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 
I know what you mean, man. 🙂 I’m always jealous if some people I’ve met online find out they live near one another. It’s actually happened several times now… apparently Austin’s the place to be!
Sorry to hear that about your friends, though. That is tough. Matt was raised Baptist, but I convinced him to join the Church of Christ back in 2006. He saw some problems with it a year or two later and went back to a Baptist church, so we fell out of touch (he was withdrawn from). Then I left Christianity altogether in 2010, and he’s now done the same thing. Crazy turn of events!
In fact, something very similar happened with one of my best friends — a guy named Graham who comments here on occasion.
Here’s hoping they come around!
LikeLike
Dear Brandon,
“that doesn’t mean we cannot have a debate within our common framework”
I don’t see that we have a common framework. I would only include evidence that would be admitted in a court of law, you would admit “experiential evidence”. That is not a common framework.
I cannot prove your reality, your worldview, wrong. And you cannot prove my worldview wrong. So we are at an impasse. I see no way around it. I believe that you are operating under a delusion. You believe that an evil ghost (the Devil) has blinded me to the truth.
How do we proceed?
I agree with you that both Christianity and Islam are projected to grow. Christianity is mushrooming in Africa and Asia. My contention is that Christianity is growing in areas of lower education and lower living standards, and in areas of high levels of belief in magic and superstition. Christianity is declining in the industrialized western world. Christians will say that this is due to materialism. I say that it is due to the Internet and the evidence on the internet that proves the supernatural claims of Christianity highly dubious.
LikeLike
I could go point-by-point and dispute everything Brandon has said, but it would be a waste of time, as he would simply do the Testament Twist and find a way to wiggle around every one of my points.
My major issue is this – look at all of the convolution that Brandon has to go through to make his points – why would a genuine religion have to be so convoluted, in order to accept it – if it is valid, offers sufficient, verifiable evidence, who could resist accepting it? No one would have to do a Brandonesque soft-shoe around the evidence in order to sell it to you.
LikeLike
“I don’t trust my own intuition because I see so many other religious people trusting their intuition when it is clear from a Christian pov that they are misguided.”
“I would question whether Jonathan Haidt is correct.”
Hi Powell, hi Peter,
I think it is very interesting what seems to be happening here. It seems you intuitively don’t like to think that you are thinking intuitively, and that you don’t like Haidt’s findings that your unbelief is intuitive. So you oppose what the studies seem to be finding. Do you see the irony?
You and many others here criticise christians for being faith-heads and not basing their views on evidence (i.e. not using analytical thinking), but when your world view is threatened, you seem to be responding in a similar way, not analytically at first (though hopefully later) but intuitively. Remember, both ways of thinking are better than either on their own.
My hope is that you will see what is happening, and perhaps be a little less critical of intuitive christians in the future, because you have seen that you and they are not necessarily all that different. I suppose you won’t like my saying this, but think of all the things that have been said the other way in this comment section, andI’m sure you can cope! 🙂
LikeLike
Actually Gary – and I meant to mention this in my response to Brandon – Brandon is incorrect. The Pew Research Center – and I can find the link if necessary – has estimated the non-religious in the US at 16% currently, and projects 25% by 2050/ Poco a poco —
LikeLike
I don’t expect a response to this tonight, Nate, as it is late for both of us, but re:
“And as Gary mentioned, Paul repeatedly insists he’s not lying about various things. – where does he say this? Thessalonians II? I ask because T-2 was a forgery, with the author trying to ram it down the throats of the reader that he was really Paul, reminiscent of Nixon’s, “I am not a crook!”
Regarding Acts, I really can’t imagine you know nothing of the Acts Seminar:
http://www.westarinstitute.org/projects/the-jesus-seminar/seminar-on-the-acts-of-the-apostles/acts-seminar-to-complete-its-work-at-spring-meeting/
LikeLike
@unklee
I think it’s the opposite. I do think I’m thinking intuitively, and hence the active need to snap out of it.
Am I critical of Christians who think intuitively? Not really, but I would simply say they’re operating on a different level of rationality.
LikeLike
Hi unklee
You may well be right in what you say. In the end I can only speak for myself. I once used to think I was a very logical and analytical person. I have since come to know myself better desapired of my earlier confidence in myself. I now realise I am prone to just as much hypocrisy and psychological hang-ups as the typical person (if not more so).
So if I apply the Jonathon Haidt findings to myself I assume that it would mean that intuitively I never believed. Rather I tried to persuade myself that I did and I used apologetics and the like to buttress myself against my underlying unbelief. That is, I was constantly looking for evidence to persuade myself that my intuition was wrong. But once I realised the evidence was in fact not there then my true intuitive feeling came to the fore. I then started to search out contrary evidence to support my true intuitive feeling.
The above paragraph might seem a bit convoluted but it is me trying to make sense of the argument and applying it to my own journey.
