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 
Huge difference between you / Nate being wrong and me being wrong. I’m amazed that I have to point that out.
Go on, Kathy. What’s the huge difference?
LikeLike
And?
I don’t agree with you.
If Christianity is blamed for The Inquisition
Then should atheism be blamed for the atrocities done by the Khmer Rouge?
LikeLike
… and they’re “peer reviewed” too! Can’t argue against that!
The only facts that are actual facts are the things that Kathy believes. If she doesn’t believe it, it can’t possibly be true.
LikeLike
This has been argued ad nauseum all over the blogosphere for ever and a day and if you are unaware of why there IS a difference, Ryan then I’m sorry, but I can’t be bothered to educate you.
The simple fact of indoctrinating children through fear of a creator deity should surely be enough to demonstrate why Christianity causes harm, let alone the sheer erroneous nature of the rest of its dogma and text.
A causal investigation of Creationism should dispel ANY notion of the purported beneficial claims of your religion.
It is sheer hypocrisy and wanton cherry-picking to turn around and claim, that such practices are not true reflections of your form of god – belief.
The foundation for these abhorrent practices are the same as what you believe in and the bible is replete with horror stories.
Sorry, Ryan, but you really have not thought about what you wrote.
LikeLike
Sorry, Ryan, but you really have not thought about what you wrote.
Why? because I didn’t come to the same conclusions as you?
And Creationism is another topic altogether from whether or not a faith is harmful.
Again, should atheism be blamed for the atrocities done by the Khmer Rouge?
LikeLike
“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?” – kathy
@kathy,
I understand your question, as I used to asked the same one at times, but now I realize that i never understood the position of those I asked.
Now, I believe there is no evidence for the bible being divine – that lack of evidence is why I dont believe, as is the evidence that I believe shows the bible to contain errors (as we’ve pointed out).
It is a similar position to the one that causes me to doubt all other religions, werewolves, trolls, bigfoot, and unicorns. Again, can you disprove bigfoot? No, but since it hasnt been proven, most people remain skeptical, and are even quite certain that there is no such beastman roaming north america.
LikeLike
The simple fact of indoctrinating children through fear of a creator deity
That’s a matter of perspective, children being taught of A God who loves them, that cares for them and asks them to care for others is not abusive.
But if you ignore that, then I can see how you would come to your conclusion.
LikeLike
No. Of course not. Because you didn’t come to the right conclusion and have allowed indoctrination to influence your lack of critical thought.
Nope. The foundation of the belief is the same. Yahweh. It is merely interpretation of the bible. A different interpretation of the same unverifiable, unscientific nonsense you believe.
Again, if this has to be spelled out to you then you are obviously unwilling to accept the answer – which you already know, don’t you, Ryan – and are merely using this as a smokescreen.
I don’t believe you are that ignorant.
Prove me wrong?
LikeLike
It is the same deity, Ryan. Yahweh.
Do they not encourage your brand of Christians to read all the bible?
If not, then you have illustrated the point regarding Cherry Picking, have you not?
A loving god? And just what do you tell your kids if /when they ask why Yahweh obliterated the world, or ordered Moses/ Joshua to exterminate the Canaanites.
Or why Yeshua had to suffer a barbaric death for their sins or that they will go to Hell if they do not believe in Yeshua?
Or why so may were burnt to death for believing in the wrong type of Christianity?
Loving god…Surely you jest?
LikeLike
Hi Ark,
Again, should atheism be blamed for the atrocities done by the Khmer Rouge?
The answer I believe is no.
And the answer to
Should Christianity should be blamed for the Inquisition
is also no.
because
in regards to the former,
atheism has no central doctrine
and in regards to the latter,
torturing and abusive by the Catholic Church to force belief I believe goes against the teachings of Christ.
I know we don’t agree Ark, and for that you are quite entitled to think less of me, I can’t prevent that….
have a productive day 🙂
LikeLike
“Just more liberal ridiculousness and desperation. This is what liberals do.. you attack me, my words or my character INSTEAD of addressing the actual points.. you make accusations and then FAIL to back them up when I give direct specific requests. But, I’ll give another one anyway.. as if I’ll get a response.. you are the worst, here, at following through Nate..” – kathy
@ kathy,
from my perspective, you arent describing nate here, but yourself.
