Lately I’ve been reading The Bittersweet End, and I’ve been quite engrossed in the way his story is unfolding. He began the blog as a place to gather his thoughts about a few doubts he was dealing with. Over the last year, he has moved further and further away from belief, until he now pretty much considers himself an atheist. He has just recently talked to his wife and his pastor about it (he’s still attending church), and it’s been very moving to hear about those experiences through his writing. It’s reminded me of my own de-conversion.
I started this blog almost 6 years ago. That’s a pretty good life for a blog — I don’t often run across any that are that old. In fact, it’s made it impractical for me to display my archives without a drop-down; it would just take up too much space. But it’s not like I’ve blogged constantly through all that time. In 2007, I went back to school and got a 2nd Bachelor’s degree. I didn’t complete it until December of 2008, so you’ll notice that I didn’t really blog anything that whole year. 2009 saw a little more activity, but barely. I only made 3 posts that year, and I posted nothing in 2010. So I essentially had a 3-year hiatus from this blog. What happened in the meantime to make my return in 2011 a complete reversal from my original approach?
Well, like I said, I was in school during 2008, plus I was still working full time and I had 2 young children. Blogging just had to take a back seat. But 2008 also saw Barack Obama’s historic election to President of the US. I’m a Democrat, and I have been for a long time. But living in the South and associating with conservative Christians, you tend to be inundated with Republican talking points. It’s not that I have anything against Republicans. I just sometimes have trouble understanding why conservative Christians identify with them so much right now. And during the 2008 election, that stood out to me more and more. I often heard my Christian friends (and I was a Christian too at this point) talk badly about efforts to provide universal health care, for instance. They were against abortion, yet they didn’t support welfare programs that would help take care of the mothers and babies once they’ve been born. I had trouble squaring that with what Jesus said here:
Then the righteous will answer him, saying, “Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?” And the King will answer them, “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.”
– Matt 25:37-40
I felt that their position ran counter to Christian values. I was really bothered by that experience, but I wasn’t naive enough to blame Christianity itself when these were just faults in its adherents. However, I was part of a denomination known as the church of Christ. They believe they are the one true church that Christ established on the Day of Pentecost. Since the CoC thinks it’s the one true example of Christianity in the world, they believe that virtually everyone else is going to Hell. By the time 2008 rolled around, I no longer agreed with them on that. But I still thought God had a high standard set for salvation, and I still believed in a literal Hell. So when I saw how the group of Christians that claimed to follow Christ more closely than anyone seemed more concerned with keeping their taxes low than with helping those less fortunate, it became hard to rationalize how they could be on God’s good side. It was also hard to see how the “heretics and heathens” that did try to help the less fortunate could be going to Hell.
And it didn’t stop with social issues. Members of the CoC are often known for their extensive Bible knowledge. That’s admirable. But there were still many in the congregations who obviously didn’t think deeply about their beliefs or doctrines. Many of them had just been raised in the church and didn’t seem to know very much about why they believed what they believed. Of course, that’s a common problem in any denomination. But since the CoC takes the position that others will go to Hell for not understanding Christianity more perfectly, what would happen with those casual members in the CoC? Would they be found acceptable just because they were in the right version of Christianity? If so, isn’t that unfair to all the other casual members of any other denomination? And if the CoC is really the one right version of Christianity, but its casual members aren’t saved, then just imagine how small the number of saved will be.
In early May of 2008, the country of Myanmar (or Burma) was devastated by a tsunami. Over 138,000 people died. I was really bothered by that event. Myanmar is a very poor country, and almost 90% of the population is Buddhist. According to my Christian beliefs, almost every one of those 138,000 people went to Hell, after living in poverty and dying in a horrific manner. Why would God allow that?
My thought processes during this time showed me that according to my beliefs, the vast, vast majority of people who had ever lived were going to Hell. That’s a pretty bleak picture. Surely God wouldn’t be okay with that scenario. So I began studying about Hell to see if I had misunderstood what the Bible said about it.
I’ll talk more about that in the next post.
Finding Truth 
@ Nate
“(in other words, Ark, play nice!). :)”
Sheesh…that’s right, blame me.
@ Paul
Wotcha Paul. You been hiding in the vestry?
