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

Frustration

Nate

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.

can we trust the bible?

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.

Unknown's avatar

Published by Nate

1,060 thoughts on “Frustration”

  1. The problem I have, Josh, with sites like the one you recommend, is that the authors look at all of the negative things in the Bible and say, “Ok, how can we spin this to make it a positive thing –?” It’s similar to the tactics that Brandon regularly employs.

    Like

  2. “It is my contention that God is nothing more than a construct of the mind.”

    I agree, Nan. To Arch’s credit, he wrote something on my about page that I think is worth repeating:

    “The gods have never known more than the men who created them.”

    For anyone interested, who hasn’t already seen this, it is an excellent lecture that compliments what Nan wrote.

    Like

  4. Arch-
    I really don’t see it as “trying to make it a positive thing”. I think, to our minds today, it is brutal and not the way we’d hope to have things dealt with. At the same time, I think his points about who actually would have been killed is important. Ultimately, though, I think what this discussion comes down to is inerrancy. Is every word that is written the God’s-honest truth about what happened? I come from the perspective that what is recorded is not necessarily what God actually commanded, what was carried out, etc. It’s interesting to me that skeptics question “inerrancy”, which is not a doctrine that all Christians hold to, and use that as a stepping stool to prove the whole Bible is in question. At the same time, however, most skeptics, when it suits their purposes, will not allow that another portion of scripture may not be entirely accurate. I agree that it can’t all be “literally true”, but we both have to give and take in the examination. I don’t think it’s fair to pick out some places and say “The Bible can’t be true because this is inaccurate or is a misrepresentation of history”, and then, in the same breath, be unwilling to allow that other records in the Bible may also be inaccurate, hyperbolic, or parabolic.

    Just sayin 🙂

    Like

  5. “At the same time, however, most skeptics, when it suits their purposes, will not allow that another portion of scripture may not be entirely accurate. I agree that it can’t all be “literally true”, but we both have to give and take in the examination.”

    Josh, may I has how you discern what portions of the Bible are true and what aren’t?

    Like

  7. I know, Josh – take it up with Nate, he has chosen not to stack his comments. I used to try to include a recognizable segment from the comment of the person I’m addressing, but after commenting for so long on blogs that DO stack, I’ve gotten out of the habit of doing that, as on stacked blogs, my comment generally falls immediately beneath the one to which I’m responding, so there’s never any doubt.

    Like

  8. Josh, I’d much prefer Christians to drop inerrancy in order to solve this, but unfortunately many do not which is why the conversation is necessary. I don’t believe it’s required that the bible be completely literally true, but if it’s not it brings up other issues which aren’t easy to solve. Which is what Victoria’s question is related to so I’ll just sit back and watch your conversation with her.

    By the way, my favorite theist’s resolution to the horrors of the old testament is Thom Stark’s in “Human Faces of God”. You may like it since it lines up a little with some of the other authors you like. He gives up on inerrancy, and even believes that his God wants us to condemn these passages, so you can see I’m open to more nuanced ideas from that. Stark and I differ in our metaphysical conclusions, but again, as far as resolving these difficult issues I really like his approach.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. The only time that I play the inerrancy card, Josh, is when conversing with theists who claim that the Bible is inerrant, and I don’t say that to prove the Bible contains no truth, only that when it comes to truth, it’s unreliable.

    This is what I wrote on another blog, in response to a Christian, on the brink of atheism, who questioned if he had devoted his life to a lie:

    I wouldn’t call it a deliberate lie. Oh, I’ve no doubt there are deliberate lies in there, but largely, it seems to me to be simply a case of supernatural, scientifically-ignorant Bronze and Iron Age men, trying to make sense of the world with limited knowledge. There are some tall tales in there, some allegories and metaphors, some wishful thinking, and some effort to please an invisible sky sovereign, some beliefs borrowed from the religions of their neighbors, as well as efforts to control a populace by deciding how they should live and telling them the commands came from a god.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Josh,

    I’m happy to see that you do not believe in Biblical Inerrancy. The evidence against this position is overwhelming. However, once you go down that path, it is a slippery slope. Now the Bible, to you, has become a smorgasbord: you take what you like and leave what you don’t.