You still havent spoken about those passages in John vs the other gospels on the day of crucifixion – so you may want to cease the “you attack me, my words or my character INSTEAD of addressing the actual points.. you make accusations and then FAIL to back them up when I give direct specific requests” rhetoric when it’s you who dodges the points, then calls names like “ignorant” and “liberal.”
kathy, with all seriousness, what evidence have you provided for christianity that cannot be given for the other religions? And I’ve asked you this before too.
And since you’re making the claim that christiantity has more credentials than any other religion, you should prove your claim or at least provide some evidence for it (again, evidence that other religions do not have) – instead of saying we’re lying, or liberal, or ignorant, or whatever. It makes it look like you’re just trying to avoid the questions, in your smoke screen of noise.
Okay, so those are some of my questions (again). If there’s anything that you’d like me to answer, then okay, ask away.
But let me add, you can call me ignorant or intellectually dishonest or liberal or whatever – that’s okay, because I view you as ignorant, intellectually dishonest as well as under-educated on the issues. I’m not a “liberal” but i dont care if you think i am, I think you think of yourself as a conservative, but i dont think you even know what that really means – other than following Rush Limbaugh, Fox news, and Glen Beck – which i believe is your idea of “diversity” in media and news.
So, now that we have those labels and notions of one another ironed out, we can get back to the points, eh?
LikeLike
It is unfortunate that your blatant (willful?) ignorance illustrates the power of indoctrination. That you neatly sidestep any discussion about Yahweh and the Old Testament perfectly demonstrates how Christian apologetics like yourself yank down the blinds so as not to have to look at your god in all its stark horror.
The Catholic Church is just one of thousands of christian cults; and because of their brutal expansionist tactics of old is the reason you believe what you do – the godhood of Yeshua, for instance, and the compilation of the bible as you know it is because of the church.
Furthermore, the majority if not all, of the christian cults preach the doctrine of Hell.
And if you are aware of this then you are a hypocrite of the first order.
LikeLike
What would I tell my kids?
I have no way of knowing how I would respond until I’m in such a situation.
But I’ll imagine a scenario.
say when/if I have kids, and my eldest son or daughter asked me questions similar to this.
This is how I would like to think I would respond:
I would be honest, and first tell them that I don’t have all the answers.
Then I would tell them what I did know.
I would tell them that I was so fortunate to have them in my life. And their brothers and sisters. That they could ask me anything, even if I didn’t have the answers, since I was their silly duddy old man 🙂
I would ask them that those kids you see at school who are all alone, and look like they are struggling, that we should be there and let them know that they are not alone. That although we hurt sometimes and get angry at each other, we are to treat mum, and our brothers like we want to be treated. With value and grace. How Jesus asked us to treat others, even those at school that we just don’t understand at the moment.
Then if they would like to pray, I would pray with them, because I didn’t know what to say….
presently, I don’t do this very well 🙂 …but hopefully by the time I have kids I’ll be a little wiser, a little kinder and a little more consistent.
LikeLike
That you neatly sidestep any discussion about Yahweh and the Old Testament perfectly demonstrates how Christian apologetics like yourself yank down the blinds so as not to have to look at your god in all its stark horror.
And if you are aware of this then you are a hypocrite of the first order.
I’m sorry you feel that way Ark.
LikeLike
“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.”
Kathy,
I was married to a very non-religious man who experienced a mini-stroke, and though he appeared to have fully recovered, became obsessed with watching Fox News and went from being a centrist and moderate Christian with a quiet faith to a self-righteous fundamentalist who called everyone liberals that didn’t think like him. ‘ve read other people’s testimonies who had loved ones with similar experiences. But the behaviors they had the most in common were a distorted and paranoid view of reality and an obsession with fundamentalist Christianity.
Before that I was married to a man who was agnostic and later sustained a traumatic brain injury in the temporal lobe area, which caused a neurological disorder. He became hyper-religious and was obsessed with reading the bible and got sucked into fundamentalist teachings. Hyperreligiosity is a major feature of mania, obsessive-compulsive disorder, schizophrenia, temporal-lobe epilepsy and related disorders. Both had brain damage. Both became extreme in their views and had an inability to think critically. Fundamentalists preachers and evangelicals use mind control techniques in their services that put people in suggestive, altered states — and have since 1735. However, I want to bring this study to your attention, because the more we learn about the brain, the more apparent it seems that many people in our history, who heavily influenced their cultures in a religious nature, exhibited symptoms of neurological disorders.
