I started to leave this post as a comment on ratamacue0‘s recent post, What Started My Questioning? but decided to post it instead. Fellow blogger (and friend) unkleE left this comment as part of a conversation that he and ratamacue0 were having:
…most non-believers seem not to recognise that there isn’t one consistent portrait of God in the Bible – it changes through both Testaments – and then to choose the worst picture (which is often the earliest one) to critique. But if the claimed revelation of God is progressive, it would surely be fairer to choose a later picture.
I think most non-believers do recognize the difference; it’s just hard to forget that first impression given in the OT.
And really, how progressive is the picture the Bible paints? The NT points out that God doesn’t change, so those harsh characteristics he possessed in the OT are still being claimed by NT writers. The NT also repeats some things like “vengenance is mine, I will repay.” And it tells us not to fear those who can destroy the body, but he who can destroy both body and soul. The NT also gives us the doctrine of Hell, regardless of what that might mean.
I think some of the NT writers, like Paul and the author of Hebrews, are arguing that the method of salvation and the specific requirements God has for people are changing, and in that way the message becomes more progressive. More emphasis is placed on the mind and not just physical acts, for instance. But as to who God is, I don’t think that image really progresses from OT to NT. The same God that killed Uzzah for trying to steady the ark, condemns anyone who doesn’t believe in Jesus, even though it’s hard to blame many of the Jews for saying Jesus was a blasphemer, considering the teachings in the Old Law.
Such a God is irrational. Many Christians seem to agree, which is why they don’t believe in parts of the OT. But since the NT still claims the same irrational God, I see no reason to believe in him at all. And to me, that seems much more consistent than trying to hold onto parts of the mythology, while rejecting the unsavory parts. If that god were real, and he wanted people to know about him, I think he’d keep the one source of information about him pure. Since that obviously didn’t happen with the Bible, why continue to hold to it at all? Why not put faith in a god who isn’t concerned with petty dogmas, one who simply set things in motion for us? One that may inspire people from time to time, but is largely content to let us live our lives without interference? To me, that seems to fit the evidence far better… and while I don’t have any actual belief in such a deity, I can see why some would. Why mesh it with Christianity, when it seems so superfluous?
Finding Truth 
Then how would you propose re-educating a person that has succumbed to such indoctrination?
Empathy is great, especially as you yourself went through this. But you walked away
This is the key.
Serious, Nate. You’ve been there, done that got the scars and the T-shirt.
1) How do we prevent this from being indoctrinated into kids.
2) How does one help a person such as unklee understand that what he believes is wrong and damaging to himself and those around him.
LikeLike
you can lead a horse to water,. but you cant make him drink.
if you point out the discrepancies and errors, as well as the similarities with other religions, and point out that any thing and everything, no matter how absurd,could be argued for the same way, and having done all that they still believe it?
is there anything else that can be done?
I guess the question is, what makes all those points more palatable, and more likely to be digested instead of discarded ?
LikeLike
So, William, you are suggesting that societal religious belief simply has to run its course; that deconversion/change will happen ”naturally” ( if at all) and that such deconversion is wholly dependent on the (intelligence of the) individual/willingness or ability to be able to exercise genuine critical thought? ( more or less)
LikeLike
pretty much, except I’m not convinced that society will ever be absent of religion or irrational belief systems any more than it will ever be without murder, crime, rape and poverty.
ISIL needs to be eliminated, to me, they epitomize the dangerous extent religious extremism can reach. the violent or oppressive extremes should be dealt with one way, but not all religious people are so extreme, and those less extreme should handled a different way.
the peaceful ones? why force them to do anything? can you force belief anyways? I think we show and educate and they can decide to use it or twist it.
thomas paine could have been an idiot for being a deist, but i find it hard to believe that you’d criticize him as harshly as a member of jim jones cult.
LikeLike
Ark , you have to overcome this line of thinking first.
“I live in a World of Fantasy so keep your reality away from me. I see what I want, I want what I see and that is all OK by me. ” Itzah C. Kret
LikeLike
These are good questions, and I wish there were easy answers.
I think keeping religion out of our schools is a big key. Or going the opposite route and having a class that teaches about all world religions. I also think kids that grow up around diversity are much less likely to be heavily indoctrinated. Or, at least their chances of breaking out of it are greater. If culture and the media continue to push for more multi-culturalism, as they tend to do, then I think that will make a big difference too. It may not result in huge numbers of nonreligious people, but it should at least substantially increase the numbers of people who are content to “live and let live.” That’s at least heading in the right direction.