”And yet you say that Christianity is based on the Bible. When I tell you that’s wrong, you tell me I’m not a Christian. ”
The bible is just an old collection of scrolls along with the ”New Improved Old Testament”, all stuck together with glue made from dead slugs, after being divinely inspired and not at all using the “Eeeny, Meeny, Miny Mo..” method of theology.
So, in effect while all those Christians were rushing around the countryside after Make Believe Paul had trail-blazed all over the place preaching from scrolls and oral tradition and stuff they were still preaching from the bible. Only a small bit of it. And those little bits had the tales of Jesus and this was important, right?
Everyone’s favorite Christian murderer, St Constantine the Naughty just tried to move things along a bit, that’s all, because you know what the Catholics are like, if you leave em alone long enough they just make things up.
And of course Marcion didn’t help much either,
So, don’t worry, Paul, providing you believe that a man-god walked on water and came back to life after those rotten Jews had that Roman Wimp, Pontius crucify him I think you are definitely a Christian and as delusional as the rest of ’em.
And if they call you nasty names again, come and tell me , okay?
Super.
LikeLike
@Nate
POINT #1 – More flies with honey. I detect friendliness and respect in your comment and I very much appreciate it. I see I needn’t have been so cranky in my post.
POINT #2 – The Bible. I don’t find it difficult at all to talk about Christianity without “getting around to the Bible.” In fact, even though I have both the moniker and the reputation of being ‘Captain Catholic’ I find that I spend more time un-teaching the Bible than I do teaching it. You will notice that the exegesis in my blog, http://reflectionsofacatholicchristian.wordpress.com/, is more of an attempt to relieve people of misguided notions than it is an effort to introduce new thoughts.
POINT #3 – The Bible, again. I hope you will accept this analogy. The Bible is to faith what a cook book is to dinner. Eating is mandatory, reading is optional. No good cook follows the cook book slavishly, like a robot. She might make changes for all sorts of reasons — maybe she’s cooking for someone with a specific health concern so she omits or substitutes one or more ingredients; maybe, when she forgets to shop for scallions she uses onions in a pinch; maybe she’s done some experimentation and has developed improvements on the recipe; maybe she’s cooking for a big group and has to figure out how to increase the proportions of the ingredients; maybe there’s a typo on page 40 and she’s marked a correction. Do I need to go on? Can you see how these observations about cooking can apply to the business of using the Bible to spread the gospel?
You will also notice that a good cook, an experienced cook, will often come up with a delicious meal without even consulting a cook book — some people describe this as a ‘feel’ for food preparation. The cook herself might not be able to explain what she did.
That isn’t even the most important thing. The most important thing is that a lousy cook will make shitty food no matter how closely he studies the cook book. The idea that Christianity is based on the Bible is no different than the idea that dinner is based on the cook book. Truth be told, dinner is based on the cook — and the gospel is spread by people who themselves have received the gospel, even though some people never seem to be able to get the hang of it.
POINT #4 – Theology. The bad news is that very few people actually understand theology. As for the rest, you could send them to seminary for twenty years and they’d never make heads or tails of it. Compounding the problem is the fact that many of the people teaching theology don’t understand theology themselves; worse, they don’t understand that they don’t understand. Lots of times the student who might be blessed with a talent for understanding theology is taught by someone who, let’s face it, is much less intelligent than he is. The “student” asks good questions and the “teacher” gives bullshit answers. Is it any wonder that the “student” eventually decides that the reason he got bullshit answers is that there are no good answers to be had?
The good news is that you don’t really need to understand theology. Christianity isn’t about UNDERSTANDING. Actually, you don’t even need to understand whether God exists. The important thing is repentance. Stop being punitive and learn to forgive. Stop being selfish and learn that every other person’s well being is as important as yours. Stop trying to control everything and seek the good of all rather than individual good. That’s repentance. If you don’t do that you have no chance of understanding — not in any meaningful way.
Christianity overflows with the unrepentant. They’d rather get into arguments than learn mercy, compassion and humility. The fact that you find that lots of repulsive assholes are going to church isn’t the fault of the church — it’s just that, in the main, human beings are repulsive assholes.
Response?
Paul
LikeLike
@Ark
Did Jesus REALLY walk on water? How the hell do I know? I wasn’t there!
