 |
 |
 |
encouraging ex-Christians
Rants and articles submitted by and for ex-Christians
By Dave, the WM
We human beings like to think we are right, all the time.
Why is this?
Is it:
What we human beings don’t like to admit is that we are frequently wrong.
I am quite aware of my ability to be wrong. I believed for decades that being a Christian was the right thing to be. I was sure that studying to show myself approved was the highest of callings, and that sharing my discoveries with others was the greatest good a person could do. I was convinced of my position in all matters religious. No one could argue me out of anything. If someone brought up a question I couldn’t answer, I dove into the masses of commentaries and apologetics until I found an answer that quieted my mind and gave me the assurance that, after all, I was still right. I pacified my ego and pride by telling myself that the Holy Spirit had promised to lead me into all truth, and therefore, it was unlikely that I was wrong. Anyone who insisted on arguing with me I easily dismissed as either mislead or under the oppression of the devil. And of course I did all this with a humble and prayerful heart.
As a Christian, I refused to accept the possibility that I might be wrong when it came to Christianity. Christianity was the truth, and any contradictions or inconsistencies I found in the Bible or the lives of other Christians, I excused as human frailty and the inability to completely comprehend or grasp the will of the Almighty. On top of that, I had the witness of the Spirit. I "felt" that Christianity was the truth. It gave me great comfort to believe in Christ, to walk with HIM and talk with HIM along life’s weary way.
In essence, I stopped questioning anything that would cast doubt on my faith, consumed massive amounts of literature supporting my faith, and made a dogmatic decision to believe, regardless of what anyone, anywhere might say, ever.
I’ve been humbled since that time. Age, experience, and finally, honest, open investigation into the history and development of Christian belief through the last 20 centuries forced me to admit the possibility that no magical ghost was leading or teaching Christians, and that my unshakeable faith in Christianity was more akin to stubbornness and the need to be right, than anything else. Christianity has changed and mutated so much in 2,000 years, and yet, every generation of Christians believes that they, and perhaps they alone, have the best and most true version of the faith that was once delivered to the saints.
Benjamin Franklin once said:
Being right is something that people value. Who wants to be wrong about anything? Who wants to admit to being wrong?
Non-believers and believers alike are equally prone to stubbornly refusing to admit to the possibility of being wrong. But what Christians too frequently fail to understand is that ex-Christians have already admitted to being wrong. Ex-Christians were once Christians who whole-heartedly embraced a cult that claimed to hold all the answers to the universe, and later, sometimes much later, for any number of reasons, came to the realization that they were wrong.
Most people become Christians early in life, before they really have the experience or knowledge to make a well-thought-out decision. Childhood conversions may be sincere, but are bereft of thorough investigation. Adult conversions are often emotional, occurring during times of personal stress or problems, and equally without probing research. The well paraded testimonies of reformed alcoholics, drug addicts, criminals, et al., rather than confirming the truth of Christianity, illustrate something else entirely: a desire for change. Religions and philosophies do offer change, especially for the person who feels out of control. If a person finds the strength to limit or avoid self-destructive behaviors by becoming immersed in a cult, more power to that person, I suppose. However, ultimately, these stories of redemption from self-destruction speak less to the efficaciousness of religion and more to the natural human instinct for personal survival. Most people understand that a lifestyle of self-destruction will eventually destroy a person if nothing changes. And once the person is free of a dangerous addiction, he or she may equate leaving the cult as a guarantee of returning to the abandoned lifestyle. Christianity reinforces this pattern of thought by teaching that a person must abide in Christ or risk being cast aside. At no time will a person be told it is possible to live a clean life outside of Christianity.
Of course there may be other reasons for conversion, but can there be any question that childhood conversions and adult conversions during difficult times comprise the bulk of conversion stories? I was a Christian for 30 years. These two types of personal testimonials filled my ears during those decades.
Now, many years later, I am an ex-Christian. I didn’t become an ex-Christian because someone hurt my feelings. I became an ex-Christian after studiously endeavoring to learn all I could about my God, my faith, Christianity, history, theology, and other closely related topics. Little by little I discovered that Christianity is just another magical cult that captured the imaginations and satisfied the emotional needs of enough people over the years to gather a strong following. I found out that it is not truth, it is not even unique, and that I had been wrong.
No doubt, Christians will continue to insist that the ex-Christian is closed minded — that the ex-Christian hasn’t closely considered all the facts — that the ex-Christian is stubborn and refuses to admit to being wrong. But in reality, it is the Christian who is calling the kettle black. Most Christians are afraid to analyze their religion from a position of neutrality, from outside of the approved list of authors and books. When I was a Christian, I was discouraged from reading anything written by non-Christian authors. Such materials could damage faith, I was told.
Those prophets were correct. Once I finally broke taboo and started reading materials less apologetic in nature, not to just argue with the materials, but to actually listen to what the authors had to say, my faith started to show cracks.
When it comes to religion, few people read things to test their faith. Most read things that confirm their faith. They like to read things that tell them they are right. If they do read an opposing view, it is with the intention of finding flaws in the argument, and once again, confirming the position of faith.
It is a difficult thing to admit being wrong. I know.
So, Christian, when you come here and post, please be aware that ex-Christians have already agonized over being wrong. We know we can be wrong. We admit to having been wrong in the past, and admit that the possibility to be wrong again still exists in the future.
Be honest with yourself, Christian. Are you willing to admit you might be wrong?
We human beings like to think we are right, all the time.
Why is this?
Is it:
- ⇒ An insatiable need to be right which masks a deep fear of being wrong?
- ⇒ A high need to expect others to see it our way?
