You know Kathy, we’ve been fairly blunt with you today. Flippant, too. And it’s tough when people talk to/about you that way. I’m sorry for that.
If we could cut through all the rhetoric for a second, I’d like to commiserate with you. A little over 4 years ago, I was a very dedicated Christian. I had some doubts, but they weren’t about the Christian faith, just my understanding of it.
I felt like there were problems in my beliefs about the gospel. I believed in a literal Hell, and I believed a lot of people would be going there. But I had a very hard time squaring that with a loving God. I had matured enough to realize that most people were pretty decent. Not perfect, certainly, but good people who cared about others and typically wanted to do the right thing. I didn’t think such people deserved Hell. In fact, like Paul, I often thought that if God would accept it, I’d gladly go to Hell myself, if it would save my friends and family. And if everyone else could be added into that deal too, even better.
So if I felt that way, could I be more compassionate than God? Of course not. But I had a very hard time finding anything in the Bible that backed up an idea that most people, regardless of creed or belief would be saved.
I didn’t give up though. I knew about Universalists, so I decided to read up on their reasons for thinking everyone went to Heaven. It sounded good, but I just wasn’t convinced by their arguments. I just didn’t see the Bible teaching such a doctrine, and I still believed the Bible was the inerrant word of God.
I was in a state of flux.
And that’s the position I was in when I first ran across articles that pointed out flaws in the Bible. I was shocked by what the articles said, but since I didn’t have any answers against them at the moment, I got busy with research. I didn’t even comment on the articles — I just went to work. It wasn’t about winning any arguments; it was simply a search for answers.
I think that frame of mind I was in made all the difference for me. Deep down, I was already struggling. The doctrines I had long believed in, and even taught to others, didn’t fit together in my mind as well as they once had.
That’s probably the difference between you and me. I get the feeling that you question nothing about your faith. Not trying to put you down about that; just making an observation.
For me, discovering that the Bible was not the perfect book I had always thought it to be, and finding out that some of these church leaders I had always admired knew of these problems but never spoke of them, helped me make sense of a lot of things. It took time, and it wasn’t easy to come to the realizations, but everything finally fell into place for me when I realized Christianity was just another religion. For the first time, I finally understood the sentiment of that line from “Amazing Grace,” I once was blind, but now I see…
I don’t know if that’s helpful to you at all. Maybe one day it will be. Maybe one day, something will make you ask a few questions, and you’ll think back to those non- believers who were so insistent that Christianity was certainly not the only way. If that day comes, I hope you’ll find this exchange helpful and realize you’re not alone.
Finding Truth 
😕
Are we all in the same conversation? Are we all reading the same words? I’m completely at a loss. I thought we’d addressed each of her points.
What points have I failed to address that you think I’m lying about, Kathy?
LikeLike
“And I defend Bush because I know of no evidence that indicates he was lying.” – that’s one of YOUR lies – I earlier gave you evidence that W knew there were no WMD’s, that shortly after his inauguration, he was already making plans for governing a post-war Iraq, yet you say you have no evidence. A lie.
But I find your insistence on evidence a bit confusing, in light of your earlier statement:
“We should be able to, and we MUST make our choices based on ALL of the available information not just the proven facts… yet many of my accusers ( Democratic liberals) have insisted that I am wrong for bringing up even factual information on the basis that it leads to conclusions that have not been proven….NO… I DON’T THINK SO… IWILL consider circumstantial evidence when making my decision“
LikeLike
@Nate: thanks for your thoughtful response a few days ago. Indeed, I have had a few naïve thoughts on the questions you raised. . .
You had asked: “. . . if people could be saved without it by living morally, wouldn’t it decrease their chances if the gospel was presented to them?”
If people are inherently likely to reject the gospel, then evangelizing would decrease their chance of being saved. But, I do not think this is the case and maybe for a reason that’s not immediately clear. I had said the equalizer in humanity is our conscience, but the equalizer for religious belief is God. This may sound weird, but my thinking is that not everyone who is evangelized is actually called by God to believe. That gives the evangelist too much power and discernment. One of the most surprising things Paul says (which regards evangelizing in Corinth): “My speech and proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God.” So, to those who are called, God gives the gift of faith, but we are able to reject this gift.
It’s not like God is unaware of how humans come to believe: largely involuntarily and largely dependent on one’s culture. So, our calling and final judgment is relative, it is individualized to our brains and our hearts.
Which raises the next logical question, which you asked: “And if God could save people without their ever having been exposed to the gospel, why not just do that for everyone?”