What I DO know is that the question of whether the story “really” happened isn’t important — in fact, that question doesn’t particularly interest me. That’s not what the story is about.
What is resurrection? Well, I can tell you what it’s NOT. It’s not zombies crawling out of graves. I’m not even going to TRY to tell you what it is because you’re a concrete thinker and a literalist. The closest explanation I can give you that might possibly make sense is that it’s important to believe that the fact that life ends in death doesn’t mean that life is meaningless. That’s hard for you to believe? Can’t help you, brother. Not from this distance.
Did nasty Jews kill Jesus? How about wimpy Romans? Ark, this is something that will cause you to ridicule me because it’s mystical in nature; but until you figure out that YOU killed Jesus his death won’t mean a pile of poop.
Yeah, I suppose that you calling me ‘delusional’ qualifies as a “nasty name”. And, frankly, I don’t like it when you call me nasty names.
Paul
LikeLike
Hi Paul,
I’m glad I was able to set you at ease a little about my blog. 🙂 Thanks for replying.
I loved your comment, actually. I identify as an atheist, and I do that, not because I dislike Christianity, but because I don’t believe it. That said, there are certainly iterations of Christianity that I really dislike, because I think they create a lot of problems. However, the type that you’re describing, I would honestly have no problem with.
What’s not to like about that philosophy? I wish everyone who identified as a Christian (or any other label) applied this mantra.
I also really liked your cookbook analogy. I’ve never thought of it that way before, but I really like it. Allow me to put a slight twist on it. What if our population was split between carnivores and herbivores? A herbivore might be able to whip up delicious food without the aid of a cookbook, but to the carnivore, he’s accomplished nothing. The carnivore isn’t even aware that any food is present, much less that it might be tasty and nourishing. And the opposite situation would apply as well. The carnivore might be very pleased with the cuisine he could put together, but it would be utterly inedible to the herbivore.
In a similar fashion, once I questioned the basic tenets of the type of Christianity I used to follow, I realized that I didn’t have much basis for believing in the supernatural at all. Now, that’s just me. I know plenty of people who feel quite strongly the other way — several of them comment on this blog rather often. But for me personally, I haven’t had any experiences to make me believe in a spirit realm, etc. To me, there’s just nothing there.
In your opinion, is such a position problematic? If I embrace the values of secular humanism, so that my goals are the same as the ones you outlined in your definition of “repentance,” am I still falling short of something?
Thanks,
Nate
LikeLike
@Nate
“If I embrace the values of secular humanism, so that my goals are the same as the ones you outlined in your definition of “repentance,” am I still falling short of something?”
I don’t think it’s an issue of you ‘falling short’ because each of us will always fall very, very short. The issue, as I understand it, is of reconciliation. We’re all at each other’s mercy. The problem with humankind is humankind; but the solution to the problems of humankind is also humankind. Individuals are basically powerless.
I hope I’m wrong about this, but every time I hear someone claim to be a “secular humanist” I feel as if there’s an unspoken “so” as in, “I’m a secular humanist so leave me alone.”
I believe in “One Church” — that is, one church united — because I believe in “one people”. I should never forget that I’m responsible for your well being, and I should never forget that it’s very, very easy for me to fail to meet my responsibilities.
A church survives, not because everyone decides to believe the same thing, but because everyone decides to do whatever it takes to put up with each other….
Paul
LikeLike
I gotta figure out how to end quote, ‘parently.
LikeLike
Nate,
Hopefully I got this quote thing right…
I’ve been thinking about how our reality is basically comprised of vibrations. At least that’s how our senses pick up on “reality”.
Dogs are more keen to a wider sound vibration, eagles have more visual vibration awareness etc…
So if we as humans are severely limited to the 100% of vibrations happening, could the vibrations we are unaware of somehow be what people think is the “spiritual world”?
Still physical, still reality, just beyond our sensory abilities?
Probably a stupid question. <—– that's me baiting you to tell me it isn't.
LikeLike
Oh no, that’s not how I mean that. It’s just that when people identify with a religion, you can infer certain ideas of morality automatically. But atheism doesn’t carry any other ideas along with it — just the notion that an individual doesn’t believe in any gods. So I only brought up secular humanism as a way of saying that ethics and morality are important to me.
