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 
“Slavery is a specific thing. A wife was not a slave.” – Couple of questions, Crown – were these women prisoners, or were they free to leave at any time?
If the former, were they forced to perform work, or were they free to decline?
If the former, they were slaves – were they forced to have sex? If so, they were sex slaves.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Neurotones: “In other words, your god sanctioned rape.”
Your God too. There’s only one. And he’s going to kill you and judge you too someday.
He didn’t sanction rape. He demanded a mourning period and marriage, with rights, and he did not permit prostitution or sexual slavery, or mutilation.
You would prefer a God who didn’t kill people, and presumably one who prevented everybody from committing anything that you think is immoral or a crime.
I’d prefer it if God were different also, in some ways.
And I’d prefer it if all people were kind, all politicians were honest, the world were not cruel, and we didn’t have to get sick.
I’d like all that. And if we use my imagination we can create imaginary worlds where we’re God and things are the way we think they ought to be.
But meanwhile, in the real world, we have itchy hemorrhoids, dental caries, hardening arteries, twisted ankles, drunk drivers, earthquakes and AIDS. And the real God doesn’t care whether we disagree or not. He has his reasons. Hate him if you want to, for nor being as good as you.
LikeLike
“But meanwhile, in the real world, we have itchy hemorrhoids, dental caries, hardening arteries, twisted ankles, drunk drivers, earthquakes and AIDS.” – You left out divine doves flying into people’s heads – I’d think that would be at the top of your list!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Your God too.”
Nono, that’s your god of choice, and dare I say, you have lousy taste. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Crown – were these women prisoners, or were they free to leave at any time?
If the former, were they forced to perform work, or were they free to decline?
If the former, they were slaves – were they forced to have sex? If so, they were sex slaves.”
They were prisoners of wars that were fought by their nations against the Lord and his nation. As such, they were liable to death. God spared them and gave them their lives, as captives.
He did not permit the Israelites to torture them, or to rape them,
They were slaves, of course. Captives of war are slaves. We make them work, and we make prisoners work, today. Prisoners are slaves.
If their Israelite owners wished to have sex with them, they had to marry them, and that brought with it the rights of a married woman of Israel: support, etc.
By your value system, captives of war should be let go. The men would take up arms again. The women, well, they’d perish in the desert, or be captured by Midianites and Ishmaelites and not taken as wives.
Or just killed outright.
You have your judgment.
God’s judgment was that these former enemies could be transformed into Israelites but submission to conquest and captivity and then, for the men, after labor and learning, circumcision and conversion; for women, marriage, joining their seed to Israel.
God has always been much more interested in his purpose than in any human being’s happiness or opinions or transient desires.
Now, that was God as ruler of Israel. Of course, in the end God oversaw the complete dismantlement of Israel. So, those things that God did and those laws God implemented as King of a specific state, are instructive but not binding.
The binding law, today, is that of Jesus. And with Jesus, sexual immorality is prohibited, and all who follow him are brothers and sisters in Christ and required to act accordingly.
So, we’re arguing about God’s specific laws for ancient Israel, not about God’s law for us today.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“You left out divine doves flying into people’s heads – I’d think that would be at the top of your list!”
Not people’s heads; my head.
It is at the top of my list for grace from God, yes. A demon was attacking me. God drove it off with a dove and gained my unwavering allegiance until death thereby.
You mean to ridicule me by this, but it is the single most pleasant and joyous memory of my life, so every time you bring it up, you make me very happy.
Therefore, jest on! You’re clearly enjoying it, and so am I, more than you can imagine.
LikeLike
Crown wrote: “Forced marriage is not sexual slavery. It is a different thing.”
Source
From the United Nations :
LikeLiked by 1 person
“If their Israelite owners wished to have sex with them, they had to marry them” – Were the women allowed to decline to be married?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“A demon was attacking me. God drove it off with a dove and gained my unwavering allegiance until death thereby.” – Much like your god, I have absolutely no interest in your feelings, my concern lies with those who are evaluating your credibility.
LikeLiked by 1 person
OMG. Are you guys still having this discussion?