I have mixed feelings about this question, to be honest. I don’t want to presume too much that my position is the right one. I do think it is — but I also have to allow for the possibility that unkleE’s is the right one. Or that neither of us has it figured out. That’s why I think the bigger goal should just be acceptance of one another’s beliefs.
I’m also not sure that unkleE’s position is all that damaging. I mean, let’s say that he’s wrong — then there’s always the downside that comes with making life decisions based on faulty premises. But what real harm comes from decisions that unkleE might make based on his beliefs? ISIL? Yeah, those guys do some incredible harm based on their beliefs, but unkleE is not a fundamentalist zealot.
But leaving those quibbles aside, I think the way to reach people is just through having these conversations. Looking at the evidence. Making arguments based on reason. Like William said, you can’t force someone to believe something — the most you can do is help provide them with information.
For what it’s worth, while those answers aren’t all that great, I do think society is trending in the right direction. Like MLK said, “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I think the next few decades will show record numbers of people moving toward moderate religion, or no religion at all. I consider that a win. 🙂
LikeLike
@William.
Fine.Peaceful?
You mean like Creationists who wish to have their ”brand” taught in schools?
Maybe you should discuss this with a person like Johnny Scaramanga and hear his impressions of ACE?
If this is your take, then I don’t feel bad about the way I present my case against religious belief and those that push it.
And no, I would not have criticized Paine. Deism has no doctrine, that I am aware of?
LikeLike
I concur.
I simply find that discussing these issues in a softly-softly fashion and then go away and come across an article where kids have been violently abused or people are being brutally slaughtered because of religion and then to read that those who ”claim” this is not representative of what their religion is about are maybe not doing enough (or even anything?) to right such action, let alone condemn it.
And as I first mentioned. It all starts with the gentle meek and mild.
Remember, I went to Sunday School as well!
LikeLike
It’s a good point… If we can get any members of ISIL on here, I say let ’em have it! 😉
LikeLike
I dont like boxes, ark, dont put me in one.
I’m fine going case by case. So far religions isnt allowed in schools around here, at least officially. I dont necessarily mind if some teachers express their beliefs as long as it’s prefaced with the acknowledgement that it’s their opinion.
i dont care if someone believes in creationism, necessarily. bigfoot, aliens, nessie? i just dont care either – except I take a wide berth. the people who see the problems and believe anyways are harder for me to accept, but what’s the alternative?
I think we’re on the same page as far as sensible beliefs, but do you suggest we kill them? grind their irrational bodies into a protein mixture so that their death will be far more nutritious then their theistic lives?
I’m not advocating for religion, i just dont see what else can be done beyond intelligent education, without infringing upon freedoms and rights and all that.
your suggestion? shall i sharpen my pitch fork and light the torch?
LikeLike
Agreed.
Maybe we should hone our arguments on ACE first?
LikeLike
Sorry, ACE?
LikeLike
Accelerated Christian Education.
Private Creationist schooling. Very big In the UK, Aus. and South Africa.
Not in the US?
LikeLike
Agreed.
No pitchfork required.
We all have our blogging ”’style”, I guess.
I simply prefer to call a shovel a spade and ding around the ear those who push this nonsense. 😉
LikeLike
Oh, gotcha. Actually, I don’t know… they could be big here, too. I’ll have to look into it.
LikeLike
Here you go, Nate. Johnny Scaramanga’s blog is an excellent sit to whet your appetite.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/leavingfundamentalism/
LikeLike
Ark, i do enjoy your style. It takes a village – dont ever change.
LikeLike
” I don’t think unkleE fits that mold. I think he’s sincere in his beliefs, and to me, it seems evident that he’s put a lot of thought behind them. Of course, I don’t think he’s completely free of bias — but no one is.”
Hi Nate, and thanks. It is strange to me that this even needs to be said – it’s not rocket science. Let’s hope it doesn’t need to be said again!
“Do you have any thoughts on why we don’t see more revelation of that sort today? If you take the stance that the NT was the last reliable revelation of that sort, why do you think God’s waited to long to give us a new volume?”
I think we need a little more imagination about this. Why should God keep doing the same old thing? Why is an authoritative book the only way he can work?
This should be obvious because even within the book we have, God reveals himself in many different ways. These are facts which you know from Enns etc – the OT starts with legends similar to other middle eastern cultures, moves through a mix of history and legend to history, then history is interpreted by the prophets, then we have Jesus and the NT – all different, progressing all the time. Now we have the Holy Spirit who came to show truth, to guide ethical behaviour, etc. And all through there’s been revelation through the creation.
