I value open-mindedness over most other things. When I was going through my deconversion and having frequent religious discussions with my family, I often felt that they weren’t being open-minded. I know that it’s hard (perhaps impossible) to judge how open-minded someone else is being, so I hesitate to even pass that kind of judgment. At the same time, it’s not like they were answering the problems I brought up with actual solutions — it mostly centered on how arrogant I was to question “God’s word.” On top of that, they never read any of the books or articles that I asked them to — I don’t think they even read all of the stuff I personally wrote to them.
It was the seeming lack of open-mindedness that shocked me most, in many ways. During my time as a Christian, I tried to be as open-minded as possible. I was part of a strict denomination that thought most other Christians were wrong, so I often had discussions with my Christian friends to try to help them see “the truth.” In those discussions, I often admitted that I could be wrong:
Either I’m wrong, or you’re wrong, or we’re both wrong. We can’t both be right…
I firmly believed (based on Matthew 7) that as long as I was searching for the truth, I would find it. Also, if what I believed about Christianity was true, then more study would only bear that out. In other words, I had nothing to fear by discussing and examining Christianity with those who disagreed with me. If they could show me where I was wrong, then that was good! It would mean that I had believed the wrong thing, but learning that would give me the opportunity to correct it and be more pleasing to God.
Now that I have come out of Christianity, I still feel just as strongly about the merits of open-mindedness. Recently, someone suggested that I read In His Image, by William Jennings Bryan (which I’m now doing), but when he gave me the suggestion, he then backpedaled and said I might not like the book because it supports Christianity. I was disappointed by that statement. I told him that I don’t read things based on whether or not I will agree with them — I take religion very seriously, because all religion is an effort to explain reality. If this book by WJB can provide some arguments I haven’t considered before, or answer some of my questions about Christianity, then I want to know that!
But now for the admission. Now for the part that I haven’t been able to say to my family yet: I don’t see any way that I’ll ever believe Christianity again. On the surface, that may seem like it runs counter toward my goal of being open-minded, but it really doesn’t. The fact is, I’ve just seen too much. “I once was blind, but now I see.” The fact is, the Bible can’t fix its problems because it’s a closed document. No more material is going in or out of it. Nor is God going to speak to me directly or perform some miracle to overcome my skepticism. We’re stuck with what we’ve got.
We’re left with a god that’s supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, and loves us all, yet we still have evil in the world. He remains hidden from us, but supposedly wants a relationship with us. He supposedly left us a message, but no one can agree on what it says, and its books look pretty much like all the other things that were being written at the time. As this post said:
Let’s face it – I may still be open to the idea of being convinced on the matter, but this is a genie that’s not going to go back into the bottle easily. I can’t unlearn what I’ve found; I can’t simply deny the truth that I’ve been able to discover without the fear of uprooting my faith. To ask me to believe again would be to take on the herculean task of not only providing sufficient evidence but also dealing with all of the logical and evidential problems or to ask me to knowingly deceive myself – and I’m not sure I’m willing to do that for anyone.
I am still an open-minded person. But I also know enough about Christianity now to know what it is and what it isn’t. I didn’t lose my faith by forgetting things, but by learning things. And if I had known years ago what I know now, I never would have been a Christian in the first place.
Finding Truth 
William,
That you would ask such a silly question means that you are not in any realm reachable by reason.
You simply have no capacity for deep thinking, inductive thinking or thinking that allows the mind to reason its way from point A to point B.
You satisfy your doubts with explanations that feed your doubts. That is another indication of your slavery to personal bias.
LikeLike
Archaeo,
Why listen to the very sources that turned you into a bleeding idiot?
Here is some common sense mixed with simple science:
1. Man-made global warming is caused by atmospheric CO2 according to Al Gore.
2. Atmospheric CO2 is minuscule, less than .03%
3. Plants love atmospheric CO2 and the oceans absorb it, turning it into bicarbonates.
Therefore, only a complete gullible idiot would believe Al Gore.
And only a complete ignoramus would think that atmospheric CO2 is bad even it existed in substantial quantities.
LikeLike
So you’re saying you would rather not know any more than you already do – that you know all that you need to know, ever, and for you, the learning process is over – is that what you’re saying? (It’s SO hard to tell –!)
