Agnosticism, Atheism, Bible Study, Christianity, Faith, God, Religion, Truth

Letter to Kathy Part 2

Nate

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.

Unknown's avatar

Published by Nate

2,018 thoughts on “Letter to Kathy Part 2”

  1. Kathy says:

    Redefining marriage will harm society overall. It’ll make all the social problems worse….t the more acceptable homosexuality is, the more it will grow. And that will harm society and ultimately the future of humanity will be threatened. I don’t argue that there could be some benefits to redefining marriage.. but those benefits don’t outweigh the negative affects [sic] that will occur.

    Please name the negative affects that will occur, Kathy. The following countries have already instituted same-sex marriage:

    The Netherlands (2000)
    Belgium (2003)
    Canada (2005)
    Spain (2005)
    South Africa (2006)
    Norway (2009)
    Sweden (2009)
    Iceland (2010)
    Portugal (2010)
    Argentina (2010)
    Denmark (2012)
    Uruguay (2013)
    New Zealand (2013)
    France (2013)
    Brazil (2013)
    England & Wales (2013)
    Scotland (2014)
    Luxembourg (2014 – effective 2015)

    Which ones are now suffering “negative affects” [sic] and increased social problems as a direct result of legal same-sex marriage?

    Like

  2. “But are we to turn a blind eye when it comes to a child’s freedom?
    Well, according to the religious – and ignorant prats such as you Mike, yes.”

    Great…you’ve IMPROVED the proposition – Go forth and conquer. Thats even better. Don’t turn a bind eye. Stand up and demand on a national level – TV, Op-Ed pieces, proposed legislation that Tells parents that you the minority status atheists should get to determine how THEIR children are raised LOL…

    then it will be even more hundreds of years before you see an atheist president.

    “The more noise people like you make the more it makes me laugh.”

    Rhetoric……The more noise the theist majority makes the more it makes you nuts and we both know it no matter how you and your comrades will try to spin otherwise

    Like

  4. I almost wish there was a god, Ark – I’d give almost anything to see his face when he meets Mike!

    Like

  5. “I almost wish there was a god, Ark – I’d give almost anything to see his face when he meets Mike!”

    Me? Your face will be far better. I’m going to ask for a replay of yours when you do…

    I’m thinking it will be something close to this

    Like

  6. “”Which ones are now suffering “negative affects” [sic] and increased social problems as a direct result of legal same-sex marriage?”

    See Why when i say you make such foolish points? The oldest child would be 14 and the average under 6 and you think you have made a good point.

    Think before you post

    Like

  7. For those who will never visit the link if I provide it (Kathy!):

    Why Atheism Will Replace Religion: New Evidence
    The illusion of religion helps people feel good, despite miserable experiences.

    Atheists are heavily concentrated in economically developed countries, particularly the social democracies of Europe. In underdeveloped countries, there are virtually no atheists. Atheism is a peculiarly modern phenomenon. Why do modern conditions produce atheism? In a new study to be published in August, I provided compelling evidence* that atheism increases along with the quality of life.

    First, as to the distribution of atheism in the world, a clear pattern can be discerned. In sub-Saharan Africa there is almost no atheism (2). Belief in God declines in more developed countries and atheism is concentrated in Europe in countries such as Sweden (64% nonbelievers), Denmark (48%), France (44%) and Germany (42%). In contrast, the incidence of atheism in most sub-Saharan countries is below 1%.

    The question of why economically developed countries turn to atheism has been batted around by anthropologists for about eighty years. Anthropologist James Fraser proposed that scientific prediction and control of nature supplants religion as a means of controlling uncertainty in our lives. This hunch is supported by data showing that the more educated countries have higher levels of non belief and there are strong correlations between atheism and intelligence.

    Atheists are more likely to be college-educated people who live in cities and they are highly concentrated in the social democracies of Europe. Atheism thus blossoms amid affluence where most people feel economically secure. But why?

    It seems that people turn to religion as a salve for the difficulties and uncertainties of their lives. In social democracies, there is less fear and uncertainty about the future because social welfare programs provide a safety net and better health care means that fewer people can expect to die young. People who are less vulnerable to the hostile forces of nature feel more in control of their lives and less in need of religion. Hence my finding of belief in God being higher in countries with a heavy load of infectious diseases.