The most important answer to this is that the gospel does more than save, it does something for us right here, right now. It transforms us to act in absolutely absurd ways: to love our enemies, to have joy in suffering, to act charitably when we are poor, to repent from our darkest stronghold that would have destroyed our soul. It’s supposed to call us to fight for the oppressed, care for the poor and less fortunate, and take care of this earth in its beauty and biodiversity as stewards over this garden. And, I’m probably leaving things out. 🙂
-B
LikeLike
@Kathy,
You said (to Ruth, i believe), “If I believed Nate or any of you were truly applying objectivity, I’d have an entirely different tone.. but it’s the fundamental dishonesty that is motivating me to be so blunt. And it’s not because of how you all were brought up or your personal experiences or life stories etc.. it can ONLY, ULTIMATELY be attributed to pride and ego. If I could help you all see this, what an accomplishment that would be! Because, again, pride really IS destructive… ‘it always comes before a fall’… and losing your eternal soul IS the ULTIMATE ‘fall’.”
So… YOU know the truth–you’re special, because the Creator of the universe said so–and you know us better than we know ourselves. We’re fundamentally dishonest because we won’t go thorough the mental gymnastics–we won’t presuppose that you’re right–in order to contort our minds into believing that (1) *all* of the “apparent contradictions” on the Bible are no such thing, (2) *all* of the alleged prophecies are (a) true prophecies, (b) were written down before the alleged fulfillment, (c) were or will be fulfilled (when a fair look at history seems to indicate otherwise for at least some of them), (d) specific enough that their fulfillments are suggestive of divine guidance, and (e) for those that were fulfilled, they were unlikely or impossible to have occurred without divine help (i.e. not self-fulfilling). *We’re* dishonesty because we won’t accept (by special pleading) the miracle stories of the Bible without evidence. (How about those non-prophecies?)
I can’t claim perfect objectivity, but I sure tried to be objective in my research. I actually considered that I may have been mistaken in my decades-long held beliefs–on which I had built my worldview, and part if not most of my self-worth. I did not assume I had been wrong, but I considered it as a possiblity.
Maybe there’s a “god”; maybe there’s not. Maybe he/she/it has revealed him/her/itself to us; maybe not. Maybe there’s life after death; maybe not. Maybe some humans know the answers; maybe no one does–maybe we never will. I will not assume that we have the answers, or that we deserve them.
Did you ever truly consider these possibilities? Did you ever put the Bible to the test, to see if it withstands scrutiny–as the truth ought to? Did you ever ask yourself whether “faith” it’s really a virtue? If so, what kind, what does faith mean, and under what circumstances is it virtuous? Are you humble enough to have ever truly considered that you may have been mislead for decades, and that the foundation of your worldview *might* be shaky, or even false?
I agree that pride is harmful. It often goes before a fall. I’m not persuaded of the existence of a “soul”, nor that it can be “lost” as you say.
Based on my own experience, and the comments and blog posts that I’ve read from many here, I find your blanket accusation of pride and ego as the motivation for all of us deconverts unfounded and presumptuous.
Also, the “liberal” label seems to me as a way for you to box us up and write us off as “part of the problem” (regardless of whether the label applies). That’s backwards, though. If “liberal” views truly follow from lack of religious belief, that says nothing to whether the religious beliefs are correct, nor to whether “liberal” views are good things. So I suggest you stick to discussing the evidence for beliefs, without that label. (If you must use a label, better, on-topic alternatives have been offered, such as “atheist” or “infidel”.)
LikeLike
“Pride goeth before a fall.” – Why? The Judeo/Christian/Islamic religions are based of guilt and shame. Why shouldn’t we be proud of our abilities, our accomplishments? According to the Bible, our entire purpose is to glorify the Bible’s god, to heap praise on him, to bend and bow and scrape to him – what kind of pride and arrogance requires that? According to the Bible, this god, by his own behavior, seems to be saying, “Do as I say, not as I do.” I can’t disagree that EXCESSIVE pride can be harmful, but we have a built-in gauge for that – when our heads get too big, we tip over.
If Kathy is no longer with us, R. I. P. KATHY
LikeLike
Ruth, you said:
“You haven’t proven anyone here is deliberately lying, you haven’t proven anyone here is ignorant – deliberately or otherwise – you haven’t proven any of the points you’ve made about scripture. All you have is your interpretation of it. All you have is your fear of anyone who is different. All you have is your fear of hell. ”
I’ve given the reasons for my accusations with every accusation I’ve made. I wouldn’t make an empty claim, that would be complete arrogance to do that, to make claims and just expect people to accept them without reasons given… which is why it’s so irritating when liberals do it here.
And I’ve given compelling arguments for all my points about scripture.. yes, my interpretation, which, so far, has been more accurate than the liberal one.
