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 
Nan-
Yes, I’m aware the gospels were written later. I’m also aware that Paul never met Jesus in the flesh. I know the “problems” with Paul and James, but I don’t buy that their teachings are that far removed from one another. Also, Paul’s confrontation with Peter, based on what Jesus taught in the gospels, is likely one that Jesus would have had with Peter as well.
LikeLike
Ok, Josh. Fair enough. We’ll call it a draw.
I say what I do because I did extensive research on Paul when writing my book. What I learned is what I have stated here (and much more!). But I do understand why your thinking is different since the church sees Paul in an entirely different light. And why not? He’s the one who spoke to the Gentiles and essentially started the church.
LikeLike
Victoria-
I completely agree with this. And, I also completely understand why people don’t believe. As I’ve mentioned before, I have many times when I would agree wholeheartedly. I do think a reasonable person can look at what’s available and conclude that Jesus likely was who he seems to claim he was (at least I do, and I think I’m fairly reasonable). I also think a reasonable person can look at what’s available and conclude the opposite. It helps that I don’t believe in a God who would condemn people for not knowing, not having enough information, being so turned off by believers that they hate all religion, etc. I believe God is bigger than those things. If he’s not, then he’s not God. Or, there is no God.
LikeLike
Nan-
I didn’t intend to shoot down what you wrote. There is likely a lot more research I could do. Like I said, I know there are points where Jesus and Paul either deviate or emphasize different points. I’m not opposed to stated that they have places where they clash. I just don’t read them the same way. It’s probably the brainwash.
LikeLike
Thank you Josh. What ever would we do without faith, eh? 😀 So, if you believe in heaven, do you believe everyone is going there?
LikeLike
I, like Brennan Manning, tend to believe that the ones either not going to heaven or at the very back of the line are the ones who are so pissed that the “riffraff” got in, they refuse to go. Like the Elder Brother.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL
LikeLike
So, likely, the most uptight religious people will not be getting a pass
😉
LikeLike
I actually read once, and I cannot remember where, a great description of “hell”. It want something like “I’ve met people who would rather see someone burn in an inferno for all eternity than admit that God could possibly be okay with their lifestyle/behavior. If you have so much hate that you wish unending torture on someone who lives differently than you, I cannot imagine a worse evil or “hell” than that.”
That dude gets to cross Go and collect $200. The dude he’s describing most certainly would almost certainly see Gandhi or Ellen DeGeneres in heaven, and turn right around to take the elevator down.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Josh — Absolutely!
LikeLike
“The dude he’s describing most certainly would almost certainly see Gandhi or Ellen DeGeneres in heaven, and turn right around to take the elevator down.”
OK, but an all-knowing, merciful god would understand why this person felt that way (indoctrination from the Bible and Christian clergy), and give him a pass anyway. Correct?
LikeLike
My opinion? God would understand. If the person didn’t want to stay, though, I’m not sure God would force them to. Many of Jesus’ parables about “the ones who are excluded in the end were always included in the beginning” (a la elder brother in the Prodigal Son), leave the question open. However, they do seem to at least suggest that God would attempt to persuade, but not force, that person to join.
LikeLike
“and give him a pass anyway.”
I meant Jesus would explain that this person or persons had been deceived by what was written in the Bible and taught by Christian clergy. Jesus would explain to this person about neuroplasticity and how easily people can be persuaded, especially if the indoctrination began when they were impressionable children.
I seriously doubt that with what we know about how the brain/mind can be heavily influenced by its culture, that Jesus would allow for someone to still follow, believe in his/her deceptions, if eternal life comes after death. Correct?
LikeLiked by 1 person
^ I’d buy that, Victoria.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, Josh, then what’s the point of temporary life, if eternal life exists already. Why allow for all the suffering before death, only to be resurrected?
LikeLike
That’s the gazillion dollar question. I don’t have a home run answer, but I can tell you at least what I hear, read, think, and pray about quite a lot. I hesitate to type this because I don’t at all want to minimize suffering. However, I can tell you about personal conversations I’ve had with people who have gone through incredible suffering and stories I’ve read of the same. Many of those people find a strength within themselves after going through suffering, and often that strength leads to helping others in some way. Or, their own suffering leads to an incredible compassion and understanding of others that someone who has not suffered simply cannot understand. I don’t know whether God “could have” made us fully understanding toward one another without suffering, but I know how suffering, or the observation of others’ suffering, often changes people into the “saints” many revere for their humanitarian works. I once heard a pastor tell a story of a nightmare he had, one in which he lost his entire family (wife, and two girls) in a violent home invasion. Upon waking and realizing he had, in fact, not lost his family, his love and appreciation for them increased exponentially. I have had similar nightmares, and experienced similar awakening to love upon realizing the nightmare was untrue. I ultimately cannot say if God could have implanted this kind of compassion and understanding in us without these experiences. But, would that compassion and understanding have been “real”, then? What about those who suffer but don’t have this change in compassion? I don’t know that, either. Like I said, it’s nowhere near a home run. But, it does give me, at least, pause in thinking that suffering could only be allowed by a God who is morally apprehensible.
LikeLike
My hunch is that like many liberal Christians I know, Josh has created his own personalized religion—taken from select pages of an ancient, superstitious, middle eastern holy book—otherwise filled with barbaric atrocities.