    In my new study of 137 countries (1), I also found that atheism increases for countries with a well-developed welfare state (as indexed by high taxation rates). Moreover, countries with a more equal distribution of income had more atheists. My study improved on earlier research by taking account of whether a country is mostly Muslim (where atheism is criminalized) or formerly Communist (where religion was suppressed) and accounted for three-quarters of country differences in atheism.

    In addition to being the opium of the people (as Karl Marx contemptuously phrased it), religion may also promote fertility, particularly by promoting marriage (2). Large families are preferred in agricultural countries as a source of free labor. In developed countries, by contrast, women have exceptionally small families. I found that atheism was lower in countries where a lot of people worked on the land. 

Even the psychological functions of religion face stiff competition today. In modern societies, when people experience psychological difficulties they turn to their doctor, psychologist, or psychiatrist. They want a scientific fix and prefer the real psychotropic medicines dished out by physicians to the metaphorical opiates offered by religion. No wonder that atheism increases along with third-level educational enrollment (1).

    The reasons that churches lose ground in developed countries can be summarized in market terms. First, with better science, and with government safety nets, and smaller families, there is less fear and uncertainty in people’s daily lives and hence less of a market for religion. At the same time many alternative products are being offered, such as psychotropic medicines and electronic entertainment that have fewer strings attached and that do not require slavish conformity to unscientific beliefs.


    Sources
1. Barber, N. (in press). A cross-national test of the uncertainty hypothesis of religious belief. Cross-Cultural Research.
    Barber, N. (2012). Why atheism will replace religion: The triumph of earthly pleasures over pie in the sky. E-book, available at: http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Will-Replace-Religion-ebook/dp/B00886ZSJ6/

    2. Zuckerman, P. (2007). Atheism: Contemporary numbers and patterns. In M. Martin (ed.), The Cambridge companion to atheism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. This book is not held by any U.S. Library. 
3. Sanderson, S. K. (2008). Adaptation, evolution, and religion. Religion, 38, 141-156.

    *(his words, my emphasis, just for Kathy –)

    Like

  8. Mike, in the study I read, Crouch acknowledges this weakness, writing, “Future research will report on child-reported measures of health, as well as a contextual analysis of qualitative data drawn from family interviews, in order to draw out any bias that parental reporting might have.”

    And about your second link, it offers nothing of value. Seems that he included kids who were still in school and had not yet graduated from HS.

    The Douglas Allen study of Canadian children of gay/lesbian parents is worthless

    Mike, I’d like for you to show me where Jesus condemned homosexuality? And I’d like to know why you have a problem with it when Jesus apparently never did? There are many Christians who are OK with people loving who they want to love — but so many fundamentalists who tend to have a very active amygdala (associated with fear, disgust, aggression, and negative emotions), do tend to take issue.

    Do you think that just possibly it’s you and people like you who has an anti-social problem?

    Liked by 1 person

  9. “Do you think that just possibly it’s you and people like you who has an anti-social problem?” – Mr. Congeniality, anti-social? SAY it isn’t so!

    Like

  10. Seriously, Arch, it’s so oppressive and dark.

    Religious Trauma Syndrome (British Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies)

    “RTS is the condition experienced by people who are struggling with leaving an authoritarian, dogmatic religion and coping with the damage of indoctrination. They may be going through the shattering of a personally meaningful faith and/or breaking away from a controlling community and lifestyle. The symptoms compare most easily with PTSD, which results from experiencing or being confronted with death or serious injury and causing feelings of terror, helplessness, or horror. This can be a single event or chronic abuse of some kind. With RTS, there is chronic abuse, especially of children, plus the major trauma of leaving the fold. Like PTSD, the impact is long-lasting, with intrusive thoughts, negative emotional states, impaired social functioning, and other problems.

    With RTS, the trauma is two-fold. First, the actual teachings and practices of a restrictive religion can be toxic and create life-long mental damage. In many cases, the emotional and mental abuse is compounded by physical and sexual abuse due to the patriarchal, repressive nature of the environment.