That’s cool. So if I understand you correctly, you’re not overly concerned in whether someone’s a Christian or not; rather, you care more about how we treat one another. Is that right?
LikeLike
Nice! 😀
You know, I don’t think that’s a stupid question. I have no idea if there’s anything to it or not, but it’s an interesting concept at the very least!
Years ago, I was talking to a friend who mentioned something similar. We were talking about ghost sightings and the like — especially those where the “ghost” doesn’t seem to interact with whomever’s watching, but is repeating something from its own life, over and over. My friend noted that we leave fingerprints, footprints, and other kinds of residue whenever we’ve been somewhere. What if, especially in cases of extreme emotion, we leave some other kind of residue behind — an emotional residue. Perhaps some kind of frequency that is usually beyond our senses. Could something like that explain paranormal activity?
Again, I tend to be skeptical of those things, but it’s still something fun to think about.
LikeLike
@Paul
<blockquoteDid nasty Jews kill Jesus? How about wimpy Romans? Ark, this is something that will cause you to ridicule me because it’s mystical in nature; but until you figure out that YOU killed Jesus his death won’t mean a pile of poop.
Yeah, I suppose that you calling me ‘delusional’ qualifies as a “nasty name”. And, frankly, I don’t like it when you call me nasty names.
Paul<blockquote
You revel in the obscure,Paul, and always have. It has been a feature of your comment style ever since I encountered you on John Zande’s blog.
I could not possibly have ”killed”</em) Yeshua, as he was a narrative construct and no matter how you wish to cut it, 'he' is still alive and kicking in the 40,000 plus christian religions currently infecting humanity. "Killed Jesus". shakes head – What an utterly ridiculous and quite frankly silly and childish thing to say.
When the worldwide numbers of religious people drops significantly – and it is already beginning to happen- such beliefs may well be considered a form of psychosis.
Maybe then I will use the term with more of a sympathetic air.
But while the religious continue to inculcate and show no contrition for the horrors they have perpetrated, then consider yourself very lucky that I only use the term delusional.
Ark
LikeLike
“You revel in the obscure,Paul, and always have.”
Ark,
Do you think that it’s an ‘obscure’ doctrine of the Christian faith to assert that Jesus died for the sins of all of humankind, or to point out that you yourself are included when the phrase “all of humankind” is used?
Look. I’m not asking you to agree with it, I just want you to make good on your comment that it’s “obscure”.
While you’re mulling over your response, I’ll tell you that what I mentioned is the OPPOSITE of obscure. In fact, you’d have a really hard time finding a Christian who’d give me an argument when I say, “The doctrine that Jesus died for our sins is way, way up on the significance list when it comes to Christian belief”
P
LikeLike
This is what I mean by obscure.
Yes, all of what you believe regarding religion is not only obscure but patently silly.
If you are unable to rationalise this then this is clear evidence of how deeply inculcation is manifest within you.
That you are unwilling to investigate the veracity of counter claims to Christianity is more worrying as it may speak of the psychosis I mentioned in my previous comment.
Yet, you are quite capable of admitting that Noah’s flood is fictional. As is the Garden of Eden.(I hope so, at any rate) Maybe you are even capable of realising the truth in the archaeological evidence that has demonstrated beyond rational doubt that Moses, the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan is fiction.
But the fact that you are unwilling to apply the same standards of honest criticism to the character of Yeshua and the events of the Gospels not only demonstrates the level of hypocrisy you display but more worrying, that you tolerate it and pass it on.
This is worse than delusion because it suggests you are aware and still choose to peddle this fiction which might well make you a fraud and a liar.
LikeLike
It becomes clearer and clearer to me, Ark, that you’re not particularly interested in talking to me about God, Jesus, the Bible, the Church or anything else. Your comments aim to provoke pain rather than conversation.
I don’t want to argue with you, not right now, anyway. I might never want to argue with you because you simply don’t fight fair. I do, however, want to figure out whether there’s any kind of point you’re trying to make amidst all the insults.
First of all, nobody in First Century Palestine spoke English, so nobody called anybody ‘Jesus’ because Jesus is the anglicized version of a man’s name. I, however, DO speak English which is why I use the name ‘Jesus’. Back then and back there folks spoke Aramaic or Hebrew or Latin and names are rendered differently in all those languages. Someone who was speaking Hebrew might have referred to the man I call ‘Jesus’ with the name ‘Yeshua’ but since we’re communicating with each other in English, your insistence on using a non-English form can only be construed as an attempt, on your part, to be annoying. And, just so know you’re being effective, I shall tell you that I find it very annoying.
