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 
Nate,
I was just contemplating the verse that says man looks on the outward, but god looks at the heart.
Could we argue that the “outward” could be all things possibly perceived by our five senses, including the sixth sense which is that which our mind comprises based of a multiplication of those five senses?
If we can say that is so, then could we also state that our heart has faith in whatever god is, regardless of our perception of god?
And if we are seeking truth, as I think most atheists/desists/agnostics etc are, then can’t we assume that that is enough?
It seems that if we accept the Christian god, we are no longer truly trusting god to be whatever god could be.
Anyhow, just surmising.
By the way I haven’t been able to log in through my Facebook account, this is Mark J Monroe, any idea why?
LikeLike
William-
I guess I don’t see what I’m trying to say as absurd. I’d have to be convinced that it is absurd before I could follow you down the rest of that comment. But, if I was convinced what I believe is absurd, I probably would no longer believe it anyway, and we wouldn’t be here.
archaeopteryx1-
I wasn’t trying to be dismissive. I just missed what you what you were getting at. I would say you should not kill your kids, but if you study it and still feel compelled to follow Leviticus that is your prerogative. 😉
LikeLike
I’ve been away for awhile (traveling) but have been keeping up with the posts and comments Wow! Better than reading a book.
Maybe this question has been asked long ago and I missed the answer so forgive me if it’s a duplication: Where exactly does evil come from? All this discussion about God’s role in it makes me wonder why and how it even exists. Any thoughts?
LikeLike
Roman Emperor Constantine thought he had cleared everything up when he convened the Council of Nicea in 325 CE, and had the Bishops sit down and come to an exact definition as to what Christianity really was.
Prior to that, there were groups who believed the “godhead” was a big can of 3-In-1 oil, father, son and holy spook; others believed that god himself personally came to earth, had himself born of a virgin, crucified and resurrected; others believed that Yeshua (Jesus was only the Greek translation of that name) was a fully mortal man, that the “Christ” was a spirit that entered him at birth and left him at his crucifixion: still others believed the “Christ” entered the mortal Yeshua at his baptism.
Constantine was mistaken, look at things now.
LikeLike
Nan,
It’s like you’re reading my thoughts, I have been thinking a lot about “evil” the past few days.
I was considering rape for one because it seems to be an evil we all agree is evil, so lets use that for now.
Imagine a society that has not invented dating or formal relationships for reproduction.
Imagine if men would be valued for their ability to impregnate the most women and women would be valued for their ability to sexually attract the most men.
In this scenario, a woman would feel great pride in being “raped”, and it would no longer be considered evil, and if you thought it was evil, you would likely just be seen as a poor sport and not a very good addition to society.
Maybe this is a poor example, but it seems to be that we have made evil up, because its all the stuff we don’t like.
Is our kids dying bad, when we don’t even know what death is?
Evil schmevil.
LikeLike
Interesting perspective. Must think on that a bit.
LikeLike
Hey Arch,
I cannot number the times I have tried to explain to my family the fallacy of calling the Christ “Jesus”.
As far as I can find, Jesus came from the Greek god Zeus, translated to “hesus” (Latin Jesus) then translated again to our Jesus.
They don’t care. It’s almost as if yeshua is too hard for them to pronounce.
This is exactly the problem with Christians, they don’t care how far their fundamentals fall away from the original truths.
I love Mormonism, because it shows exactly how the bible has evolved into its current form, people adding to it and making it seem like it fits enough that no one will question it.
In 2000 years from now, Mormonism will be the mainstream, and Christianity will be as rare as Judaism.
LikeLike
Not my point, Josh – my point being that as an instruction manual, the Bible gives such conflicting instruction, that no one can follow it in good faith.
I don’t/didn’t find you dismissive at all. Possibly you feel uncomfortable here, and feel that some might be offended by your presence, but personally, I’m glad you’re here, you are resolute, but not averse to other points of view, and you often provide a perspective that some of us may not have considered.
I have my own website, and post regularly on another atheist site as well, and I welcome theists – we can learn from each other – otherwise, it turns into an “us” and “them” kind of thing, and that’s how wars start.
LikeLike
Isaiah, 45:7, Nan – “I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.”
LikeLike
archaeopteryx1-
Sorry :-). I knew what your point was that time. I just assumed you would also know what my response was. You’re right, scripture contains a lot of messages to different people and times.
LikeLike
One big problem I have, Josh, is with theists – and I’m not hinting you’re one – who rail against those who don’t believe the Bible verbatim, yet who know nothing about it, about when it was written, by whom, and under what circumstances.
The first five books, for example – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, were all assumed, by many if not most theists, as having been written by Moses. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those five books are a composite of writings by at least four different sources. The Yahwist Source wrote c. 950 BCE, in the Southern Kingdom in Palestine, known as Judea (headquartered in Jerusalem), the Elohist Source wrote about a hundred years later, in c.850 BCE in the Northern Kingdom of Israel, in Schechem, while the Priestly Source wrote during the Babylonian Captivity, c.550 BCE, and the Deuteronomist Source after that – all were finally combined into a single book, pieced together like a patchwork quilt by a group of editors known as redactors, around 400 BCE, a book we now know as the Torah. This piecing together is the reason we have two Genesis stories and two Ark stories, no one knew which to throw out, so they kept them both, but both can’t be true.