    Some of my liberal Christian family members do what you are doing. They don’t believe that the god of the OT even existed. He was simply the imagination of ancient, nomadic goat-herders. They completely ignore the entire Old Testament. They ignore the teachings of Paul regarding women’s submissive role and the sin of homosexuality and pre-marital sex. They re-interpret the plain interpretation of Jesus statements on Hell to be metaphorical. There is no hell to them. They are universalists: everyone will recognize Jesus as God in the end and everyone will go to heaven.

    Yeah!!!!

    They become irritated when I point out to them the following:

    Jesus believed in the god of the OT and called him his Father. Never once did Jesus condemn the barbaric acts of his “Father”.

    I use this analogy with them: If Hitler had a son, and Hitler’s son was the most compassionate, loving, giving humanitarian on the planet…if Hitler’s son lauded his father as great, honorable, and worthy of respect, and refused to condemn any of the barbaric acts of his father, would you consider Hitler’s son a moral, good person?

    I don’t think so.

    Try as hard as they can, liberal and moderate Christians cannot separate Jesus from the god of the Old Testament.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. I would consider Hitler’s son as having a form of Stockholm syndrome, and thus, I would do the same with anyone who worships and loves a deity that would send his children to a place of eternal torment or threaten eternal death if they don’t obey and love this deity.

    Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with the captors. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness.

    Stockholm syndrome can be seen as a form of traumatic bonding, which does not necessarily require a hostage scenario, but which describes “strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Yeah, but of course we’re not even sure that Jesus really said all that. Perhaps the writers embellished and got what he said wrong. Of course, this in my mind brings up a whole can of other worms. Either way, to me, all the issues seem too tough handle, but I try to give a little more leeway in other possibilities that people try to work out.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Hey Neuron (may I call you Victoria?) & Howie-
    Let me start with just a disclaimer. I’m fully aware that most here will not agree with what I write below, mostly because you’ve all done your own research and have come to different conclusions. For that reason, in addition to the fact that I simply don’t have the memory or the notes with references others here have, I’m not going to include any references. I think most of what I’m going to write is at least reasonable, if not something that would lead to the conclusions that others have come to.

    Generally speaking, I think I’ve done a fairly good job of looking up arguments for and against many of the issues you all raise here, and those I’ve heard in conversations with friends and family about the reliability of the Bible. Where I tend to start is with Jesus. If Jesus is who he said he is, then a lot of other things fall into place from there. I think the historical evidence is enough to bring us to a decision-point, but probably no further. For the most part, it seems to be accepted that Jesus more than probably existed, probably taught something similar to what is recorded in the NT, that people at least thought he did some healing acts of some type, that he was convicted and crucified.

    It also seems, for a man who was relatively localized, didn’t have much in the way of wider appeal, and had difficulty convincing most of his own people – including his immediate family and followers, who are recorded as questioning Jesus’ sanity and his claim that he had to die and not conquer – that his teaching and fame spread almost like wildfire. Why is that? If there were others who met the criteria listed above, and had similarly dedicated, if thick-headed, followers, why didn’t they spread like wildfire as well? It seems reasonable to conclude that there was someone different about this guy.

    Admittedly, there are also very personal and subjective reasons I continue to believe in Jesus. Those, I know, are not admissible. But, that doesn’t mean I can discount them.

    What about the rest of scripture? After all that, I find I can hold much of the rest of what is in scripture very loosely. In fact, my first interactions with Nate were vehemently defending God’s actions in the OT, with many of the same reasons that Brandon has been giving. I’ve also defended Moses and the Exodus as actual historical events. I’ve changed my position on those items after finding there just isn’t enough to make me hold onto those ideas. And, to me, it doesn’t really matter. If Jesus is indeed who he said he was, then it makes no difference whether the OT is literally true, partially true, or all parable designed to make us “hope”. And, if Jesus isn’t who he said he was, it doesn’t matter, either. So, really, all that matters is deciding on Jesus. I read and re-read on that subject almost daily to try to find reasons I shouldn’t believe. I take into account subjective events as well. I still believe.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Try as hard as they can, liberal and moderate Christians cannot separate Jesus from the god of the Old Testament.

