Sigh…
So here’s what’s been going on lately. Most of you who read this blog already know that when my wife and I left Christianity, it wrecked most of our family relationships. My wife’s parents and siblings, as well as my own, felt that they could no longer interact with us socially after our deconversion. We were no longer invited to any family functions, and our communication with them all but disappeared. We would speak if it was about religious issues, or if there were logistic issues that needed to be worked out in letting them see our kids, etc.
Over the years, things have gotten a little better, especially with my wife’s parents. Things are by no means back to normal, but at least our infrequent interactions have become more civil and more comfortable. A few weeks ago, I even had a phone conversation with my father that lasted about half an hour and had no references to religion whatsoever. It was nice.
Nevertheless, the awkwardness is still there, just under the surface. And we’re still blacklisted from all the family functions.
Throughout this time, I’ve occasionally reached out to my side of the family with phone calls, letters, facebook messages, etc, in an effort to discuss the issues that divide us. I don’t get much response. I’ve always been puzzled by that, since I know they think I’m completely wrong. If their position is right, why aren’t they willing to discuss it?
In the last five years, I’ve also been sent books and articles and even been asked to speak to certain individuals, and I’ve complied with every request. Why not? How could more information hurt? But when I’ve suggested certain books to them, or written letters, they aren’t read. When I finally realized that my problems with Christianity weren’t going to be resolved, I wrote a 57-page paper to my family and close friends, explaining why I could no longer call myself a Christian. As far as I know, none of them ever read the whole thing. And sure, 57 pages is quite a commitment. But they say this is the most important subject in their lives…
This past week, the topic has started to come back around. A local church kicked off a new series on Monday entitled “Can We Believe the Bible?” It’s being led by an evangelist/professor/apologist that was kind enough to take time to correspond with me for several weeks in the summer of 2010. I’ve never met him in person, but a mutual friend connected us, since he was someone who was knowledgeable about the kinds of questions I was asking. Obviously, we didn’t wind up on the same page.
My wife’s parents invited us to attend the series, but it happens to be at a time that I’m coaching my oldest daughter’s soccer team. So unless we get rained out at some point, there’s no way we can attend. However, we did tell them that if practice is ever cancelled, we’ll go. I also contacted the church and asked if the sermons (if that’s the right word?) will be recorded, and they said that they should be.
Monday night, the weather was fine, so we weren’t able to attend. And so far, the recording isn’t available on their website. However, they do have a recording of Sunday night’s service available, which is entitled “Question & Answer Night.” I just finished listening to it, and that’s where the bulk of my frustration comes from.
It’s essentially a prep for the series that kicked off Monday night. They’re discussing why such a study is important, as well as the kinds of things they plan to cover. What’s so frustrating to me is that I don’t understand the mindset of evangelists like this. I mean, they’ve studied enough to know what the major objections to fundamentalist Christianity are, yet they continue on as if there’s no problem. And when they do talk about atheists and skeptics, they misrepresent our position. I can’t tell if they honestly believe the version they’re peddling, or if they’re purposefully creating straw men.
A couple of times, they mentioned that one of the main reasons people reject the Bible comes down to a preconception that miracles are impossible. “And if you start from that position, then you’ll naturally reject the Bible.” But that’s a load of crap. Most atheists were once theists, so their starting position was one that believed in miracles.
They also mentioned that so many of these secular articles and documentaries “only show one side.” I thought my head was going to explode.
And they referred to the common complaints against the Bible as “the same tired old arguments that have been answered long ago.” It’s just so infuriating. If the congregants had any knowledge of the details of these “tired old arguments,” I doubt they’d unanimously find the “answers” satisfactory. But the danger with a series like this is that it almost works like a vaccination. The members of the congregation are sitting in a safe environment, listening to trusted “experts,” and they’re injected with a watered down strain of an argument. And it’s that watered down version that’s eradicated by the preacher’s message. So whenever the individual encounters the real thing, they think it’s already been dealt with, and the main point of the argument is completely lost on them.
For example, most Christians would be bothered to find out that the texts of the Bible are not as reliable as were always led to believe. Even a beloved story like the woman caught in adultery, where Jesus writes on the ground, we’ve discovered that it was not originally part of the gospel of John. It’s a later addition from some unknown author. To a Christian who’s never heard that before, it’s unthinkable! But if they’ve gone through classes where they’ve been told that skeptics exaggerate the textual issues in the Bible, and that the few changes or uncertainties deal with only very minor things, and that none of the changes affect any doctrinal points about the gospel, then it’s suddenly easier for them to swallow “minor” issues like the insertion of an entire story into the gospel narrative.