At this stage I am with Pilate ‘What is truth?’
LikeLike
Could be I told what intuitive thinking is. It must have passed above my head
LikeLike
You are absolutely correct, Archae. It is astounding how Christians will twist themselves into pretzels to explain away all the evidence against their supernatural belief system.
I still assert that Christianity rests on the testimony of two men: Paul and Papias. I say this for these reasons: The four gospels were written anonymously. Even if you believe that “the beloved disciple” was John, son of Zebedee, and you believe that at the end of the Gospel of John, the author hints to his identity as that of John, son of Zebedee, we still have no corroborating proof of the authorship of that book. The author could have simply inserted that hint for the purpose of supporting his forgery. So who do Christians look to for support for the traditional authorship of the Gospels? Anyone from the first century? Nope. Answer: Papias in the second century. And Papias’ claims are third or fourth hand information. And Papias had some wild ideas that caused even early Christians to consider him a mystic and dimwitted. But it is this man’s two or three brief comments about non-identified gospels that Christians base the traditional authorship, and therefore eyewitness authorship, of the Gospels upon.
Very, very weak evidence, in my opinion.
And then there is Paul. Let’s forget that Paul himself calls his experience on the Damascus Road a “heavenly vision”. Let’s assume that Paul really believed that he saw a walking/talking resurrected body. Why believe his outlandish, supernatural claim when there are numerous naturalistic reasons why Paul could have believed he saw a talking dead man?
1. Paul had a seizure.
2. Paul had a mental disorder that made him prone to delusions and hallucinations.
3. Paul lied and made the whole thing up, and the author of Acts was a conspirator in the lie.
4. Someone played a trick on Paul and jumped out of the bushes and pretended to be Jesus.
Now Christians will say that all these possibilities, especially the last one, are ridiculous. But dear Christian friends: these possible reasons for Paul believing he saw a talking dead man are much, much more reasonable, and much, much more probable than that Paul saw a talking zombie.
Many people have had seizures. Many people have been delusional and had hallucinations. Many people have lied. Many people have played tricks on other human beings. But none of us has EVER talked with a zombie.
Ever.
LikeLike
Hey Arch, Paul swears he’s not lying in Gal 1:20. That’s the passage I was thinking of, but to be fair, I didn’t research it beyond that when I made my comment, so “repeatedly insists he’s not lying” may have been an overstatement on my part.
LikeLike
Interestingly, Gary, “John, son of Zebedee” would have been the only one of the Gospel writers (assuming he was who he was claimed to be) who was on location when Yeshua created the memorable “fishers of men” tableaux, yet in the book of John, he tells an entirely different story.
“the author of Acts was a conspirator in the lie” – Have you any familiarity with this?
http://www.westarinstitute.org/projects/the-jesus-seminar/seminar-on-the-acts-of-the-apostles/acts-seminar-to-complete-its-work-at-spring-meeting/
LikeLike
Proof that Paul was either a Liar or Mad:
And his disciples took him by night and let him down over the wall, lowering him in a basket. And when he had come to Jerusalem he attempted to join the disciples but they are all afraid of him for they did not believe he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus. So he went in and out among them at Jerusalem, preaching boldly in the name of the Lord. And he spoke and disputed against the Hellenists; but they were seeking to kill him. And when the brethren knew it, they brought him down to Caesarea and set him off to Tarsus.
(Acts 9:25-30)
And (Ananias) . . .said, The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Just One and to hear a voice from his mouth; and you will be a witness for him to all men of what you have seen and heard. And now, why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name. When I returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the temple I fell into a trance and saw him saying to me, ‘Make haste and get quickly out of Jerusalem, because they will not accept your testimony about me. And I said, ‘Lord, they themselves know that in very synagogue I imprisoned and beat those who believed in thee. And when the blood of Stephen thy witness was shed, I also was standing by and approving, and keeping the garments of those who killed him.’ And he said to me, ‘Depart; for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’
(Acts 22:14-21)
But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. (In what I am writing to you, before God I do not lie!) Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; and I still was not known by sight to the churches of Christ in Judea; they only heard it said, “He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.”
(Galatians 1:15-23)
LikeLike
In Thess II, the author specifically says, “I Paul write this with my own hand. This is the mark in every letter of mine; it is the way I write” – Bart Ehrman maintains that Thess II was only one of six forged letters out of the thirteen attributed to Paul, and The New American Bible, produced by the Catholic Church, implies the same thing. Galatians, though, Ehrman seems to believe was genuine.
Such strong professions always remind me of Nixon’s “I am not a crook!”