Dear fellow non-believers: You cannot discuss morality with the immoral and hope to reach agreement. As long as a person believes in the existence, omnipotence, and absolute goodness of his or her ancient middle eastern deity, no amount of rational argument will persuade him otherwise.
The only way to get through to these delusional individuals is to find a way to convince them that their divine Boogeyman in the sky does not exist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@crown, ” LYING and trafficking in Lies will get a man damned. I don’t intend to be damned, so I don’t lie.”
yeah right, sure you don’t lie!
crown, I’m afraid that demon is still inside of you.
LikeLike
“Much like your god, I have absolutely no interest in your feelings, my concern lies with those who are evaluating your credibility.”
Which is why I am open, direct and honest.
In fact, I am posting here, on this thread, because the discussion veered into the proof of God from miracles.
For somebody who isn’t interested in me, you sure spend a lot of time talking about me.
LikeLike
Neotones – OK Crown, let’s talk about scripture alone. You have consistently made it personal —> about you and your experiences. There have been thousands of gods throughout humankind’s history, but you picked this one because this god is a part of your culture.
No, I didn’t “consistently make it personal”. I started out saying that the reason I personally believe in God is because of miracles, but then I acknowledged, from the beginning, that nobody was going to be willing to accept that as evidence (and that I’ve always known that), so I went and discussed third party miracles, external miracles, miracles that the whole world can look at it, in order to take me out of it.
I focused on the Shroud of Turin, and began to lay out a case.
And then some people went nuts and made it personal. And I respond tack for tack, parry-riposte.
I think God can be proven analytically, to those ready to go through the evidence, through the third-party miracles. That was my starting point.
Lotsa Protestants here, and Protestants gotta talk Bible. So I’m willing to talk Bible too, from the perspective of precision, of what it SAYS, specifically.
I’ve got six people attacking me at once, personally, and I’m twisting and turning to answer a bunch of different jabs and barbs.
So if I reply, and defend myself, it’s “about me”.
So, what should I do? You tell me.
LikeLike
Gary wrote “OMG”.
As in Oh My Gary!
LikeLike
Crown, is belief not personal? It cannot be separated. You have a personal stake in this, correct?
LikeLike
St Pauli Girl: Yeah, right, sure you don’t lie!
That’s right, girl: I don’t.
LikeLike
Neotones: “Crown, is belief not personal? It cannot be separated. You have a personal stake in this, correct?”
Belief can be personal. It can also be general. Most of us believe that Chester A Arthur was one President, though there is nobody alive who remembers that, and all we have are papers, and they could be false.
Reality is separate from belief. Once I die, the physical universe will go on and on. I won’t be here observing it, and that will be irrelevant. It IS. It WAS before I came into being. It is as it is now as it is, quite impervious to my own will, and it will be after I am gone. I’m interested in reality, and specifically in the reality that Nature – the omnipotent, universal, timeless laws of nature, have a mind.
Do I have a personal stake? Well, we all have a personal stake if what we say and do affects our individual outcome. I don’t have a personal stake in YOUR beliefs though. You can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or not, as far I care. I have no reason to believe that your belief, or lack of belief, in the things that I believe have any bearing on my existence…except insofar as you and a bunch of others like you gain political power and seek to enact your beliefs through law in a way that impinges on me. Then your belief matters.
But whether you’re a saint or a monster is no skin off my nose, as long as you’re not being monstrous in my living room.
I don’t get “credit” anywhere that I’m aware of for discussing these things with you. The website is called Finding Truth. I’ve found a few truths, and I figure they ought to be interesting to people really seeking truth.
I see that quite a few have decided that truth is the opposite of what I know.
I observe that I try to present fact, and I get a lot of ad hominem in response.
But that’s because I have TRUTH to bring to bear. And they’ve got bupkis. So they attack.
So, if we leave that all behind and just have a conversation, I’d suggest we start on the ground of natural science – of physics and chemistry, energy, biology, etc.
Very quickly we will discover that we have to stop that discussion and discuss the meaning of words.
And it will quickly become apparent that all real discussions of anything repose on the meaning of the verb “To be”. Everything else requires the employment of the verb “to be” in some capacity (if only as understood but unstated), but the verb “To be” can only be defined in terms of itself.
And that’s interesting.