Sigh…
I’m going to either attend these sessions, or I’ll watch/listen to them once they’re available online. I may need to keep some blood pressure medication handy, though.
Finding Truth 
“Are you tired of me yet?” – Oh, that ship is LONG over the horizon —
But I will admit you’ve given me an even greater insight into the convoluted nonsense that humans will concoct just to avoid taking responsibility for their own destinies.
LikeLike
@Brandon
I’ll let the rest decide whether what I said was dripping in emotional outburst. I don’t think I am, you think I was, so be it.
Regarding the case? I’m not making any case, you are the one saying that (or at least I’m assuming) that you are ok with God doing whatever he wants. I’m the one saying that is not a good idea in judging goodness and for simplicity sake I’m calling it “might makes right”.
In any case, if this is going to degrade into psychoanalysis, I’m gonna say the same of you – are you ok with a god-being doing whatever he wants because that was wad you experienced with your dad? Hence you are used to the sort of abuse environment but in this case at least God is defined to be always good while your dad obviously isn’t.
Cheap shot I know, but 2 can play the game, or we cool about not resorting to such mud slinging moving forward?
LikeLike
The following is a quote from Christian Hoefreiter ‘Genocide in Deuteronomy’ 240 -262:
‘Devout readers of the Bible have found these passages to be morally unpalatable and theologically challenging ever since antiquity. The cognitive dissonance caused by these texts can be summarised as a severe tension between three tenets or deep-seated intuitions:
1. God is good, loving and just;
2. The Scriptures bear faithful witness to God;
3. Both the concept and practice of herem [God sanctioned war and genocide] are morally revolting.
For Christians the complication of a perceived tension between the OT and NT is added. Most strategies amount to a more or less radical reappraisal of at least one of these three claims above.’
What is clear is that a really satisfactory explanation of these tensions has eluded Christian apologists despite 2,000 years of effort. That in itself implies something.
LikeLiked by 3 people
In my now one-year-long experience of being an ex-conservative Christian, I have discussed the justifications for the bloody actions of the OT god many times with Christians. Christians always want to divert the conversation to “context”:
“In that time, place, and circumstance, it was moral and good for the Christian god to hunt down and slaughter terrified little children.”
The issues I have on this position are this:
1. Would you accept any justification today for hunting down and executing little children and babies? If not, then why would was it appropriate then?
2. What evil would a society have to commit to warrant hunting down and killing off all their children?
3. Many Christians justify their god’s slaughter of children and babies in the OT due to the alleged sins of the parents such as homosexuality, sexual promiscuity, and child sacrifice. Even if true (which I don’t think can be demonstrated) that hundreds of Amelekite children were sacrificed every year, does that justify killing them ALL pre-emptively?
4. Can you find anywhere in the Bible that states that the Amelekites practiced infant sacrifice and that this was the reason for God’s order to kill them? Or was the reason for killing every one of them, including the children and babies, because the Amelekites had refused to allow the Israelites to cross their land to enter Canaan? Is refusing to allow someone to trespass on your property valid justification for killing every man, woman, and child?
I don’t think that Christians can give any good answers to these questions other than to try to change the subject, refer us to an “expert” who, in a long article or book, will attempt to explain in complicated terms why hunting down and executing children is morally appropriate in some situations, or finally admit that:…even if God was a brutal, baby-slaughtering monster…we must kneel before him, sing his praises, and pretend that he is loving and good…or we will receive the same brutal treatment in the after life.
What does this morality sound more like: contemporary, western humanistic morality…or…the morality of barbaric, Islamic fundamentalists?
LikeLiked by 1 person
1 Samuel 15
Saul Defeats the Amalekites but Spares Their King
15 Samuel said to Saul, “The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”
4 So Saul summoned the people, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand foot soldiers, and ten thousand soldiers of Judah. 5 Saul came to the city of the Amalekites and lay in wait in the valley. 6 Saul said to the Kenites, “Go! Leave! Withdraw from among the Amalekites, or I will destroy you with them; for you showed kindness to all the people of Israel when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites withdrew from the Amalekites. 7 Saul defeated the Amalekites, from Havilah as far as Shur, which is east of Egypt. 8 He took King Agag of the Amalekites alive, but utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. 9 Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep and of the cattle and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was valuable, and would not utterly destroy them; all that was despised and worthless they utterly destroyed.