These are the forgeries:
Timothy I
Timothy II
Titus
Thessalonians II
Ephesians
Colossians
LikeLike
Copied from VoiceofJesus.org:
If it is a lie, and you accuse me of lying, I will be forced to respond with a denial because a lie cannot and will not speak for itself. The things that motivated me to lie will motivate me to deny my lie. Then, feeling the weakness of my position, I look for something more! What more can I do? I must call forth a witness, so that you have not only my testimony, but also that of another. The scripture plainly states that everything is established at the mouth of two or three witnesses. You may have me pegged for a liar, but perhaps you will believe someone else.
But on whom can I call on such short notice? To be effective, I must have a witness now! Not only so, but my witness must be a person of undisputed veracity, for it will not do to call on a reputed liar. Whose testimony would you accept immediately without question? Who? Who? Who?
Ah! There is only one person right for my task . . . God in heaven! His veracity is beyond question and He carries the extra advantage of never having been known to testify. He would surely condemn me for a liar if He were to testify but, since he never has, I am safe in calling upon him and the very mention of his name may be persuasive.
The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed forever, knows that I do not lie. At Damascus, the governor under King Aretas guarded the city of Damascus in order to seize me, but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall, and escaped his hands (II Corinthians. 11:31-33).
But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie! (Galatians 1:15-20)
For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the gentiles in faith and truth (I Timothy 2:7).
I am speaking the truth in Christ, I am not lying; my conscience bears witness in the Holy Spirit that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen by race (Romans 9:1-3).
I count four times here, in the New Testament epistles, that Paul denied that he was lying: to the Corinthians, the Galatians, Timothy, and the Romans. Once, to the Romans, he called the Holy Spirit to witness for him. Twice, to the Corinthians and to the Galatians, he called God to witness for him. Three times, to the Corinthians, Galatians, and to Timothy, the denials were issued concerning his assertions of his calling and apostleship.
LikeLike
Here is the big question: Why does Paul NEVER say, in any of his epistles, that the Twelve confirm that he has been called by Jesus to be an apostle? Why does he only appeal to private revelation? A claim that cannot be proven or disproven.
And, Is there anywhere in the New Testament where any of the Twelve refer to Paul specifically as an “apostle” and not just as a “brother”?
LikeLike
Interesting how the Acts and Galatians stories conflict.
LikeLike
Methinks he doth protest too much.
LikeLike
Here is another interesting point (in my humble opinion):
The only passages in the New Testament that seem to confirm that Paul had any acceptance of authority (but not apostleship) by the Twelve is in the Book of Acts (allegedly written by Paul’s sidekick and accomplice, Luke) and in the forgery of Second Peter, a book many (non-fundamentalist) scholars believe was most likely written by a pro-Pauline forger.
If you read the teachings of Jesus and you read the teachings of Paul there is little resemblance. Jesus never told his followers to stop the practice of circumcision nor did he tell them they could abandon the Jewish dietary laws. Jesus’ message is almost always directed to the Jewish nation. He refers to Gentiles as “dogs”. Jesus for the most part kept the Law and expected his followers to do so except on some minor issues. Paul tosses the Law out of the window and directs his teachings to non-Jews.
Is the Christianity that we have today truly CHRISTianity…or is it…PAULianity?
LikeLike
Not that I’m aware of.
LikeLike
You’re right on, Gary. The Christianity today is absolutely Pauline Christianity. And for even more reasons than those you listed in your last comment. I devote an entire chapter to this shyster in my book and point out why his brand of faith, though in total opposition to Jesus’ teachings, was accepted and spread throughout the first century inhabitants.
(You can find my book listed on Nate’s “Books I’ve Read” page if you’re interested.)
LikeLike
Ehrman maintains that both Pete 1 and 2 were forgeries.
LikeLike
Just as I was reading Gary’s comment in my email, and noticed his use of “Paulinity,” I found myself asking, where’s Nan, she ought to be weighing in on this! And here you are —
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Nate,
I’m running a bit short on time.
I agree that there are problems in comparing Galatians to Acts. And, your analysis of Paul is very fair. I would agree that it is difficult to push the miraculous explanation, and we can say we don’t know for sure what happened. That’s much better than trying to persuade others it was definitely this or that like psychosis or a dream or guilt complex.
LikeLike
Gary. . . I’m afraid you don’t understand the nature of evidence and using a common framework to dialogue. Your view of evidence makes it appear like you have a superiority complex. Also, you seem hellbent on disproving Paul as opposed to someone fair-minded like Nate. The way you stereotype Christians as “twisting evidence” also clearly supports that you have a superiority complex. Or you are bigoted. I’m not quite sure yet.
Either way, I don’t think a conversation with me is going to be much help. I can’t cure a superiority complex or bigotry if that’s what is driving you. But, know this. You will fail miserably with your attitude in any real scholarly endeavor. This will be bled out of you. So, if this pursuit is on your radar, it’s time to rethink some things. Otherwise do what you want cuz its the internetz.
LikeLike