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 
Archeaopteryx: Until that dove flies out of your head, I’m not certain that that’s a subject you’re qualified to address.
As qualified as you are. But I have additional data to work with.
LikeLike
“I will repeat, teaching children about hell is child abuse.”
And I’ll repeat: teaching children about Hell is the same as teaching them about electricity and taking rides with strangers.
LikeLike
I agree with you, Crown. But don’t you believe in a God who wants us all to find the correct answers, or “there’ll be hell to pay”?
(had to quote Star Wars… I’m so excited now that the new trailer is out)
😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nate – “But don’t you believe in a God who wants us all to find the correct answers, or “there’ll be hell to pay”?”
No. The God I know judges men according to their deeds – that’s what he said.
He said that if you’re a killer, sexually immoral, a serial liar, a peddler of drugs to enter “magic states”, an idolator, or a coward – unless you have yourself been forgiving of others for their sins, you will be thrown into the fire at the final judgment.
If you’re forgiving of men – their sins against you, their debts to you – you will be forgiven your sins against God. To the extent you do not forgive, neither will you be forgiven – at death you’ll be thrown into the spirit prison, Gehenna, where you will remain until the last penny of your debt has been paid. Then you may proceed to Paradise to await the end. And the resurrection. And the final judgment.
That’s the God I know.
I observe that if men do not believe in God, they can’t resist killing people.
God defined lives at beginning at conception, that’s when he breathes a new spirit into flesh. Killing people at any point along the path is killing, and will get you thrown into the fire.
I’ve observed that those who don’t believe in God are fine about not murdering visible adults and children…except when it comes to early babies, or old people needing euthanasia, or the nation’s enemies, or lawbreakers. And that means that, because of their unbelief, they end up committing and supporting one of the sins that’ll get you damned if you don’t know to repent it.
I’ve observed that those who don’t believe in God tend to be liberterians: let people do as they please. Sexual immorality is a private matter… Perhaps. But it’ll get you thrown into the fire.
In general, it is very difficult for men who do not believe in God to avoid the 6 or so things that will get them damned if they’re unforgiving, and they’re not forgiving and don’t know to be.
And that’s why it’s so dangerous to ignore the issue of God. Without God’s hand on the wheel, men steer into the rocks, where the demons beckon.
It isn’t a matter of simple belief. It’s a matter of the inability to eschew evil deeds without the belief.
LikeLike
So… no, but yes?
Sounds very much like trying to have it both ways. What do you make of statements in the Bible that claim Jesus said there was no way to the father but through him? Is that talking about something other than salvation?
LikeLike
Gary M wrote: “Killing human beings and killing cattle are a moral equivalent?? Are you a member of PETA?
Dear Crown: We have two very different standards of morality. I see no point in continuing to discuss this topic with you.”
Why not? Why isn’t killing human beings and killing cattle morally equivalent? Because you say so? What about German civilians in wartime? What about children in Hiroshima?
What about children in a compound like Waco?
What about people in the wrong house that the police enter by mistake, who get gunned down when they go to defend themselves against what they think is a home invasion?
We do have very different standards of morality, and there has not really been any “discussion” between us since your second or third response in the Shroud discussion.
Now, I’m a foil you’re using to post your screeds against religion. And I couldn’t provide more compelling examples of the hermetically-sealed mind than you have as you do.
LikeLike
“And I couldn’t provide more compelling examples of the hermetically-sealed mind than you have as you do.
One year ago I was a devout, orthodox Lutheran Christian. I was then presented with evidence contrary to my belief system. Instead of being “hermetically-sealed” in my thinking, I reviewed the evidence, intently, over four months; I did not accept it immediately; I fought it; I looked for every defense to maintain my belief system; but in the end, the overwhelming evidence convinced me my worldview was wrong. I then completely changed my world view, causing me to lose all my best friends and my social network.
Someone with a closed mind would not do that.
If you want to accuse someone of being closed-minded, you need to look elsewhere, Crown…maybe in the mirror??
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Sounds very much like trying to have it both ways.”
I don’t know why you say it sounds like trying to have it both ways.
There’s a final resurrection and judgment – Jesus said that.
There is a list of things that, in that judgment, will cause a man to be thrown into the Lake of Fire, the second death, and not enter into the City of God – Jesus said that.
Jesus gave the list: killing, sexual immorality, trafficking in lies, trafficking drugs to produce altered mind states (pharmakeia), idolatry, cowardice. Jesus gave the list, twice, on the last day
During his life, Jesus gave one way for men laden in sins to avoid being damned for them: they must forgive other men their sins against them, and their debts. – Jesus said that.
I think it’s consistent. I also don’t think that it comes naturally to men.