LikeLike
William,
The meaning of the Bible is defined by the cultures where it was produced, not by a bunch of barking mad, 20th century atheists or pin headed academics out to make themselves looks smart instead of stupid.
The exegesis (the derivation of meaning) of both the Old and New Testaments was completed by the Jews and Christians at around the same time, roughly the 4th century AD.
At the end of the 4th century AD, Pope Damascus I commissioned Saint Jerome to compile and translate the literature that had been picked by the Church, for the Bible into Latin.
In the following centuries, the meaning of the Bible was officially established and codified, through ecumenical councils (Church authority) although from the very beginning, Jesus’ teachings had been passed down through tradition which was the ancient way.
It is the Jews and Christians who get to assign meaning to their scriptures, not you or the phony sources you quote from.
What would people think if you went to JK Rowling and told her that you knew more about her Harry Potter books than she does and that she’s been wrong about Harry Potter all along.
People would rightly think you were crazy.
Similarly, atheists’ attempts to redefine the meaning of the Bible is lunacy. The original meaning of the Bible has been kept by the Roman and Eastern Orthodox Christian churches.
If you want to learn the authentic meaning of the Bible you must study from those sources. Saint’s Augustine and Aquinas are required reading in most graduate schools.
LikeLike
At LEAST you could go over there and tell them what idiots you think they are, and why – give them some of that “Rope-a-dope” like you give us, you know, where you dance around for two or three paragraphs and never really say anything?
LikeLike
Archaeo,
You must stop hallucinating fantasy meanings for the things you read.
My previous comment to you was simple and easily understood: Only an idiot would believe in man-made global warming because common sense and science say that man-made global warming do not exist.
LikeLike
William,
Since I just used simple logic to prove that atheism is a faith-based belief, you are the one who has trouble with logic.
LikeLike
Let me speak to you in the simple language of a child, Si, which I’m beginning to think you just may be – JK Rowling made up the character, “Harry Potter” in her mind, Si, so of course she knows more about him than anyone else, but if JK Rowling were to write about John Kennedy or Martin King, there are many who would know more than she about either of those, and she would likely be the first to admit it graciously and be happy to learn from their expertise – a humility you would appear to lack.
LikeLike
What would you know about either of those?
LikeLike
“…I just used simple logic to prove that atheism is a faith-based belief….”
But you didn’t – just saying you did, doesn’t make it true. Atheism is a lack of faith, I thought we had made that clear to all but the most obtuse.
LikeLike
Archeao,
Here it is again, in English simple enough for even you to understand.
Note that my proof is based on:
1. A simple, obvious fact: Atheism cannot be proven.
2. The meaning of the word “faith:” the belief in that which cannot be proven.
3. A simple conclusion based on the one fact and the meaning of the one word, faith:
Therefore, atheism is a faith-based belief.
That’s logic. You saying that it isn’t doesn’t make it so. It only gives one more proof that atheism has rendered you stupid.
LikeLike
Oh, yeah – I guess that DOES explain it, doesn’t it –?
LikeLike
Archaeo,
You completely missed the point, as usual with my comment about JK Rowling.
The point was that only the author gets to define the meaning of their own material.
Similarly, the Christians and Jews get to define the meaning of the material they use.
Whether the material is fiction or fact is totally irrelevant as is the basis for all you pyrotechnically stupid comments.
LikeLike
But come on, Si, this is name-calling – let’s get back to basics. Tell us why you think the Church, that you personally maintain has kept the Judeo/Christian religion alive from day 1 (according to your calendar) is wrong in maintaining that it was four separate sources, writing at different times, after 1000 BCE, that wrote Genesis, Exodus. Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, instead of Moses —
Inquiring minds want to know. Oh, and please provide evidence, preferably from one or more of those Universities you say you attended.
LikeLike
I think I understand the problem now – you don’t understand the meaning of the word, “logic.”
There’s a long list of things I don’t believe in, elves, unicorns, gods, dragons, etc, but I don’t need to PROVE that I don’t believe in them because I don’t believe they exist.
Now, if you claim that something DOES exist, you need to prove it. You don’t have to prove that you BELIEVE in it, but if you expect anyone else to accept that it’s real, you have to prove it.
See how that works?
LikeLike
“The point was that only the author gets to define the meaning of their own material. Similarly, the Christians and Jews get to define the meaning of the material they use.”