“All you have is your fear of anyone who is different. All you have is your fear of hell. ”
Ok, Ruth, now I assume you will back up these accusations, since you just complained about how I don’t give proof for any of mine. And I’ll keep asking this question incase you forget to answer.. I’m very anxious to show how liberals make biased unsupported accusations when they don’t have any actual arguments. And I’ll further explain how, most of the time, you all are projecting your own feelings.. it has a lot to do with the cause of “reverse ignorance” in liberals.. you all need to prove to yourselves that YOU aren’t “afraid” of the “other”, that YOU aren’t racist. And in doing so you overcompensate, having no clue of the damage you are causing. It’s horrible to accuse people of racism when there’s no basis for it. All that does is set the progress BACK.. it makes the real problem of racism worse.. how would you like it if people constantly yelled that nearly half the population hates you because of the color of your skin?
But, the problem is that liberals NEED racism to stay alive and well.. it’s one of the best ways to keep the voting numbers up.
And the same goes for the “fear” of Hell you claim I have. It makes no sense, I have no reason to fear Hell.. but YOU on the other hand do.. if the God of the Bible is your Creator. So, projection is what liberals are very good at. And it’s just another form of dishonesty. And please note that all of these words I just typed, EXPLAIN my accusation of dishonesty of liberals.. and it’s the case with every accusation I’ve made.
LikeLike
Ruth, :
me: “And again, every time I make an accusation of pride or lack of honesty.. it’s accompanied by the specific reasons.”
you: “Could you cite an example. Every time I’ve seen you make these accusations they’re merely rhetoric.”
You’re going to have to give the example if you want to prove me wrong.
LikeLike
““And I defend Bush because I know of no evidence that indicates he was lying.” – that’s one of YOUR lies – I earlier gave you evidence that W knew there were no WMD’s, that shortly after his inauguration, he was already making plans for governing a post-war Iraq, yet you say you have no evidence. A lie.”
No, you didn’t give evidence for Bush lying… you’re either lying or delusional.
LikeLike
Kathy, RE: “I wouldn’t make an empty claim, that would be complete arrogance to do that, to make claims and just expect people to accept them without reasons given…” – I am SO glad to hear you say that, maybe it means that you’re finally ready to give me what I asked for when all of this started, irrefutable evidence of the existence of god, followed by your incontrovertible proof that the god you mention is the god of the Bible —
And I’ll keep asking this question in case you forget to answer..
LikeLike
Ruth, you said:
“You are uncomfortable with the thought of Nate trying to “convert” you. It made you uneasy. Yet, you have no hesitation at the thought or idea of trying to convert someone to Christianity. ”
Huge difference between you / Nate being wrong and me being wrong. I’m amazed that I have to point that out.
LikeLike
Nan, you said:
“Yet, because we don’t agree with you, we are SCREAMED at and told we are full of pride and ego, that we are all ATHEISTS/LIBERALS and aren’t being “objective.”
I think each of us respects the fact that you are a sincere and ardent Christian. However, since you came onto this blog (which is run by an atheist), it would seem prudent for you to respect our point of view as well … without losing your temper and SCREAMING at us.”
First, I’m not screaming.. I’m EMPHASIZING.. in the hopes that the reader will grasp my point.
And I cannot always respect your view Nan.. if you believe God doesn’t exist, I can’t “respect” that view. But I do respect your unalienable right, that God gave you, to HAVE the view you choose to have.
And please try to understand that disagreement does NOT mean I believe you don’t have a right to your own opinion. It’s about DEBATING… exchanging opinions and thoughts with a goal of eventually “FINDING TRUTH”. And there’s no better way to do it when empirical evidence isn’t available.
LikeLike
“No, you didn’t give evidence for Bush lying… you’re either lying or delusional.” – that’s funny, Kathy – I have to be lying or delusional, but not W – how “objective” of you.
Since you seem to have a touch of Attention Deficit Disorder, I’ll give it to you one more time, but this time, don’t say you never got it. First, evidence that W was already making plans for the invasion of Iraq, 7 months before the towers were bombed. This from the US Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neill:
In February 2001, a month after Bush’s inauguration, White House officials discussed a memo called ‘Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq,’ which described troop requirements, establishing war crimes tribunals, and dividing up Iraq’s oil wealth. Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill was astonished to discover that actual plans ‘were already being discussed to take over Iraq and occupy it – complete with disposition of oil fields, peacekeeping forces, and war crimes tribunals – carrying forward an unspoken doctrine of preemptive war.’ According to O’Neill, a preemptive attack on Iraq and the prospect of dividing the world’s second largest oil reserve among the world’s contractors ‘made for an irresistible combination.’