Forgiving people who have wronged you? Writing off debt? Restraining sexual desire when there’s no material reason to? Avoiding lying for advantage? Being brave and standing up the right at cost of one’s life?
Who will do those things without a belief in God?
Most men will do SOME of that, but God has demanded a lot MORE of it, much FARTHER than man naturally will go. Without a belief in God, how can men really step back from killing – not just murder, but also war, and police violence in the face of lawbreaking; and forgiving money debt? Chastity?
What’s more, without the belief in God, men will stop short of God’s standards. Example: Gary thinks he’s a good person. He opposes abortion “of children”. He has defined a child as having a beating heart. So, early stage abortion isn’t murder, to him. But to God, it is: life begins at the begetting. THAT is inconvenient, and natural logic will not lead to that conclusion. In fact, it will find that conclusion unacceptable and based on nothing. But it is based on something: knowledge of God and his laws.
There is no having it both ways. If you abort the child you conceived the night before, you’re a murderess, and you’re facing the fire at the end unless you do something about it.
If you justify yourself because you refuse to admit it’s murder, you never repent the sin, and never do anything about it.
And then you die and find out what you were TOLD, but didn’t accept.
THAT is why belief is necessary. Without it, you won’t restrain yourself, if only out of fear, from doing things for which God will kill your spirit. He SAID so, but if you don’t believe he said so, or that he exists, or that he said THAT, then you won’t repent what YOU think is fine and HE says is not. You won’t repent, you won’t forgive others, and you’ll die a piece of filth and face the fire.
I really don’t see how there’s any “having it both ways” in any of that.
LikeLike
It’s having it both ways, because you’re saying that people don’t have to believe in God or Jesus to avoid hell… but without that belief, they won’t do what God wants, which will send them to hell. So you wind up in the same place, all while maintaining that it’s very difficult (maybe impossible) for people to really get to the truth of things in their brief lives.
Does it not bother you that you believe in a God who claims to be just, but requires things of people that they can’t reasonably be expected to deliver on?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Now, as to this: “What do you make of statements in the Bible that claim Jesus said there was no way to the father but through him? Is that talking about something other than salvation?”
He is indeed talking about passing final judgment and entering the City of God after the resurrection.
I’m going to ask you to do something here. I’m going to ask you to not take the exit ramp of your own tradition, but read with me what Jesus said.
“None comes to the Father except through me.”
That’s true. Where is the Father? In the City.
How does one enter the City?
By passing judgment.
WHO is the Judge…the only Judge?
Jesus.
So, does ANY come to the Father except through him?
No. Nobody enters the City except as the result of a favorable judgment of Jesus, sitting on the Throne. Scripture says that.
Where your tradition goes astray is in the standards of judgment.
Jesus himself, the judge, said what those standards are: deeds, avoiding certain sins, and – if you’ve sinned – to be forgiven sins by God, forgive sins.
Jesus said all of that.
What the Protestants say is – NO to all that. They say that what Jesus MEANT was that you have to BELIEVE certain specific things about who exactly Jesus was.
But that’s not what he said. Paul seems to say that, but Paul isn’t the Judge, or the Son of God, is he? No. Jesus is. And, lest there be any doubt, Jesus spoke LAST, in Revelation, and laid out the crimes that will get you burnt.
So, let’s say you doubt that Jesus was the Son of God. BUT you don’t kill, or support it, and you are sexually chaste, honest, you don’t worship idols, you’re not a drug dealer or trying to cast spells or channel demons or nonsense like that. Or you’ve done some of those things, and you are sorry you did, and you’re very forgiving of other people – their debts, their sins against you.
You die. You’re forgiven to the extent you forgave, and you pay the remainder in Gehenna. You are resurrected and stand before Jesus. He evaluates you by your deeds and your forgiveness of others. And you walk through the gates into the City of God, you come to the Father.
You called yourself a Muslim in life. DID YOU come to the Father through Jesus? Yes. None climbs the walls. You came to the Father through Jesus, and you were judged on the criteria he set out. Not the criteria the Christians set out.
That’s what Jesus said, and meant.
Your tradition says otherwise. It was always wrong.
The Catholics will tell you that non-Christians can go the Heaven, if accepted by God. That’s why. And it is not in conflict with Scriptures at all. It’s in conflict with the WAY that your old co-religionists misread Scriptures. That’s all.
LikeLike
“Does it not bother you that you believe in a God who claims to be just, but requires things of people that they can’t reasonably be expected to deliver on?”
People can too reasonably be expected to deliver on it.
I’m 52. I haven’t killed people and don’t support it.
I know what sexual immorality is, and I’ve been married many years and I don’t practice it anymore. And I don’t judge people in its grip.
I don’t sell drugs.
I don’t worship idols.
And I don’t lie.
St. Pauli Girl said that I must lie, because everybody lies. That’s not true.