It was difficult, but I managed to run one fact past your interference which is that I understand that the story of Noah’s flood is fictional. That is, the version recorded in Genesis contains many fictional and hyperbolic details. I am, however, open to the idea that it’s not 100% fictional because a story about a great flood shows up in the mythology of so many cultures that one is left to speculate that there might be some grain of truth underneath all the stories — but I have no knowledge of what that “grain” might be.
You needn’t have relied solely upon your ‘hope’, because if you’d simply asked me whether or not I believed that there was once an actual Garden perfectly suited to human comfort where a naked lady was seduced by a talking snake who convinced her to get her husband to agree to do the one solitary thing that could possibly piss their landlord off and get them evicted… Well, if you’d asked me, I would have explained to you that it’s just a ‘story’ like the Three Little Pigs. And, like the story of the Three Little Pigs, clever people can discern a lesson from the story — except that the lesson of The Fall is far more important and far more difficult to grasp.
Since you’ve repeated it twice, I’ve got to figure that your really think that Justification is a very minor aspect of theology. You my idea idea that your sins were the reason Jesus died on the cross is “obscure”, and peripheral to Christian faith. If your arrogant assumption that you understand Christianity better than I do is true, then I am no Christian — but I do adhere to SOME sort of religion whose members accept a set of tenets we call the “Nicene Creed’ (a creed, by the way, that you figure no one has ever heard of except me and a couple of my oddball friends — it was probably written by Captain Catholic during one of his bouts of psychosis.)
You’re confident you understand Christianity and I don’t. I believe that Christianity is about mercy, repentance, compassion and self-sacrifice. You’re telling me it’s about believing in a super magician who can snap his fingers and turn water to wine and can whip up a satisfying lunch for five thousand using ingredients that could fit easily in a Tupperware jar. Let me tell you, Ark, THAT’S the stuff that’s obscure!
Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that there really WERE a man who could literally walk across the Sea of Galilee. I’d have to wonder about him; but I wouldn’t be wondering whether he was the Son of God. I’d be wondering why he chose such a tedious and cumbersome method of transportation when there are so many boats that are available.
That story in the Fourteenth Chapter of Matthew isn’t about magical superpowers. It’s about faith. You, Ark, don’t know what faith is because you’ve got it all mixed up with gullibility, superstition, deceit and exploitation.
You get under my skin. I’m sure your techniques work well to get under a lot of people’s skin. We need a referee. I would consider it a right neighborly gesture on the part of our host if he would voice an opinion on the question of whether an objective person would label the idea that Jesus died for the sins of humankind an “obscure” aspect of Christianity.
Rrrrrr!!
LikeLike
Captain, if ark is so annoying to you, why are you only replying to him, and not me? And I not being hostile enough? Does daddy want a spanking?
I’m just curious how you think the Catholic Church gets to make up whatever kind of dogma they want, and you believe you are basically ordered by god to respond to it, but then you think we are foolish for following what we have found for ourselves to be true in our hearts.
It’s a little hypocritical captain grumpy pants.
LikeLike
Yes Nate, it’s a fun topic 🙂
I like that notion of leaving traces of emotion, crazy creepy!
I’m ultimately a skeptic as well, but I do believe there is life we aren’t aware of.
Like ants being aware of us.
LikeLike
Where is that wonderful
Seems like you could really use what you say you believe, to help you with your obvious frustration. Maybe you need more faith.
LikeLike
Our host is an atheist, and a nicer guy you are unlikely to find, he won’t come to your rescue while you are pushing this diatribe I can assure you of that.
The biblical character Yeshua was a Jew. He preached to the jews and his message was for Jews.
The biblical character of Yeshua was crucified for sedition by the Romans.
Anything else is simply catholic polemic.
You might consider yourself a ‘sinner’, and I couldn’t give a monkey’s uncle. You don’t get a free pass to ladle that BS around without being prepared to defend it.
If you want to be considered even marguinally intelligent and have a modicum of integrity then before we fo any further,demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt how yo arrive at the conclusion that Yeshua(Jesus) was divine/is god.