Why do people do this? Why not just abandon the supernatural-based religion altogether? Why adopt a white-washed version of it?
I believe it is due to this: Death scares the hell out of us. It is more comforting to hold on to some form of security blanket that none at all. I believe that religion, whether fundamentalist or liberal, is a security blanket. It soothes our fears regarding death, eternity, the dangers of this life, and the unknown.
But as every adult knows, security blankets are figments of the imagination. Your security blanket really doesn’t give you any protection whatsoever.
LikeLike
Gary-
As long as I continue to butcher the English language like in my last comment, I give you permission to continue speaking for me and insulting my beliefs.
LikeLike
I understand where you are coming from Josh. But here’s where I’m coming from. Children are at the highest risk of suffering (toxic stress a.k.a. adverse childhood experiences), which affects their brain development, their health, mental and physical, their behavior, and can even lead to early death.
Comprehensive studies show that “certain experiences are major risk factors for the leading causes of illness and death as well as poor quality of life in the United States.
“Childhood abuse, neglect, and exposure to other traumatic stressors which we term adverse childhood experiences (ACE) are common. Almost two-thirds of our study (17,000) participants reported at least one ACE, and more than one of five reported three or more ACE. The short- and long-term outcomes of these childhood exposures include a multitude of health and social problems.
**Alcoholism and alcohol abuse
**Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
**Depression
**Fetal death
**Health-related quality of life
**Illicit drug use
**Ischemic heart disease (IHD)
**Liver disease
**Risk for intimate partner violence
**Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)
**Smoking
**Suicide attempts
**Unintended pregnancies
**Early initiation of smoking
**Early initiation of sexual activity
**Adolescent pregnancy
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/acestudy/
Other traumatic events include war, serious injuries, poverty, children losing their primary care givers, natural disasters, etc.
LikeLike
Josh, being defensive means you’re human… you need to realize that Gary was once in your place; not so long ago. He even voiced some of the rationalizations you have, to try to hang onto his ‘faith’. Eventually, he – like most of the rest of us – had to recognize his own delusion. We all understand, believe me. 🙂
LikeLike
Well said, Carmen. Thank you.
Apologies, Gary.
LikeLike
I’m not trying to insult you, Josh. I’m trying to shake you out of the delusion that you are under.
Your supernatural belief system is not, per se, dangerous or threatening. But liberal Christians like you give cover for the fundamentalists. If all liberal people, of all religions, would abandon superstition (belief in the supernatural) and base their lives solely on reason and science, the fundamentalists and their conservative cousins would be seen as complete wacko’s (more than they already are), and the Age of Religious Superstitions and the discrimination and violence associated with those superstitions would be a thing of the past.
Dead people do not reanimate. Jesus is dead. He taught some wonderful concepts but he was a man, not a god. Let’s stop teaching children to believe in ghosts, ghouls, zombies, and gods.
LikeLike
Victoria-
I’m heading out of work now. I’m off to the gym. I’ll try to read and respond later tonight. Tomorrow at the latest 🙂
Thanks much for the conversation!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“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.”
Thanks for the support. I usually don’t choose to respond to personal comments, and I was somewhat surprised and deeply gratified that you took the time to defend me. I recall we have discussed recently, but your memory is better than mine as I cannot now recall the topic. But you are right about my views. Thanks again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Josh,
We don’t have to understand the “purpose” of a life for the ages. What is the “purpose” of an ageless proton?
Protons don’t decay. Nobody has ever seen one decay. It’s theoretical that one might, but it is just that: theoretical, unobserved.
Let’s just speak in terms of truth. The Elohiym – The Powers – “God” made the protons as they are, to be what they are. And what they are and what they do we only partly see, just as we only ever partly see anything. WHY they are as they are and do as they do, we don’t know. We simply know that they are as they are because it is the will of the Elohiym. That’s why.
Likewise, we ourselves are each a breath breathed out by the Powers, the Father. “Spirit” is the word “ruach” in Hebrew, “pneuma” in Greek. It MEANS, literally, “breath” or “wind”. We are each a breath of the Father, breathed out as we are for purposes that only he knows completely. We ARE each a breath of the Father – a spirit – we merely HAVE a body.
When the spirit leaves the body, it decomposes, unless God ordains that it not decompose. There are many miraculous bodies of saintly people over the centuries that have not decomposed after death (and there are no bodies of unsaintly people who have, likewise, not decomposed: saintliness is an apparent requisite of incorruptibility). The body decomposes, falling back to molecules that are themselves composed of incorrupt protons – particles that theoretically should be able to break down, but that actually don’t.
The spirit goes on, and makes the trek described in Scripture and corroborated by NDE experiencers and visionaries to this, our present day.
Why does the Father breathe out these breaths, that then return to him?
Why do WE have children, in imitation of him?
Why are we compelled to write about these things?
Why are writers compelled to right, even when they know that by doing so they will be treated harshly and unjustly?
Why do painters paint, or designers design?
Why do we do uneconomic activities?
The answer is that we are made in the image of our Father. The Creator creates and we, His creations, in his image, follow the imprint of our Father and we ourselves seek to create what we can, using the pieces of creation that we can manipulate. The Creator creates. We, the sub-creation, sub-create. We father children in emulation of the Father, who breathed us out and who calls us back to him.
We love, and want to be loved, because He loves, and wants to be loved.
That’s the truth. It’s the answer to your question.
LikeLike