I was an Honor Board Member at Annapolis. You get thrown out of Annapolis for lying, and I was one of the judges who had to decide those things, also, to defend classmates accused.
I found it challenging to go through four years without lying. Lying is easy. Lying is deadly in combat officers. It’ll get you killed. If somebody lies about things such as getting things done, they can get you killed. I did not lie at Annapolis for four years, as a late teen and early 20-something. I was tempted at times, but I did not lie. Not once. I didn’t think I could get through without any lies, but I did.
And that set up a habit. I discovered that if you don’t lie, you get in trouble sometimes, but that the trouble is just trouble. And it doesn’t last. SOME people, when you answer them straight, appreciate your integrity and not lying becomes a very powerful recommendation.
And so I kept on not lying.
Occasionally over the years I slipped. That was a sin.
I haven’t lied in years. I don’t lie now. I find no need to. It is not unreasonable to ask people not to lie. It is not necessary to lie. And it is not true that we can’t live without it.
People who have things they feel they have to lie, lie. If there’s something I don’t want to say, I will refuse to answer a question, or ignore it, or ask “Who are YOU to be presuming to demand things of ME?” Which is an honest question.
But I don’t lie.
So, what’s left, then. cowardice? People lie because they are cowards. I’m not a coward.
So, that’s that. I have had plenty of sins in my life, and I don’t judge other people for their sins. I don’t hold grudges. Why bother? Too much effort.
God’s laws are just not that hard to follow. The mitzvot of Israel? There were something like 613 of them. That’s hard. That’s also about circumcised Israelites getting a farm in Israel, and has precisely ZERO to do with eternal life.
Contracts have terms, and life after death isn’t part of the terms of the Sinai Covenant. That’s only in the Covenant of Jesus.
Avoiding the things that will get you damned? No, that’s not that hard. Lying and sexual immorality are the hardest, unless you’re in the military or law enforcement or pro-abortion.
And even if you do sin, if you’re forgiving, you’ll be forgiven. Jesus promised.
The unforgiving prig is the one who is in the greatest trouble.
I simply reject the notion that what God asks is impossible to deliver on. He didn’t demand the impossible. What he demanded is scary when it’s life and death stuff. It’s hard to resist sexual immorality.
But he’s forgiving if you are.
If you’re a sinner AND an unforgiving prick, it’s hard for me to have sympathy for you when you get what’s coming to you. I do not believe that the quality of being unforgiving is hard to resist. I think that’s a choice – and a necessary one.
And I can fully understand why God, who has had to forgive everybody there in the City with him, simply will not accept the unforgiving to be with him.
Assume all sin. All can be forgiven if they forgive others – we’re only human. Those who refuse to set the standard of judgment for themselves. I don’t think that’s harsh or undue. Actually, I think it’s just.
Remember when Bill Clinton was impeached over a blowjob? I remember the unrelenting, unyielding harshness of Gingrich and others against him. And I watched as their own sexual sins were exposed, and how they were driven from office as disgusting hypocrites. Seemed just to me.
If you’re going to be a judgmental son of a bitch, you had better be perfect yourself. Because if you’re not, to the extent that you refused to forgive, God is going to roast you. Forgive and avoid. Be self-righteous, and roast. That seems PERFECTLY fair. In fact, I like God’s standard. It’s my own.
I’m endlessly forgiving.
It has to do with what Jesus said to do, not with what some minority of Christians have made up as different rules that make it easier on themselves (for just Belieeeeeeeeeeving), and harder on everybody else.
Catholics view it differently. I agree with the Catholics.
And I observe that the Scripture, read carefully, says what I have said.
LikeLike
Crown, if there was no heaven, no afterlife, no reward, just this life, would you serve your god?
LikeLike
“One year ago I was a devout, orthodox Lutheran Christian.”
That explains a lot.
LikeLike
crown, why do you catholicks pray to mary?
LikeLike
“crown, why do you catholicks pray to mary?”
I don’t.
Others ask Mary to pray for them, just like Christians ask their friends to pray for them.
Nobody is closer to Jesus than Mary. Nobody but Mary ever bore the Father’s child. Under the Jewish law, the Father would be Mary’s husband, if the Father were human (which of course he is not). So, if you’re going to ask somebody to pray for you, the person closest to God seems like a good choice.
Also, God has sent Mary on missions to earth, most recently to Lourdes, so he uses her as an ambassador, and leaves unmistakable miracles in the wake of that visit, as an imprimatur upon it. There’s only one Lourdes, and Mary appeared there. Mexico came over to Christ not because the Spanish conquered it – the Mesoamerican Indians deeply resented the Spanish, but because Mary appeared directly to the Indians, or was alleged to. That’s why a whole content went over to the Son – the ambassadorship of his mother.