In the Journal of the Association of Medicine and Psychiatry it states: “Because of these affective, behavioral, and cognitive symptoms, patients are frequently misdiagnosed.”
Had I not personally experienced two examples of this with my partners, I may have not given studies like this a second thought.
—————————————-
Abstract:
The authors have analyzed the religious figures Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and St. Paul from a behavioral, neurologic, and neuropsychiatric perspective to determine whether new insights can be achieved about the nature of their revelations. Analysis reveals that these individuals had experiences that resemble those now defined as psychotic symptoms, suggesting that their experiences may have been manifestations of primary or mood disorder-associated psychotic disorders. The rationale for this proposal is discussed in each case with a differential diagnosis. Limitations inherent to a retrospective diagnostic examination are assessed.
Social models of psychopathology and group dynamics are proposed as explanations for how followers were attracted and new belief systems emerged and were perpetuated. The authors suggest a new DSM diagnostic subcategory as a way to distinguish this type of psychiatric presentation. These findings support the possibility that persons with primary and mood disorder-associated psychotic symptoms have had a monumental influence on the shaping of Western civilization. It is hoped that these findings will translate into increased compassion and understanding for persons living with mental illness.
http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=1476850
LikeLike
and kathy, if you can lay wooden planks in your metal bridge, why can’t other religious people lay wooden planks in their bridges?
Again, show that your bridge (christianity) has more credentials than the others. Present their fundamental flaws that you say persuaded you of their erroneous nature.
LikeLike
ArK, this is completely unrelated, but I thought this was cool.
Its getting late here, so I better go
LikeLike
apart from the destruction of those vehicles….
LikeLike
Of course you can know!
This is what choice is. Thus you can choose to indoctrinate them with the spurious nonsense of religion and god belief or you can allow them to grow up in a religion free environment and if they choose to follow a religion AS ADULTS then that is up to them.
LikeLike
people are going to teach their kids what they think is right. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they get it wrong.
The same set of parents may parent differently at 35 than they did at 25. people change and grow. Some are better than others – but this has always been the case.
I am sure kathy does her best, even though i disagree with her; just like I do my best, even though kathy doesnt agree with me.
There is a line of course, but it’s often very gray.
LikeLike
To William and Ruth re: questions you asked Kathy –
I hope you two aren’t holding your breath! 🙂
LikeLike
@Carmen
I doubt it. They are surely kitted out with very, very large oxygen tanks and breathing apparatus. 😉
LikeLike
Carmen, no, i cant hold my breathe that long.
LikeLike
@portal001
Thanks for taking the time out to peruse some of my earlier links. You wrote: “Although I identify myself as a Christian, not necessarily exclusive to any denomination (although I go to a Baptist church) I agree with the above.”
Could you please expand on that? Do you identify as a born-again Christian, and if so, do you subscribe to any particular statement of faith. I’m not sure which part of Australia you’re in, so here is a link I followed to get an idea of what foundational values are followed by various Baptist organizations within your country. However, feel free to state your own.
LikeLike
“The same set of parents may parent differently at 35 than they did at 25. people change and grow. Some are better than others – but this has always been the case.”
William, I agree.
While more women (mostly non-fundamentalist) are waiting to have children until after they completed college and started careers, this also means that they are having children at an age when their frontal lobes (rational thinking) are fully developed which is between ages 25 and 30. Studies show that these children born to mothers (and fathers) of this age group and older tend to be more well adjusted and have fewer adverse childhood experiences.
Fundamentalists and conservative Catholics who discourage contraceptives or forbid them, and forbid sex until marriage cause couples to get married before they have fully developed frontal lobes. The studies show that the earlier people get married the greater likelihood of divorce, and children have a greater likelihood of adverse childhood experiences. So it should come as no surprise that the most religious states in America also have the highest divorce rate. https://contemporaryfamilies.org/impact-of-conservative-protestantism-on-regional-divorce-rates/
So people who’ve become parents before then are parenting primarily from their emotionally driven, non-rational limibic system, which is the older (fight or flight) part of the brain. This does affect the brain development of children and how they will interpret the world as children and adults. And it definitely affects culture.
LikeLiked by 1 person