    Gary-
    If Jesus was actually God, and if he became incarnate to reveal truth about God, then his life, actions, and teaching would be living refutation of anything in the OT that conflicted with who He is. He openly called out religious leaders on their faulty understandings, most of which involved a reading of the law that allowed them to trample all over others. Because he doesn’t specifically condemn every action in the OT that is attributed to God doesn’t mean that his life example and things he did teach on didn’t condemn those understandings.

    Like

  15. Josh,

    You wouldn’t ignore the fact that Hitler’s son never condemned his father’s gassing of six millions Jews, but for some reason you choose to ignore the fact that Jesus never condemned his father’s acts of mass murder:

    —drowning every child and infant on the planet due to the sins of their parents.
    —burning alive all the little children in Sodom and Gomorrah for the sins of the adults.
    —murdering every Egyptian first born in his sleep for the sins of one man: pharaoh.
    —murdering every Amalekite child for the horrific sin of their ancestors 350 years earlier: being inhospitable.
    —murdering all the Midianite women and little boys (but sparing the virgin girls).
    —murdering every living being in many Canaanite cities.

    I could go on.

    Jesus was a rabbi (a teacher). He knew the Scriptures (Old Testament). He knew about all the above atrocities and that they were attributed to his “Father”…but he never once condemned him.

    Your excuses for Jesus silence on these acts of barbarity is appalling, Josh. Stop the excuses and admit the obvious: Jesus supported racist genocide.

    Like

  16. Josh wrote: It also seems, for a man who was relatively localized, didn’t have much in the way of wider appeal, and had difficulty convincing most of his own people – including his immediate family and followers, who are recorded as questioning Jesus’ sanity and his claim that he had to die and not conquer – that his teaching and fame spread almost like wildfire. Why is that?

    No, Jesus’ teachings did not spread like wildfire — Paul’s did. And what he had to say differed drastically from what Jesus taught. Paul had a theology that appealed to the Gentiles (of which you are one unless you were born Jew), and this is what the church follows today.

    The Jews rejected Jesus because their bible (the OT) told of a human leader … a Messiah … who would deliver them from their enemies. Paul ignored (for the most part) what the OT taught and developed his own theology about Jesus.

    Of course, this is not what is taught in the churches today so it’s not surprising if you aren’t aware of it.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Nan-
    I guess I have to plead inability to read, then. I’ve read the NT multiple times, and I don’t see Paul teaching drastically different things than Jesus.

    Like

  19. Your excuses for Jesus silence on these acts of barbarity is appalling, Josh. Stop the excuses and admit the obvious: Jesus supported racist genocide.

    Just for you, Gary:

    Jesus supported racist genocide.
    Christianity is a lie.
    Christianity is ancient, superstitious nonsense.
    Etc, etc, etc.

    Like

  20. Hi Josh,

    Thanks for your explanation, and sure, please call me Victoria. Am I gathering that you believe that Jesus was a deity because it spread like wildfire? I have shared this here before, but I want to give you an example of someone who claimed to be a prophet back in the 1800’s and many believe it to be true, spreading like wildfire. There are now, to date, approximately 25 million attending church every week with over 17 million active members in this one denomination. This denomination has the 2nd largest private Christian school system in the world (the RCC being #1), and has been endorsed by two modern American presidents (George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, and a former secretary of state, Hilary Clinton. It is the 7th Day Adventist.

    As it turned out, this “prophet” sustained a head injury, and upon “recovering”, she started having experiences indicative of temporal lobe epilepsy a.k.a., complex partial seizures. She believed she’d been chosen by the Christian god to be a messenger of god.

    Neurologist David Eagleman, in his book Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain he states:

    “If an epileptic seizure is focused in a particular sweet spot in the temporal lobe, a person won´t have motor seizures, but instead something more subtle. The effect is something like a cognitive seizure, marked by changes of personality, hyperreligiosity (an obsession with religion and feelings of religious certainity), hypergraphia (extensive writing on a subject, usually about religion), the false sense of an external presence, and, often, the hearing voices that are attributed to a god. Some fraction of history´s prophets, martyrs, and leaders appear to have had temporal lobe epilepsy. Our reality depends on what our biology is up to.”