So, if you’re going to ask somebody to pray to God for you, because you think the prayers of others are effective, if you’re going to ask your neighbor or your buddy or your mother to “pray for you”, asking the person who not only WAS closest to God, but whom God has shown has an ambassadorial role of some sort , makes sense.
That’s why Catholics ask Mary to pray for them to the Father.
Read the words of the prayer.
First, there’s a repetition of the words than the angel said directly to Mary, as written in Scripture:
“Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.”
And then there’s the second part, in which the ask for Mary’s prayer’s are made:
“Holy Mary, Mother of God, PRAY FOR US, sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Let it be so.”
Catholics ask Mary to pray for them to God. When you were a Christian, whom did you ask to pray for you? Well, Catholics ask Mary. And it makes sense for them to do so.
I don’t ask for much from God, so I don’t pray much.
LikeLike
St. Pauli Girl, why do you spell Catholics, “catholicks”?
LikeLike
“Crown, if there was no heaven, no afterlife, no reward, just this life, would you serve your god?”
Neotones – Funny, I know I answered this already, but I don’t see it on the thread. Before I answer again, could you tell me if YOU see my answer to you?
I didn’t ignore you. The answer wasn’t short.
The short form would be that I wouldn’t like God much if there were no afterlife and no reward, just this life, because he kills everybody and puts everybody through Hell, and the animals too.
LikeLike
Exactly who, Crown, considering the degree of your dementia, would allow you to represent them in a court of law? You bring to the law what Brandon brings to the field of medicine – insanity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Howie, I’m confused. Are you saying that judgment is not good? Or that children should not be judged perhaps because they are sinless? What is your reason to think this? Further, the Conquest command is significantly different from Islamic terrorism motivated by jihad, it doesn’t take a scholar of religious studies to see these differences.
I cannot just willy nilly interpret passages to sound nicer. These are supposed to be shocking and uncomfortable because it highlights the seriousness of God’s judgment. It’s something that we’d rather not think about.
LikeLike
“The short form would be that I wouldn’t like God much if there were no afterlife and no reward, just this life, because he kills everybody and puts everybody through Hell, and the animals too.”
Hi Crown, no, I didn’t get your longer reply. I do appreciate your honesty.
LikeLike
Gary said: “One year ago I was a devout, orthodox Lutheran Christian.”
Crown said: That explains a lot.
Gary: Its funny you say that, Crown. I grew up fundamentalist Baptist. When I was eighteen, I and my parents became evangelicals (less up-tight Baptists, just without the name). I became an orthodox Lutheran only about four years ago.
When I deconverted from Christianity last year, this is what I was told by different groups of Christians:
The orthodox Lutherans said I deconverted because I was still an evangelical/fundamentalist in my thinking. I had never REALLY been a true Lutheran. The evangelicals said I deconverted because I had never really learned to listen to Jesus speak to me in my heart. Catholics blamed my deconversion on Protestant “sola scriptura”, and the fundamentalist Baptists said I had never been a Christian to begin with!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Gary, here’s what one non-believer (in invisible friends) thinks: you are a good, kind, sensible, intelligent, passionate fellow.
You ROCK!! 🙂
LikeLike
Brandon, you are right there are differences in Jihad. No matter what the differences are though it seems Muslims could use the same lines of reasoning to justify it: God commands it along with the fact that everyone can be judged in whatever way he sees fit.
You write that your God gives cultures time to repent. But in the story, the 1 month old, 1 year old, etc. aren’t given any time for that. Humans of all ages not only had their lives snuffed away, it was done by humans with swords making sure every person no matter what age was killed who remained on the land. It’s not just about “nice”. Like I said before, this story goes against the moral senses that are shared among cultures of today and is almost universal. This doesn’t go against your moral sense? I still can’t see how the label of good can fit to a mind that commands this. If you can then I really think we’ve exhausted this. I’m really just repeating everything I’ve said with different wording.
I re-read my previous comment and it looks like I made a kind suggestion for you to reconsider. There are tons of well thought Christians who do not see their differing viewpoint on this as willy nilly, but if you do then simply don’t reconsider.
LikeLike
Came across this story today of some Indian Christians getting ready for the end of the world. Apparently they are convinced it is based on a revelation by the Holy Spirit:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/apocalypse-now-9-meghalaya-families-cut-ties-with-world-await-doomsday/article1-1335401.aspx
LikeLike
Hi Nate
I was interested to see you are a Star Wars fan. What I found especially interesting about Star Wars was that George Lucas based the story on the work of Joseph Campbell who studied the Power of Myth in human history.
George Lucas took all the thing that resonate in our mythic tales and put them into the story. No wonder it resonated with people. Joseph Campbell said George Lucas was his best ever student.
LikeLike