So, let’s start there. Define “to be”. You’ll use “exist” as a synonym. Try to get past that, to expand past “Being = existing”, and “Existing = being”., and you’ll run around a merry short circle, or circuit.
That’s because although being/existence has a word label, it’s a given, a postulate, not a derivative. It’s defined in terms of itself, because it is required in order to be able to define anything else.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“OMG. Are you guys still having this discussion?” – I wouldn’t exactly call it a ‘discussion,’ Gary – I’m just giving him the rope he needs to demonstrate his psychological condition to any and all onlookers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Book of Judges has long been one of consternation for Christians. When I studied it in depth a few years ago I found it thoroughly depressing. It is little wonder that the only story from judges most people know is Samson. One certainly would not read the story below in Sunday School.
At the end of the book in the last three chapters is a very disturbing story of depravity. Think Sodom and Gomorrah. A huge civil war then ensues in which one tribe is almost wiped. This is followed by the massacring of another group of Israelites because they were not involved in the war in order to get wives for the survivors of the tribe that had almost been eradicated.
LikeLike
Howie, I agree that the Amalekite annihilationist passage clearly includes children. The Isaiah 7 passage on Immanuel suggests there is a period before which the child “knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good”. However this does not state ignorance is an excuse for sin, not even for children. In fact, the Levitical conception of sin clearly states we may be sin without knowing: “If any of you sin without knowing it, doing any of the things that the LORD’s commandments ought not to be done, you have incurred guilt, and are subject to punishment.” (Lev 5:17).
I can see the confusion on goodness. What does it mean when we say a person is good? They fulfill their duties? They are morally good? They are altruistic? I think yes on all three. I know I’ve framed this discussion in terms of God’s rights, but I think God also has a duty to judge and stamp out evil. That’s why we humans and the universe itself are designed to die. In the OT God is portrayed as primarily going between judgment and mercy which makes him good either way, and he always fulfills his promises (i.e. to Abraham) which makes him good in that sense. But, it was not until Jesus’ atonement for sin that God is described as being love. How amazing that these heavily persecuted Christians concluded that God was love. One of my favorite passages is in Philippians 2 saying that Christ “emptied himself” to manifest on earth. This is a demonstration of humility, sacrifice, love, and pure altruism. Just as a human judge has the duty to uphold the law and this is good, so God has the duty to uphold the law of sin and death and this too is good. God may choose to show mercy but is not required to. This thinking applied, God chose to judge the Canaanite and Amalekite cultures including their children.
When you say, “I also have a hard time seeing that every single person in these ancient cultures was deserving of dying by the sword when people in other cultures weren’t. . .”
I agree 100%! Generally, we are all worthy of judgment according to the law of sin and death, and I agree 100% that other ancient cultures were ripe for judgment. If God chooses not to judge, he is showing mercy like he did to Ninevah after Jonah preached to them. God even judged Israel by allowing Babylon to exile them. He shows no partiality. The pattern of divine judgment is as follows: cultures are given time to repent, but if they keep being wicked they seem to reach some threshold and are judged. The Canaanites were given a whopping 400 years. The marauding Amalekites decades at least.
LikeLike
I agree with Gary, what is the point of debating with someone who sincerely believes that a demon was attacking him?
You can never win a rational debate with tin-foil hat people. They’ll just come up with more and more ad hoc arguments. Never argue with an idiot, he’ll bring you down to his level and beat you by experience.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@powellpowers
Well, one important difference from my perspective is God does not create natural laws, rather God created natural laws at the beginning. And, God is not bound by natural laws, rather God chooses to uphold them.
Hopefully I understand what you said about killing babies. You are not disputing whether unlawful or immoral actions (i.e., killing babies) is arbitrary, rather whether the punishment is arbitrary? Same with gay sex and breaking away from kosker, etc.
These needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis. I would argue in general that punishment will be different for different times/cultures in a non-arbitrary way. Let’s take a simple example of murder. We take it for granted that we have the resources to imprison someone indefinitely, when in 1500 BCE, that was not necessarily the case. It would have been worse to starve or torture a prisoner than to execute them. That’s just one example and not even close to the full treatment that it would take!