Crime: Not being nice.
Punishment: complete slaughter of every man, woman, and child
Notice in the last verse what is of value according to the Bible and what is not:
Valued: sheep, cattle, fatlings, lambs.
Not valued: women, children, and babies
Dear conservative Christian: Does this passage really reflect YOUR moral values? I hope not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brandon:
I will be happy to discuss my perspective on the source of morality, if you will agree, unconditionally, to the following statement:
“The hunting down and targeted execution of children and babies is evil and immoral; there is never, neither now, in the future, nor in the past, any circumstance in which the hunting down and targeted execution of children and babies is justifiable; any individual, being, or entity who perpetrates or orders the hunting down and targeted execution of children and babies is vile, evil, immoral, and worthy of the harshest condemnation; under no circumstances can such an individual, being, or entity be considered “good” or be given any form of honor or respect.”
If I were asked to debate a member of ISIS on the topic of morality, I would insist on his agreement to this same statement before debating him. I doubt he would agree to it.
LikeLike
And the details of the story of the Amalekites gets even worse, folks. I just looked this up:
Guess the approximate year when Bible scholars believe that the Amalekites “rudely” refused to allow the Israelites to cross their land; the “sin” that caused God to order them annihilated: circa 1400 BC. And guess the approximate year when God ordered Saul to slaughter every man, woman, and child of the Amalekite people due to their sin of inhospitality: circa 1050 BC!
So how many people were alive in 1050 BC that had committed the offending sin in 1400 BC ? Answer: none.
The Christian god ordered the annihilation of an entire people, including the chopping to pieces of every toddler and infant, for the inhospitality of their ancestors….350 years earlier!
How can any Christian possibly call that moral behavior?
LikeLiked by 1 person
What a convoluted piece of garbage!
LikeLike
Meaning: https://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2015/04/02/frustration/#comment-24843 – since the comments aren’t stacked.
LikeLike
So what I’m hearing from both Unkie and Crown, is that OT scripture, most especially the Torah consisted, besides the written version, of the priestly opinions d’jour – how reassuring.
LikeLike
“…as we have in Australia!” – You’re from Australia, Unk? I’m sorry to hear that, I’ve always had such a high opinion of Australians.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not aware of anyone’s concept of “facts,” that includes the following definition: “they contain some disparate viewpoints, and their methods of interpretation are not as literal and fixed as you sometimes assume. These seem to me to be facts…“
LikeLike
“Why do you believe this barbaric nonsense? Stop and think!” – Gary, would that it were really that easy —
LikeLike
@Josh – so, entertainment value —
LikeLike
“It fits very well with accounts of Jesus from the gospels.” – Written four to seven decades after his alleged existence by anonymous authors who never met him – great leap of logic, Brandon!
LikeLike
You never cease to under-amaze me.
LikeLike
“What is your case?” – No god, no godly rights. Case closed.
LikeLike
@arch
It’s times like this that I wish comments can be nested. Right now Arch you’re looking a little bit deranged lol.
LikeLike
The simple answer, Gary, is that Man created god, in His own image, and with His own fallibilities.
LikeLike
Boggles the mind, doesn’t it Gary, that humankind could be so gullible?
LikeLike
“Right now Arch you’re looking a little bit deranged” – And that’s unusual, how?
LikeLike
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Brandon —
It’s okay to murder children, as long as they’re Canaanites or Amalekites – the god he’s trying to convince you to worship says so!
LikeLike
“…as we have in Australia!” – You’re from Australia, Unk? I’m sorry to hear that, I’ve always had such a high opinion of Australians.”
Arch, I have yet to see unkleE be uncivil. Based on some past dialog with him, he is not comfortable with, nor has he ever justified the diabolical behavior of the Biblical god in the OT.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Arch-
You are looking a bit deranged. Unless I’m looking at this in my email thread, which I almost never do, I have no idea to which comments you’re responding!
LikeLike
Arch wrote: Man created god, in His own image, and with His own fallibilities.
It is my contention that God is nothing more than a construct of the mind.
LikeLike