I’ll break this into small segments, because I realize your attention span is not very long.
LikeLike
BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED – Segment Two:
Although Bush marketed the war in Iraq as necessary to protect us from Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD), his decisions had less to do with self-defense than with dominating the oil-rich Middle East. Some evidence for this conclusion can be found in a September 2000 report prepared by the neoconservative Project for a New American Century (PNAC). The report, commissioned by Dick Cheney, outlines a plan “to maintain American military preeminence that is consistent with the requirements of a strategy of American global leadership.” It notes that while “the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.” Another document produced for Vice President Cheney’s secret Energy Task Force included a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals as well as charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” That document was dated March 2001, six months before 9/11 and two years before Bush invaded Iraq.
That’s about all you can handle tonight, I’ll have the rest for you tomorrow, when you come back online – you’re not someone I’d lose sleep over.
LikeLike
Nate, you said:
“They have a difficult time realizing that those of us who don’t believe sincerely don’t believe. It’s not that we’re “rebelling” against anything — we just aren’t convinced by religion’s arguments. It’s hard to accept that, because it means God will punish people who sincerely don’t realize they should be following him. In other words, the non-religious get an A for effort, but fail when it comes to having the answer. And punishing people for that doesn’t match our ideals of justice, so they’re forced to think that we secretly do believe, but for some reason would prefer Hell over believing in God.”
Nate, I envision those who “don’t believe” will be asked “why?” on that day, even though the answer will be known by the Asker. But, I think one of the first questions will be, why did you reject Jesus and what He did for you? I think that will be THE question. You say you just don’t believe, that it’s not a choice.. so I would ask, what specifically is the convincing evidence that causes you to not believe that Jesus died to pay for your sins?
LikeLike
BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED – Segment Three
After 9/11, the Bush administration attacked Afghanistan and removed the Taliban from power. But the primary target all along was Iraq. To sell the war to the American people, the administration made two claims and repeated them like a mantra. First, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Second, it had ties with al-Qaeda and was thus complicit in the 9/11 attacks. Although the administration argued that both reasons justified the use of force against Iraq, it was advised repeatedly that neither claim was valid.
An August 2006 report prepared at the direction of Rep. John Conyers, Jr. found that “members of the Bush Administration misstated, overstated, and manipulated intelligence with regards to linkages between Iraq and Al Qaeda; the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iraq; the acquisition of aluminum tubes to be used as uranium centrifuges; and the acquisition of uranium from Niger.” The report also noted that “beyond making false and misleading statements about Iraq’s attempt to acquire nuclear weapons, the record shows the Bush Administration must have known these statements conflicted with known international and domestic intelligence at the time.” Finding that the administration had also misstated or overstated intelligence information regarding chemical and biological weapons, the report concluded that “these misstatements were in contradiction of known countervailing intelligence information, and were the result of political pressure and manipulation.” In short, the Bush gang misrepresented the WMD threat to justify its planned invasion of Iraq.
LikeLike
BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED – Segment Four
On September 21, 2001, Bush was told in the President’s Daily Brief that the intelligence community had no evidence connecting Saddam Hussein’s regime to the 9/11 attacks. Furthermore, there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with al Qaeda. This was no surprise. Al Qaeda is a consortium of intensely religious Islamic fundamentalists, whereas Hussein ran a secular government that repressed religious activity in Iraq.
Undeterred, Bush and his people continued to tout the connection. Although the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) determined in February 2002 that “Iraq is unlikely to have provided bin Laden any useful [chemical or biological weapons] knowledge or assistance,” Bush proclaimed one year later, “Iraq has also provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.” And although the CIA concluded in a classified January 2003 report that Hussein “viewed Islamic extremists operating inside Iraq as a threat,” Cheney claimed the next day that the Iraqi government “aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda.”
LikeLike
“what specifically is the convincing evidence that causes you to not believe that Jesus died to pay for your sins?” – The most convincing evidence that he didn’t, is the simple fact that there is no evidence that he did. No one who ever wrote about him ever even met him.
LikeLike
Neuro, you said:
“Kathy,
The stats are solid and the Southern states are not poor by choice. Conservative states are also more dependent on the government. Red states had an average dependency ranking of 33.5, while blue states ranked 19.2 on average.
Also, when you take religious contributions (i.e. tithing) out of the equation, the Northeast is more charitable. http://philanthropy.com/article/FaithGiving/133611/ I served on church boards (including conservative mainstream denominations), for several years when I was a Christian. I know where the money goes. Rarely to the needy unless it’s to proselytize. 😉 ”
I question the stats Neuro.. I just don’t have much confidence in “studies” done by liberal organizations. I’ve seen how “objective” their studies are.