That is SO not true – going back to the four groups the Church agrees wrote the first five books of the Bible, instead of Moses (a subject you’ve been avoiding like the plague, knowing you haven’t a leg to stand on) – a Jew from the Yahwist Source in Judea doesn’t get to define the meaning of the material the Elohist Source used, or the Priestly Source, or the Deuteronomist Source, they all reserve the right to write differently, which is why we have:
the two creation stories in Genesis
two descriptions of the covenant between God and Abraham
two stories about the naming of Isaac
two stories about the renaming of Jacob
two versions of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20 & Deuteronomy 5)
two accounts of Moses’ striking the rock at Meribah
And all that aside, when you release a painting or publish a book, you hand it over to the world, to interpret as it sees fit – once released to the world, EVERYone gets to find their own meaning in your work.
You have been living in a bubble, haven’t you?
LikeLike
In Isaiah 45:5, YHWH proudly boasts that he’s an atheist:
“I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God.”
Q: What does the Bible say about atheists?
A: “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” Psalm 14:1
Ergo, God is a fool.
The Bible says it. I believe. That settles it.
LikeLike
Looks like his Mommy called him home to dinner – I was hoping for an intelligent debate on a slow afternoon, and all I get is PeeWee Herman, saying, “I know you are, but what am I?”
LikeLike
Omg Ron I nearly crapped my pants.
LikeLike
Archaeo,
You just agreed with the absurd notion that you, an atheist, gets to redefine the Bible.
Well, I guess if Reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin could do it, you too, can join the Protestant Change the Bible to Suit Yourself party and have at it.
But those of us who value reason and wisdom understand that the Bible was compiled by the Catholics, for the purposes of the Catholics.
So to understand what the Bible actually means you have to go study with the Catholics.
The same would be true for the Koran. In order to understand the Koran properly and fully you’d have to go study with that branch of Islam that traces itself back to the Prophet Mohammed.
Otherwise, all you’d be getting was someone’s spin.
If you feel free to redefine anything and everything to suit your fancy, how on earth are you ever going to learn what anything actually means?
LikeLike
Ah, more cryptic comments, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
So are you saying that the Catholic viewpoint is the one to accept? If so, that means that you accept the Catholic viewpoint that four separate groups, writing long after Moses bones lay a ‘moldering in the grave, wrote everything attributed to Moses, and in fact, Moses contributed nothing, either to the Judeo/Christian religion, or to the western world?
On the other hand, if you accept the Gospels, written 42-100 years after Yeshua allegedly lived, by those who never met him, aren’t you accepting someone else’s spin?
LikeLike
Archaeo,
Being an atheist means that you have faith in the idea that there is no God.
That is the same as saying atheists have no faith in the existence of God.
Since both statements are true and since the existence of God can be proven through reason, the conclusion is that atheists are driven by faith not reason.
Switching the words around doesn’t get you out of the faith hole that atheism digs for its believers.
LikeLike
Archaeo,
In order to understand the authentic meaning of written material you have to go to the original sources. You are citing all kinds of sources, but they have absolutely nothing to do with the original Christian faith.
Therefore they are meaningless in their truth value. They are just spin from people with an agenda or an opinion.
Back in the day (the 4th century AD) there was all kinds of written material from authors claiming to be authoritatively Christian. And there were all kinds of so-called reformers preaching their own brand of heresy.
The Catholic Church picked the Bible canon from all that material and published it as THE official Bible. It was hoped that having an official, Church approved Bible would help strengthen the faith as it began to spread like wild fire all over the dying Roman Empire.
The first Bible was called the Vulgate Bible. You can get it free as an iBook from the Gutenberg Project.
LikeLike
First of all, I asked you only two questions, simple enough I thought, even for you – you’ve answered neither. Your single debating technique appears to be obfuscation.
No, for the umpteenth time, it means I have no belief in a god – different thing entirely – what is there about that simple concept that is so difficult for you to understand? If you do not believe in Zeus, or Odin, or Ra, or Mithra, then you are an atheist too, I simply believe in one fewer gods than you do.
Then use your reason to prove the existence of your god – that shouldn’t be difficult for you, should it?
LikeLike
SOM,
I can’t say I’m an atheist…yet…but to say you believe that there is no god, because a god has not shown itself to you, is not faith, it’s reason.
To say you believe in a god that has not shown itself to you is faith.
Did you get frustrated when learning numbers too?
LikeLike