    Second, departing a religious fold adds enormous stress as an individual struggles with leaving what amounts to one world for another. This usually involves significant and sudden loss of social support while facing the task of reconstructing one’s life. People leaving are often ill-prepared to deal with this, both because they have been sheltered and taught to fear the secular world and because their personal skills for self-reliance and independent thinking are underdeveloped.

    At present, raising questions about toxic beliefs and abusive practices in religion seems to be violating a taboo. In society, we treasure our freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. Our laws and mores reflect the general principle that if we are not harming others, we can do as we like. Forcing children to go to church hardly seems like a crime. Real damage is assumed to be done by extreme fringe groups we call “cults” and people have heard of ritual abuse. Moreover, religious institutions have a vested interest in promoting an uncritical view.

    But mind-control and emotional abuse is actually the norm for many large, authoritarian, mainline religious groups. The sanitization of religion makes it all the more insidious. When the communities are so large and the practices normalized, victims are silenced.

    As therapists, we have no real appropriate diagnosis in our manual. Even in the commonly used list of psychosocial stressors, amidst all the change and loss and disruption, there is no mention of losing one’s religion. Yet it can be the biggest crisis ever faced. This is important for us because people are leaving the ranks of traditional religious groups in record numbers and they are reporting real suffering.”

    http://www.babcp.com/Review/RTS-Its-Time-to-Recognize-it.aspx

    Like

  11. I suspect the reason it’s so difficult to get it across that religion is child abuse, lies in the fact that those authorities to whom one must report, are themselves religious.

    Like

  12. @Mike

    Rhetoric……The more noise the theist majority makes the more it makes you nuts and we both know it no matter how you and your comrades will try to spin otherwise

    Smile…no, Mister Numbnutz. Not nuts. You are a minority when it comes to like-minded fanatics and as has been aptly demonstrated by Arch’s comment above, your time has come.
    Your ilk has had 2000 years of relatively unchallenged soap box oratory.
    Reason always triumphs stupidity….eventually. It is already doing so, although it has to be acknowledged that there are still some spirited(sic) pockets of resistance.
    Creationism, ID, Kathy, Mike.

    Sigh…never mind.

    But I’m still open to verifiable evidence, if you have any or can point to any?

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Ruth,

    “Words do get redefined. Not only that but the way our republic works, and the way our Constitution words does make it possible to do just that. ”

    Ruth, I didn’t say words don’t get redefined.. I’m saying that it’s not a right that we have to redefine words to meet our specific situation. You are claiming it’s a “right” for gays to marry.. where is this “right” stated/ established?

    In creating “rights”, we can get into a lot of trouble..

    “The Constitution of this nation sets up rights for various groups of people and all people. The Constitution, which is amended frequently, is used for precisely this purpose. If “the people” deem an amendment necessary, and moreover if each state votes to approve, same-sex marriage then marriage is defined the way the state defines it – not the way a religion defines it.”

    The Constitution doesn’t set up rights for “various groups”.. that would conflict with the goal of the Constitution.. no group gets special treatment.. you’re missing the whole point of the Constitution… it’s that people are treated equally by govt., that ALL have the SAME rights.

    All have the very SAME right to marry under the definition of the institution of marriage.. none are excluded. Many people choose not to enter into the institution for a variety of reasons. Marriage is an extremely important part of society and is key to a thriving healthy society and the ongoing existence of human beings. It’s the reason the govt. decided to give tax breaks to married couples.. to support and strengthen the family.. which gives us the future generations.. which keep the species going in the most healthy successful way. When we have broken families, where children don’t grow up with both biological parents, the negative affects show in society.. just look at any prison.. the great majority of prisoners came from broken homes.

    It’s extremely important to preserve “marriage” as it is. Changing it will promote the increase of broken families and lives.

    This is one of the most significant ways in which liberal policies and values are causing society to crumble instead of thrive.

    Like

  15. Ruth, cont..

    me “Maybe not in “droves” but the more acceptable homosexuality is, the more it will grow. And that will harm society and ultimately the future of humanity will be threatened.”

    you: “The more acceptable homosexuality is the more people will be comfortable being themselves. How will it make homosexuality grow? It might make more people that already are homosexual unafraid to publicly be who they are, but it won’t make more people gay. Either you are gay or you are not.”