And liberals always try to take tithing out of the equation.. that makes no sense. It’s the religious churches/ organizations that help the needy more than any liberal group. They are established in every town in this country.. they pick up where the govt. leaves off. Where do you think they get their funding from? Tithing. The article you linked is a leftist response attempting to distort the truth. And I’ve been meaning to mention that it’s often the very same with the “peer reviewed studies” that you keep referencing. It’s all designed for the purpose of deflecting the truth.. to mislead people.. liberals will eagerly believe all of it.. so it works.
I’m sorry but a study of the “brain activity” of a liberal supposedly proving that they are more compassionate is a joke. All you have to do is look at one single issue.. that of abortion.. no one can be compassionate and support legalized abortion. It just isn’t a reasonable assertion. And so, here come the “studies”.. that supposedly “prove” that liberals are more compassionate.. how convenient… and they’re “peer reviewed” too! Can’t argue against that!
LikeLike
Neuro, cont..
And again, the Southern states have more poverty because it’s where the poor choose to live. It’s cheaper. Rent , heating etc are much higher in the liberal states. So, of course the southern states are going to have more govt. dependency. I don’t know what “stats” you are referring to that dispute that. You ignore the fact that it’s liberals who promote govt. dependence.. not conservatives/ Christians. It’s probably the most likely reason Obama was re-elected, by buying votes through govt. handouts.
Just like liberals NEED to keep racism alive and well in this country, they also need to keep people dependent on govt. These two things, along with bringing in more dependents over the border is how the dems plan to stay in power.. it’s all they can do. Leftist policies are abysmal failures. Oh, and also push the “war on women”.. can’t forget that “strategy”.
LikeLike
“Leftist policies…push the war on women.. Can’t forget that strategy”.
Kathy, women empower one another. They don’t make snide comments like yours.
LikeLike
@Portal
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, Ryan and choose to believe that you went off half-cocked and did not really think about this before you wrote it.
Perhaps you might like to reword this for clarity sake?
LikeLike
N℮üґ☼N☮☂℮ṧ,
I was in the US in 2012 and spent New Years there as well 🙂 great trip
LikeLike
Ark, I have thought about it
LikeLike
And?
LikeLike
@ Kathy,
And I’ll further explain how, most of the time, you all are projecting your own feelings.. it has a lot to do with the cause of “reverse ignorance” in liberals.. you all need to prove to yourselves that YOU aren’t “afraid” of the “other”, that YOU aren’t racist. And in doing so you overcompensate, having no clue of the damage you are causing. It’s horrible to accuse people of racism when there’s no basis for it. All that does is set the progress BACK.. it makes the real problem of racism worse.. how would you like it if people constantly yelled that nearly half the population hates you because of the color of your skin?
But, the problem is that liberals NEED racism to stay alive and well.. it’s one of the best ways to keep the voting numbers up.
I have no clue what you’re on about here. I haven’t mentioned race. So what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
And the same goes for the “fear” of Hell you claim I have. It makes no sense, I have no reason to fear Hell.. but YOU on the other hand do.. if the God of the Bible is your Creator. So, projection is what liberals are very good at. And it’s just another form of dishonesty. And please note that all of these words I just typed, EXPLAIN my accusation of dishonesty of liberals.. and it’s the case with every accusation I’ve made.
Yes, Kathy, you do. You have continuously told me how deluded I was to believe I was a Christian. Maybe you’re deluded into thinking you’re a Christian. Not everyone who says to God on that day, “Lord, lord” will enter his kingdom. How do you know you’re not one of those? You keep making that 50/50 claim and encouraging us all to hedge our bets. Isn’t that what you’re doing? Aren’t you afraid if you don’t believe you’ll end up a crispy critter?
I have no fear of hell because I don’t believe it exists. I have no reason to fear hell even if there is a God. Christianity is meant to be an outgrowth of Judaism. If God gave his revelation true to the Jews why don’t they believe in hell?
http://mobile.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Theology/Afterlife_and_Messiah/Life_After_Death/Heaven_and_Hell.shtml
http://kehillatisraeltest.publishpath.com/what-do-jews-believe-about-life-after-death
Hell is a human construct that was rooted in the minds of former Greeks and Romans and their pagan beliefs.
http://www.history.co.uk/study-topics/history-of-death/death-in-ancient-civilisations
http://www.ancient.eu.com/article/42/
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/dbag/hd_dbag.htm
So, yeah, part of your belief in Jesus is rooted in your fear of Hell. If I was so afraid of hell I’d probably believe, too.
LikeLike