


I think this is disingenuous.  The original poster has had a very thorough bible education, studied for many years, and taught others.

I therefore find it somewhat of a cop out to dismiss anyone who considers all the evidience and STILL rejects faith as "not having a good foundation."
5/1/2007 8:06:20 AM EDT
[#49]
Welcome to being free.  I always felt that religion was a simple means of distraction from the cruel things that go on in this world.  People pray to god all the time and have far worse circumstances than most of us.  I gave up god and religion along the time I found out that the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and Santa were not real.  God doesn't put food on your table, your paycheck does. God doesn't give you mercy, when you get behind on your bills, get hurt and can't work, have a hard choice to make and make the wrong one.  He doesn't give you rain when there's a bad drought, he doesn't lift the storm after you've been beaten down, he can't even keep bad shit from happening to good people.  If there was a god, he would make all the criminals suffer and allow the good people's lives to flourish.  God is a frickin phony.  Good Luck.



God and I have an understanding.  He don't come into my house, and I don't go into his.  As long as we keep this arrangement, I think we'll be just fine.  If he don't keep up his end of the deal, I have 30 round mags for that kind of situation.  
5/1/2007 10:31:05 AM EDT
[#50]
I would like to suggest a book for you - "Confessions" by St. Augustine.  It is not a traditional apologetic.  Rather, it is the personal story of how a very intelligent man wrestled with many of the same questions.  
Previous Page
/ 2
Next Page