    What do you mean by “being themselves” Ruth? This assumes that people are defined by their sexual preference(s).. do heterosexuals identify themselves that way? We are all people. However we like to have sex is just one aspect of our character. But, to go further, you are also claiming that if a person is born with a preference for the same sex, that means that is must be “right” or “good”.. because it’s the way they were born. I don’t understand this claim. People are not born perfect.. we sin early in life.. and it’s because of the way we were born. It’s in us. We have to fight it. So why does homosexuality get automatic acceptance as something “good”? .. that we should accept? It isn’t good for humanity. It’s COUNTER productive.. it’s a perversion of how we are intended to function. There are a lot of things people are born with that are not good.. and we should try to overcome these things, not lie to ourselves that it’s “normal” and “good”.
    I fully understand how people will read my words and call me all kinds of names.. that’s because of the aggressive liberal agenda brainwashing society… which is ultimately an agenda against God.

    God knows what is best for us, following His rules is the only way to truly prosper in life.. not following His rules is the best way to destroy our lives.

    Like

  16. “Changing it will promote the increase of broken families and lives.” – How so?

    I personally find the idea of touching another man, or having another man touch me sexually, nauseating to contemplate, but who am I to tell others that they HAVE to feel the same way too? That because they have feelings for members of their OWN sex, they have no right to a warm, loving relationship? That would be a bit presumptuous of me, wouldn’t it?

    Like

  17. Neuro, you said:

    “I agree, Ruth, and they have been very misinformed that homosexuality will destroy families. It’s hate mongering because they’ve been indoctrinated. The studies show otherwise. But Kathy, being extremely closed-minded about studies for fear they are “liberal”, will deny the results.

    http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/635/abstract

    Results

    Children in same-sex parent families had higher scores on measures of general behavior, general health and family cohesion compared to population normative data. There were no significant differences between the two groups for all other scale scores.

    Conclusions

    Australian children with same-sex attracted parents score higher than population samples on a number of parent-reported measures of child health. ”

    Another “study”…

    Note that the results are based on what the parents “reported”… again no chance of bias there..

    Your studies continue to be nothing but more propaganda attempting to counter the truth.

    Overall, there is no reason to believe that same sex parents are better for children than the children being with both their biological parents. There is just no reasonable argument to support this claim. On the average, biological parents are going to be more caring and attentive to their children than non biological parents. It’s just common sense. And it’s also common sense that biological children will be more of an incentive for parents to stay together than non biological parents.. I guarantee you, same sex marriages will have a worse divorce rate than heterosexual marriages. Your studies defy common sense, logic, and real life, over and over.

    And as for your accusation of my “hate mongering”.. that’s another favorite liberal tactic.. the hate card. Sorry, I don’t hate homosexuals. I just don’t agree with the claims that it is normal and good for society. I believe the opposite. The REAL hate is with liberals when others disagree with their chosen views/ beliefs.

    Ruth said:

    “How will it make homosexuality grow? It might make more people that already are homosexual unafraid to publicly be who they are, but it won’t make more people gay. Either you are gay or you are not.”

    This is another lie.. lots of people choose to be in homosexual relationships who weren’t born that way. They could easily choose to not be in a homosexual relationship. But why would they? It’s acceptable and even promoted as good and normal. There are so many men who didn’t start out gay but choose to live that way because they get more sexual satisfaction out of it. It’s no different than what pornography does to people. It takes you down a sinful path. It’s simple temptation. And more acceptance WILL lead to more people making the choice.

    People/ Christians who do not give in to the aggressive liberal/ anti God agenda aren’t doing so because of “hate”.. it’s because it is clearly against God’s will and it’s clearly destructive to humanity. Liberals make accusations of “hate” because it’s all you have to “argue” with.. you all need that “card”.. like so many others. You don’t truly care about the harm it’s causing.

    Like

  18. So are you saying, Kathy, that by “fighting it,” a woman who is only attracted to other women, can force herself to be attracted to men? That by “fighting” my nausea, I can come to like broccoli?

    What about you, Kathy – you appear to prefer men, if you “fought it,” could your force yourself to be attracted to women? Not a question of “right” or “wrong” here, just if you “fought it,” could you do it?