    In the Primary Care Companion to the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry — Official Journal of the Association of Medicine and Psychiatry, it states:

    “Because of these affective, behavioral, and cognitive symptoms, patients with Complex Partial Seizures (a.k.a. Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) are frequently misdiagnosed. Seizures can include gustatory and olfactory hallucinations; micropsia or macropsia; and intense delusions involving bodily harm, déjà vu, or “out-of-body” experiences. CPS have also been associated with certain personality features including moral rigidity, hyperreligiousity, hypergraphia, and viscosity (or “stickiness,” e.g., difficulty ending conversations).”

    In this article,published in The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, it shares a little about a patient with paranoid schizophrenia who explained during a neurological evaluation that he believed he was selected by God to provide guidance for mankind.

    It goes on to say that as many as 60% of those with schizophrenia have religious grandiose delusions consisting of believing they are a saint, God, the devil, a prophet, Jesus, or some other important person.

    This is why I asked you how do you discern. Because, based on what we’ve learned — hyper-religiosity is a major feature of several common neurological disorders.

    Please know that I am not suggesting that everyone who believes in god has a neurological disorder. This is just an example of one red flag among many.

    I also want to note that between April 1968 and May 1971 hundreds of thousands of people reported seeing apparitions of the Virgin Mary over a Coptic Orthodox church in Zeitoun, near Cairo, Egypt. When photographed, these phenomena appeared as irregular blobs of light. The characteristics of these luminous phenomena strongly suggested the existence of tectonic strain within the area. “Earth lights” can occur before and after seismic activity. Scientists, including behavioral neuroscientists were sent to the area and the psychological factors determine it was mass hysteria caused from a reinforcement of religious history.

    Analysis also revealed that luminous phenomena in Zeitoun increased during the month of or the month before an increase in regional seismic activity”. (Derr, John S. & Michael A. Persinger ‘Geophysical Variables and Behavior: LIV. Zeitoun (Egypt) Apparitions of the Virgin Mary as Tectonic Strain-induced Luminosities. Perceptual and Motor Skills 1989, 68, 123-128]

    Like

  21. Am I gathering that you believe that Jesus was a deity because it spread like wildfire?

    Not entirely. It’s a piece of why I believe.

    Like

  22. Josh, I was exactly ‘where you’re at’ a couple of years ago. I can identify with you in that regard. In fact, I stated (not as eloquently as you have) the same thought on another Blog. .. the one about, “Well, I just think Jesus was a good man and did good things, so I can just try to be like him!” Then I read some more, and interacted on some more blogs. . . 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  23. Josh, something else that’s important to know … the gospels were written after Paul started spreading his theology. Paul started writing in and around 50 CE. The first gospel (Mark’s) is estimated to have been written sometime between 65-80 CE. Can you honestly think the writers weren’t influenced by Paul’s teachings?

    I have previously seen the link you suggested. Have you seen this one?
    http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm

    From an article about Paul from the above website: Paul had a severe conflict with Jesus’ brother James and in other places Peter, etc. Jesus’ followers were Torah observant Jews while Paul’s ideas of Jesus as a pagan-style savior-god is idolatry to Jews.

    Important point: It’s beyond dispute Paul never met Jesus in the flesh and reveals little of Jesus’ life.

    Like

  24. Hey Carmen-
    Thanks for that 🙂
    The more I read and study the more I see that Jesus wasn’t teaching me to be like him, but teaching me that his Kingdom was found in inclusion. I see, more and more, his parables teaching that the “God figure” in the parable was all about including everyone and that people tended to lean toward grouping, exclusion, and anger if those they felt were “unworthy” were included. I’m more influenced these days by authors like Robert Farrar Capon, Rob Bell, Tullian Tchividjian. It’s not entirely in line with the traditional thinking in Christianity. It seems to line up well with what Jesus and Paul taught, though. And, their arguments about how we have misunderstood make sense to me. Plus, if the message is to include and show mercy and grace to others, then there are not too many people I find that oppose that 🙂

    Like

  25. “Not entirely. It’s a piece of why I believe.”

    Josh, I understand. What I’ve shared with you is just a piece of why I don’t believe. I’m not stating that there is no creator. I’m agnostic about that. But there are just too many variables that leads me to believe that man created the many gods accompanied by sensationalism that have been popular and proselytized during certain periods of human history. As Arch shared in a previous comment, one of the reasons was due to trying to make sense of their world. It’s understandable.

    Recent studies show that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, and will match believers of Christianity by 2050. In other words, it’s spreading like wildfire.

    Like

Comments are closed.