If you can’t do that then you are a fraud. Period.
For the record: I really hope I annoy the crap out of you as your religion has been doing far worse for thousands of years.
So..let’s see if you have a pair…show us your god.
LikeLike
Hi Paul,
I agree that the notion of Christ dying for all mankind seems like a well-known and central tenet to all the versions of Christianity I’m familiar with.
As I said, I was part of a very fundamentalist version of Christianity, so I sometimes have trouble identifying with the branches that don’t hold to Biblical inerrancy. So since you acknowledge that many of the Bible stories are simply stories and didn’t actually occur as recorded, and since you don’t believe Jesus was divine, why do you still identify as a Christian? What is it about Christianity that makes you think it has any divine connection?
Thanks,
Nate
LikeLike
@Mark.
The fact that I haven’t responded to you yet doesn’t mean that I’m unwilling to, or that I don’t love you ❤
But I can certainly understand your anxiety….
"I’m just curious how you think the Catholic Church gets to make up whatever kind of dogma they want, and you believe you are basically ordered by god to respond to it, but then you think we are foolish for following what we have found for ourselves to be true in our hearts."
Where did I ever say anything remotely like that? The name of this blog is "Finding Truth" and that's exactly what I want to do. I feel nothing but admiration and camaraderie toward other people who want to find the truth.
"Making up whatever kind of dogma you want" won't get you to the truth at all. Just the opposite! Let's consider why someone would want to "make stuff up" rather than search for truth and then yield to it (happily or not) when s/he found it. Maybe you can do a better job than me of putting your finger on it.
I know that there have been times in my life when I was smart enough to realize that something was true but unwilling, emotionally, to accept that particular 'something'. For example, there was this hot girl I really liked back in 1977 who gave me all kinds of clear indications that she wasn't interested in coupling up with me. My belief that she DID want me was an "article of faith" that you couldn't get me to relinquish no matter how solid your reasoning was.
In that instance, the truth wasn't hard to find at all — pretty easy to figure out, really; but I chose something else over truth. I figured I got to "make up whatever kind of" reality I wanted to — but I paid a price for living in fantasy-land. Eventually I decided the pain of accepting the truth was better than the ongoing cost of living in fantasy.
That said, I think you're being over-simplistic in thinking that the Catholic Church is "making stuff up". Over the centuries, the Church has been blessed with many, many courageous saints who have endured all kinds of hardship to get to the truth. They've also had more than their share of power-mad douchebags who'd say anything at all if they thought it would solidify their hold on power.
The saints tell people that there's no reward for believing the truth since believing the truth is its own reward. They also say that there's no punishment for denying the truth since denying the truth is its own punishment. The douchebags tell you what to believe and then threaten to punish you if you resist them. They'll also promise rewards to those who go along.
I expect that it's obvious to you that the douchebags themselves are suffering the inherent punishment of denying the truth….
So, when you said "the Catholic Church" you have to specify whether you mean "the saints of the Catholic Church" or "the douchebags of the Catholic Church"
Paul
LikeLike
Hell is what started my unraveling as well. I look forward to reading your journey.
LikeLike
@Paul
A list of some of these saints would help tremendously, so’s we can differentiate.
LikeLike
So in my effort to understand your now unbelieving mind, I have started here. I think rather than try to convince you of anything, because you already know the basic facts, I would simply like to compare our minds as to how we have chosen to view things. We are obviously both “thinkers”. We do not make our decisions haphazardly. And yet we have come to very different conclusions while looking at the same world, and the same book, i.e. Bible.
So…lets start with politics. You seem to disagree with the “R’s” and chose the “D’s”. I, on the other hand, after trying to be a faithful voter to do my civic obligations have become so disgusted with the filth, immorality, stupidity, greed, selfishness, materialism, pridefulness, lying, and arrogance, of both parties, and all politics, that I have labeled it “damaged beyond repair”. Even the founding fathers said our Constitution would not work if society abandoned faith and morality. We have arrived to that place. The Bible teaches that a country that refuses to acknowledge God will basically have fools for leaders. We are at that place.
