[ARCHIVED THREAD] - My deconversion experience (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 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) 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? |
|
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. ![]() |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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:
Shall I keep posting? |
|
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) |
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. |
|
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" |
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_ |
Awakening Part 3 |
|
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 |
|
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. |
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 |
Awakening Part 4 |
|
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... |
|
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! |
Awakening Part 5 |
|
_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 |
|
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. |
|
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 |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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 |
|
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. |
|
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. |
A few things bothered me from Part five:
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?
? God is the God of compassion, of love. If only you submit yourself to acknowledge that God is in charge, not you.
Why is it then that the first colleges were Christian? ![]()
??? uhh where did you get this? In context, does it really say that...?
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
|
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. |
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 |
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.
|
|
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. |
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. |
|
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? |
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.
|
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." |
|
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. |