A written textbook or rulebook is good for information that doesn’t change much – like history or basic facts – but it isn’t so good if culture is changing and flexibility is needed. And so the NT says that we no longer live according to rules of law but the freedom of the Spirit.
And in the last century, God has been renewing christians’ interest in and involvement with the Holy Spirit. This has led to excesses, but also to the great growth of christianity in Africa, Asia and South America.
It’s all revelation, just different types of revelation.
“If God created man and was with him at the beginning (depending on how much validity one gives the Adam and Eve story), how could things have gotten so bad? God had the opportunity to mold people right from the beginning. It’s hard for me to imagine that if the best parent imaginable had been involved with humanity from the beginning that they would get so screwed up. And if that is what happened, how would a progressive revelation change anything? Why think that people could get better if hands-on parenting failed so miserably?”
I can understand you thinking the way you do because that is the christianity you were brought up in. But there is a different way of seeing it, which is better in accord with the facts. Like I said, you understand the OT facts as per Enns et al. You interpret those (and other) facts as indicating there’s no God. I believe on other grounds the God of Jesus is true, so I interpret the same OT facts differently. We are both guessing to some degree, but here’s my take.
I have 3 children, now in their 40s. When they were young, my wife and I controlled a lot of the details of their lives, but as they became teens we relaxed the rules and explained why we thought certain behaviours were good or bad. We encouraged them to think for themselves. Our aim all along was that they would grow to become independent responsible adults. And we succeeded – they are now mature and thoughtful people holding skilled and responsible jobs.
Now you, and many christians too I think, seem to think that God wants most of all that we conform to certain behaviours and beliefs, and that we all believe in him and go to heaven.
I think that is wrong and a misreading of the Bible.
If you can get that, you can understand the rest, even if you disagree.
I think God’s primary objective is not dissimilar to our aim as parents – to give us freedom to choose who we become. He gave us enough guidance to get us started, but not enough to force his views on us. He hopes we choose rightly, but his primary goal is to give us freedom to choose.
So most of what you and others assume about how God “should” have behaved is based (IMO) on false premises. It also doesn’t accord with what we know about the world and the Bible. It is no wonder you gave up faith! That belief won’t stand for thoughtful people.
But it all adds up. God created the universe via the big bang and created life via evolution to distance himself from the whole process and give us freedom. Without that distancing, we’d have no freedom. The history of the Bible growing from middle eastern legends to the historical fact of Jesus is another example of that distancing to give us freedom. And the gradual change from law to grace and Spirit is another example.
It’s a messy process, and I often wonder why God allows so much mess and evil – couldn’t he have offered freedom without allowing so much mess? But despite those questions, this explanation fits the facts better than the fundamentalism you are familiar with and, I believe, better than the atheism you now accept.
Doubtless you will disagree there, but hopefully you can understand that my views are not just something cobbled together, but ideas I’ve been questioning, grappling with, reading about and living for more than 50 years.
Sorry this comment is so long, but your questions merited a decent answer. Thanks for everything.
LikeLike
“I interact with theists of whatever stripe mainly for their entertainment value.”
Hi Makagutu, thanks for being honest. I sort of expected as much. But I’m not really interested thanks – you can get your entertainment and any answers you want from my reply to Nate.
Catch you later.
LikeLike
“…if 500 people witnessed a deer cross the road, i’d have no issue believing that, but this different isnt it?” – Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
LikeLike
“How does one help a person such as unklee understand that what he believes is wrong and damaging to himself and those around him.”
Un is of the age, Ark, where he’s staring at Death across the abyss, and whether he’s aware of it or not, he’s playing Pascal’s Wager for all it’s worth – nothing is likely to change him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Un is of the age, Ark, where he’s staring at Death across the abyss, and whether he’s aware of it or not, he’s playing Pascal’s Wager for all it’s worth – nothing is likely to change him.”
Lol!! Look who knows so much! 🙂 Arch, your amateur psychology is about as bad as your NT history! But if it makes you feel better, please keep on believing your own evidence-free conclusions, and I’ll keep laughing!
LikeLike
“I think keeping religion out of our schools is a big key.”
Here are areas within the US where despite the 2nd Amendment, some form of Creationism is taught:
LikeLike
Ark – turn Nate on to Jonnie’s site —
LikeLike
Oops, you did – never mind —
LikeLike