    Like

  19. ““Changing it will promote the increase of broken families and lives.” – How so?

    I personally find the idea of touching another man, or having another man touch me sexually, nauseating to contemplate, but who am I to tell others that they HAVE to feel the same way too? That because they have feelings for members of their OWN sex, they have no right to a warm, loving relationship? That would be a bit presumptuous of me, wouldn’t it?”

    I don’t deny that it’s a difficult issue. People can’t help the way they feel. But this is a great example of God’s wisdom and why we should obey Him. We get tempted and we have unhealthy desires.. all of us.. some more than others, and we’ve got to look to God to help us, we’ve got to obey His commands.. just as it is illustrated in the OT. We need to obey Him even if we can’t, or don’t WANT to, understand His reasons. We’ve got to trust Him.

    There’s no real valid argument for homosexuality being good.. it has no good aspects except to satisfy lustful desires. And, lust is a sin. It’s extremely destructive. And scientifically, it is counter productive. If the liberal agenda is successful, children will not only be deciding on their perfect spouse.. dark hair, blue eyes etc.. but they’ll be choosing the sex also. It will be more and more common and it will affect reproduction of humans. The very thing that keeps us from becoming extinct, liberals want alter significantly. That’s something we shouldn’t mess with.. and look! It just so happens that God forbids it. Because He knows what is best for us.

    Like

  20. Geez, Kathy. Now you’re lecturing against porn? It’s sinful, eh? Tempts people? I can’t imagine what business that would be of yours or any other fundagelical. Oh, oopsie – almost forgot. Fundagelicals have all the answers (oh, wait – it’s gawd who has them!) They get to dictate what’s right/wrong for every other person in society, based on their interpretation of the bible. I keep forgetting that.

    Can I keep my tongue stud, or do you have something to say about that, too? (and just so you know, it’s not for me. .. think about it)

    *just kidding about the stud – yanking your chain, Kathy. . you just stay up there on your high-horse, though, won’t ya?

    Like

  21. On the average, biological parents are going to be more caring and attentive to their children than non biological parents. — Kathy

    Do does this mean that since I’m adopted (or any kid that is adopted) may non-biological parents were not as caring or attentive as my biological parents would have been … even though they decided not to raise me themselves?

    Please give YOUR references and studies that confirm your statement that “lots of people choose to be in homosexual relationships who weren’t born that way.” You are so far out in left field with your theist beliefs, it’s mind-boggling.

    Like

  22. “So are you saying, Kathy, that by “fighting it,” a woman who is only attracted to other women, can force herself to be attracted to men? That by “fighting” my nausea, I can come to like broccoli?

    What about you, Kathy – you appear to prefer men, if you “fought it,” could your force yourself to be attracted to women? Not a question of “right” or “wrong” here, just if you “fought it,” could you do it?”

    Have you ever heard of celibacy Arch?

    I don’t think anyone should “force” themselves to have sex with anyone they don’t want to.

    Like

  23. Nan,

    “Do does this mean that since I’m adopted (or any kid that is adopted) may non-biological parents were not as caring or attentive as my biological parents would have been … even though they decided not to raise me themselves?”

    No, that’s not what it means. There is nothing in my comments that suggest that.

    “Please give YOUR references and studies that confirm your statement that “lots of people choose to be in homosexual relationships who weren’t born that way.” ”

    There are lots of people.. I don’t know the ratio but if you’re claiming those people don’t exist, YOU are extremely naïve and out in left field. There’s no reason to not believe that some people do choose homosexual relationships. I knew a guy who was married 3 times before he died of aids.

    Like

  24. “lust is a sin.” – Why? Why is this god of yours so preoccupied with our sex lives? Is it because HE doesn’t have one? THAT would explain a lot!

    There’s an ant den just off my porch – do you think I lose any sleep wondering what those ants are doing in the privacy of their own cubicles?

    Like

  25. Kathy, what is it with your obsession to control other people. You go out and get pregnant out of wedlock, get married young because you got knocked up, then get divorced and you have zero business telling other people who they should love and how they should live. You can’t even get your own shit together.

    Like

Comments are closed.