So, my choice has been to still vote because I feel “obligated” to, but knowing that unless this country comes back to God, I am completely wasting my time. This country is so far in debt that we are headed for a collapse. In our selfish society it is beyond fixing. We are incapable of it. The state of our politics has driven me to draw even closer to the Lord and completely focus on changing hearts. If by some miracle, enough hearts are truly changed, then politics will straighten itself out, and I will proudly vote again. But for now I vote in shame and disgust for all of it. What a bunch of arrogant fools.
Yes, I am against anything that “promotes” abortion and homosexuality, but I am also for helping the children of these dysfunctional families, and single parent families. But I have to ask the question, why do we have such a high percentage of this kind of need in our modern day culture? And as it continues to grow, it is already more than we can financially support, and will become even worse if there is not a change of direction. So how do you suggest we change the heart of society back to a less destructive lifestyle? Children are being damaged in so many ways that you can’t even begin to list it all. Not only slain in the womb, but neglected and abused once born. Is it simply a matter of better education? Fix the mind? More government help? Create a society of dependents? Do we need to fix the mind, or the soul?
I say it is the soul. As an unbeliever in God, I have to assume you would say the mind. You can correct me if I’m wrong. I want to understand your thinking. I want to understand my own mind too, compared to yours. We can both be wrong, but we can’t both be right. If you decide to ignore this large comment, I understand, but it would be disappointing to lose the chance to compare two minds. Don’t you think? I mean, lets keep it fun. It is a comparison of minds. No need for either of us to change if we don’t want to.
I’m no longer a “D” or an “R”. My spiritual conclusion is that our only hope is a fixing of the heart and soul. If that can be fixed, then the mind, and politics, will fix themselves. Until then we are on a track for great pain and destruction, which will end up driving some people to God, and has already driven me closer to God, not farther away. Are we exact opposites? Or do we have any common ground?
Obviously, since I believe our politics is currently completely broken and I no longer have a horse in that race, I would imagine our discussion would need to move to the Bible itself. I wanted to start with the political issue first, because I believe it has become a nonfactor in my life, and there is no discussion there for me. We have become a “house of cards” just waiting to fall. You can talk bad about the “R’s” all you want. You won’t get disagreement from me. Point out their every flaw if you like. I’m about fixing things. That is probably where our differences are, and also where the true answers likely are. I don’t know. What do you think, Nate? Mind or soul? Education or God? I believe in education too, but not with out God, not without soul, and not without God’s word. This is where my brain is on politics and what society really needs. It needs a return to more Spirit, and less flesh. Only God can do that.
LikeLike
thee, I’ll let nate respond top you as your comment was to him, but I would like to ask you a question.
First, let me say that I dont think my opinion of politics is too far removed from yours. I have no issue with homosexuality, but as a person who once believed in the bible, and knowing what the bible says about it, I can see why you’d be against it.
but you say that only god can fix the problems withing our country. have you ever seen bible believers act in less than admirable ways while having seen non-bible believers act in very admirable ways? If so, could it be that it is something other than a belief in god or the bible that spurs the character traits we’d all like to see cultivated in the world?
LikeLike
Hi thee-n-counter — thanks for the comment!
First, I would agree with you that both major US parties have massive flaws. I’m not a “party-line” Democrat. I like to think of myself as a moderate and a pragmatist, and I feel that the Democrats match my outlook more than the Republicans do right now. I think there’s a legitimate place for government from the local level to the federal. And I think there are certain things the government can do better than private enterprise, though the waste and bureaucracy are definite concerns. I also agree that the deficit is a problem, but the Democrats have seemed (to me) to manage that better than the Republicans in recent years.
As far as the problems that face our society, I do think it comes down to education and opportunity more than anything to do with God. I’ve realized over the years that there are many good reasons to live morally and responsibly that have nothing to do with a belief in God. I won’t deny that faith seems to help some people, but there are also plenty of believers who seem to just float through life making one bad life choice after another. I think when people have a better understanding of their options and they take time to think through their situation, they almost invariably make better decisions. While at the same time, countless prayers have gone up to God from the Christians in this nation, yet we still face the same problems.
However, when it comes to my personal loss of faith, politics really had nothing to do with it — the biggest factor was the Bible itself. So I think you’re right that our discussion will ultimately need to lead to that topic…
Thanks again for the comment! I look forward to speaking to you further. 🙂
LikeLike