LikeLike
Not in anyway trying to change the subject….
I still go online and check out my former local (conservative Lutheran) church’s monthly newsletter every once in a while. This month my former pastor discusses the fact that Christianity is in decline in the United States, what he believes is the problem, and what he believes is the solution:
“With the collapse of church culture for children, the Church takes the blame for being irrelevant. Rightly so. The Church has, in large part, brought this dilemma upon herself. Rather than maintaining and extolling the features that distinguish the Church from everything else—specifically, celebrating the sacraments—the Church has been monkeying the entertainment culture of a consumerist society. Amuse kids, has been the response. After all, education can be fun. Why not take up your cross and follow Christ Jesus? Youth groups bear all the markings of entertainment culture. Hardly could the typical youth group be characterized as a serious study session or as fortifying a gospel culture. Instead, it’s a crazy-best-friend youth pastor cracking eggs on his head, throwing pizza parties, and giving kids the times of their lives until that time of their life is over and out the door they go, at a rate of 90% to never come back.
Meanwhile the polling data has evidenced the fact that throwing programs at youth is utterly ineffective. There’s no indication that the decline in baptisms, church attendance and confirmations has abated in recent years even with a gush of youth pastors running around hosting pizza parties and pumping the pipeline with programs galore. This model doesn’t work and it can’t work because there’s nothing substantive there. Simply put, the Lord has made no promises regarding pilgrimages to Six Flags® in the way he has done so with the sacraments.
What’s the answer? Forging, once again, a sacramental culture.”
Gary: So what is my former pastor’s solution to the steady decline of the Lutheran Church?
Answer: More superstition! Teach children, over and over and over, that an invisible ghost god endowed them with supernatural powers in their baptism, and, that the same ghost god demands they eat HIM every Sunday to re-energize those supernatural powers, moments after a Lutheran pastor has muttered some magic words—over a glass of chardonnay and a tiny cracker.
What nonsense!
LikeLike
“I have no reason to believe that your belief, or lack of belief, in the things that I believe have any bearing on my existence…except insofar as you and a bunch of others like you gain political power and seek to enact your beliefs through law in a way that impinges on me. Then your belief matters.”
Bingo. Your beliefs impinge on my well being, and have since I was a child. I had night terrors after being taught by the Catholic Church, and a very tender age, that if I didn’t behave I was going to burn in hell.
Crown, I realize that this is very difficult for you to understand — but this is child abuse.Your beliefs are not benign.
If you kept your beliefs to yourself rather than going around telling children that there is a hell or trying to legislate your interpretation of morality using a primitive book you call holy, we really wouldn’t have an issue. But you can’t keep it to yourself, can you? I live in the Bible Belt, and I can assure you that if you want to see what it’s like to have belief infringe and impinge on social well being, come on over. Your most god loving states tend to have the poorest quality of life.
Example: the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). According to this multivariate analysis which takes into account a plethora of indicators of societal well-being, those states in America with the worst quality of life turned out to be among the most God-loving/most religious (such as Mississippi and Alabama), while those states with the best quality of life were among the least God-loving/least religious (such as Vermont and New Hampshire).
On a vast host of measure, including homicide, violent crime rates, poverty rates, obesity and diabetes rates, child abuse rates, educational attainment levels, income levels, unemployment rates, sexually transmitted disease rates, and teen pregnancy rates, etc, the most religious states tend to suck when it comes to well being.
http://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is where we diverge Brandon. In all that I honestly can’t see how that resolves the issues I brought up in my last comment. I personally think the case I made is valid to claim that these actions performed by any mind could not be labelled good. I see you’re trying to claim it’s ok from a different angle, but I don’t see that resolving the problem.
If any community today did what the Israelites did back then, our societies today would declare it wrong. Claiming the actions to be commanded by a supreme deity can be claimed by anyone, and this is exactly the claim that Muslim terrorists make. I see many others here have made the same statements I’m making, so I think we can agree to disagree here. I do wish you would at least reconsider your stance though given that it honestly does look dangerous to many of us who are not believers. There are so many other ways to interpret these passages and still maintain your belief in a supreme deity and also maintain a strong belief in the furthering of the wellbeing of humans.
LikeLike