LikeLike
Oh, and Josh, the name is archaeopteryx – I first opened my WordPress account under that name (which is what I go by across the web, but apparently under a password I forgot, or misspelled, and couldn’t get back in, even under my own name, so I had to go with archaeopteryx1, because archaeopteryx had already been taken – BY ME!
That said, you can call me Arch, it’s a lot simpler.
LikeLike
Sounds good, Arch! I am by no means a historian, so I appreciate the information.
LikeLike
OK, I’ve seen that scripture before about God being the author of good and evil, but that’s what is is … BIBLE scripture. Leaving that source aside, can we say where evil comes from? I kind of like the answer given by MJM. 🙂
Some Christians say evil comes from satan, but then the question becomes where did satan come from? Created by God? I don’t think so.
Nate, don’t mean to lead the topic astray, but from the discussion thus far, I really don’t think it does.
LikeLike
Perhaps not, but you also didn’t try to argue with me that Moses wrote those five books, and I can respect a person who doesn’t believe the world is black or white.
LikeLike
Nate,
Something has been bugging me for a while, perhaps you or someone else can shed some light. It def has to do with beer going back.
The biggest thing I miss most about Christianity is the fellowship.
There’s nothing like having a close knit relationship with many other people who believe in living an ethical lifestyle.
Why is it so hard to find relationships like that with non-believers?
Why can’t we all form a “church” that exists for the sole purpose of bonding, fellowship, without having the religion. I know for a fact if they took the religion out of church, and we all had a chance to “preach” morals and ethics from any source, I would attend regularly.
Maybe because we are so independent and free thinking we h e too many differing ideologies to mingle too often, but it seems that here that isn’t the case.
I sense a deep love in each of you free thinkers for each other, and I am quickly coming to respect you all and wish we could all get together in the physical world for fellowship often.
Perhaps religion will evolve into this, I can certainly hope so.
LikeLike
*never, not *beer.
LikeLike
There are “freethinkers” meetings in many areas. Try meetup.com.
LikeLike
I can totally relate to this Mark. There are humanist “churches” that are around but they are not that prevalent in most cities (there are no humanist churches where I live so I can’t really comment on how they are, but I would think something like that would probably fit what I’m looking for quite nicely). There are also “ethical culture” societies that are also similar to church in that they have a message each week usually on Sunday morning and time for “bonding” with others. Then there’s the standard atheist groups but that isn’t really message each week kind of thing, but you can get the bonding with people of similar views. I personally really like the Unitarian Universalists – they are extremely freethinker oriented and very liberal minded (in a religious way, but usually politically too). They do have origins from Christianity, but it has morphed so much that at this point it’s really just seeker oriented and they are extremely welcoming of people from all faiths. You’ll meet people with a lot of different beliefs (probably some stuff you’ll think is kind of weird), but again the ones I have attended have always said they are very welcoming of atheists and agnostics and I’ve met people there who fall in those categories and I’ve always felt very comfortable and met some great people. It does still have the feel of a church with the singing and message, but the message usually has a more humanist feel to it. That may not actually match UU churches everywhere but it’s a good description of the ones I have been to.
LikeLike
Will do, thanks nan
LikeLike
@Josh, ” It seems you can’t have a God who is willing to risk creating free, sentient beings who also would then stop those beings from doing anything harmfull to themselves or others. That seems contradictory.”
What about Angels ? They are beings with free will. Didn’t he kick Satan out of heaven with hundreds of other Angels ? Isn’t he going to stop Satan someday from harming others ? Didn’t God send Angels to Earth periodically to intervene in human affairs ?
The Bible is loaded with these stories.
LikeLike
I like MJM’s definition as well, but I believe evil is a multifaceted concept. I think it began as fear of the dark, the unknown. Later, as we evolved, we reasoned, in our limited capacity to do so, that which was not beneficial to the group as a whole, and we outlawed those things.
LikeLike
Arch, I agree with you. For the most part, I think we get to define evil for ourselves (as a society). There are some things that I view as universally wrong, but I would have a hard time proving why everyone should view them the way I do. Mostly, it comes down to limiting human suffering as much as possible.
Mark, I totally identify with what you’re saying about the camaraderie that you get from a church. I think Howie and Nan have made some great suggestions, though. My wife and I have been to a local UU church. We’ve only been once so far, but we enjoyed it. And through meetup.com, we’ve recently found an atheist/humanist group that meets in our town. We’re really excited about that and plan to attend the next meeting.
LikeLike
RE: “There are some things that I view as universally wrong, but I would have a hard time proving why everyone should view them the way I do.”
Some of us on thinkatheist.com, an atheist site on which I regularly post, recently had the same dilemma. A Catholic theist came on the board – we’ll call him “Bob,” because that was his name – and although he was polite and respectful and made no effort to proselytize, he was attacked by some for the pedophilia that is going on in the Catholic Church.
He made an interesting point in his Church’s defense – he reminded us of the practices of the early Greek army, in which young men were conscripted as apprentice soldiers. These young, teenaqe boys were each assigned to an older, experienced soldier, who would teach him to fight and survive in battle. In return, the boy would do as he was told, polish the soldier’s armor, sharpen his sword, and service him sexually. The practice was common, and no one thought anything derogatory of it.
While Bob wasn’t advocating pedophilia, essentially, he was asking, if we didn’t make such a big deal of it, would pedophilia be the traumatic event that most of us feel it is? That discussion pressured us to think long and hard about what constitutes right and wrong, and why.
LikeLike
I’m only open minded to a point. I won’t abandon logic for anyone.
LikeLike