- ⇒ An inability to say, "I don't know." and "I was wrong"?
- ⇒ A feeling of being threatened from new ideas from other people?
- ⇒ A fear of hearing new information that threatens our beliefs?
- ⇒ A preoccupation with winning approval from a god or other people?
- ⇒ The need to always be seen as tough, powerful and strong?
- ⇒ A belief that others who disagree with us are wrong and should change?
What we human beings don’t like to admit is that we are frequently wrong.
I am quite aware of my ability to be wrong. I believed for decades that being a Christian was the right thing to be. I was sure that studying to show myself approved was the highest of callings, and that sharing my discoveries with others was the greatest good a person could do. I was convinced of my position in all matters religious. No one could argue me out of anything. If someone brought up a question I couldn’t answer, I dove into the masses of commentaries and apologetics until I found an answer that quieted my mind and gave me the assurance that, after all, I was still right. I pacified my ego and pride by telling myself that the Holy Spirit had promised to lead me into all truth, and therefore, it was unlikely that I was wrong. Anyone who insisted on arguing with me I easily dismissed as either mislead or under the oppression of the devil. And of course I did all this with a humble and prayerful heart.
As a Christian, I refused to accept the possibility that I might be wrong when it came to Christianity. Christianity was the truth, and any contradictions or inconsistencies I found in the Bible or the lives of other Christians, I excused as human frailty and the inability to completely comprehend or grasp the will of the Almighty. On top of that, I had the witness of the Spirit. I "felt" that Christianity was the truth. It gave me great comfort to believe in Christ, to walk with HIM and talk with HIM along life’s weary way.
In essence, I stopped questioning anything that would cast doubt on my faith, consumed massive amounts of literature supporting my faith, and made a dogmatic decision to believe, regardless of what anyone, anywhere might say, ever.
I’ve been humbled since that time. Age, experience, and finally, honest, open investigation into the history and development of Christian belief through the last 20 centuries forced me to admit the possibility that no magical ghost was leading or teaching Christians, and that my unshakeable faith in Christianity was more akin to stubbornness and the need to be right, than anything else. Christianity has changed and mutated so much in 2,000 years, and yet, every generation of Christians believes that they, and perhaps they alone, have the best and most true version of the faith that was once delivered to the saints.
Benjamin Franklin once said:
"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise."
Being right is something that people value. Who wants to be wrong about anything? Who wants to admit to being wrong?
Non-believers and believers alike are equally prone to stubbornly refusing to admit to the possibility of being wrong. But what Christians too frequently fail to understand is that ex-Christians have already admitted to being wrong. Ex-Christians were once Christians who whole-heartedly embraced a cult that claimed to hold all the answers to the universe, and later, sometimes much later, for any number of reasons, came to the realization that they were wrong.
Most people become Christians early in life, before they really have the experience or knowledge to make a well-thought-out decision. Childhood conversions may be sincere, but are bereft of thorough investigation. Adult conversions are often emotional, occurring during times of personal stress or problems, and equally without probing research. The well paraded testimonies of reformed alcoholics, drug addicts, criminals, et al., rather than confirming the truth of Christianity, illustrate something else entirely: a desire for change. Religions and philosophies do offer change, especially for the person who feels out of control. If a person finds the strength to limit or avoid self-destructive behaviors by becoming immersed in a cult, more power to that person, I suppose. However, ultimately, these stories of redemption from self-destruction speak less to the efficaciousness of religion and more to the natural human instinct for personal survival. Most people understand that a lifestyle of self-destruction will eventually destroy a person if nothing changes. And once the person is free of a dangerous addiction, he or she may equate leaving the cult as a guarantee of returning to the abandoned lifestyle. Christianity reinforces this pattern of thought by teaching that a person must abide in Christ or risk being cast aside. At no time will a person be told it is possible to live a clean life outside of Christianity.
Of course there may be other reasons for conversion, but can there be any question that childhood conversions and adult conversions during difficult times comprise the bulk of conversion stories? I was a Christian for 30 years. These two types of personal testimonials filled my ears during those decades.
Now, many years later, I am an ex-Christian. I didn’t become an ex-Christian because someone hurt my feelings. I became an ex-Christian after studiously endeavoring to learn all I could about my God, my faith, Christianity, history, theology, and other closely related topics. Little by little I discovered that Christianity is just another magical cult that captured the imaginations and satisfied the emotional needs of enough people over the years to gather a strong following. I found out that it is not truth, it is not even unique, and that I had been wrong.
No doubt, Christians will continue to insist that the ex-Christian is closed minded — that the ex-Christian hasn’t closely considered all the facts — that the ex-Christian is stubborn and refuses to admit to being wrong. But in reality, it is the Christian who is calling the kettle black. Most Christians are afraid to analyze their religion from a position of neutrality, from outside of the approved list of authors and books. When I was a Christian, I was discouraged from reading anything written by non-Christian authors. Such materials could damage faith, I was told.
Those prophets were correct. Once I finally broke taboo and started reading materials less apologetic in nature, not to just argue with the materials, but to actually listen to what the authors had to say, my faith started to show cracks.
When it comes to religion, few people read things to test their faith. Most read things that confirm their faith. They like to read things that tell them they are right. If they do read an opposing view, it is with the intention of finding flaws in the argument, and once again, confirming the position of faith.
It is a difficult thing to admit being wrong. I know.
So, Christian, when you come here and post, please be aware that ex-Christians have already agonized over being wrong. We know we can be wrong. We admit to having been wrong in the past, and admit that the possibility to be wrong again still exists in the future.
Be honest with yourself, Christian. Are you willing to admit you might be wrong?
Very powerful, persuasive, and courteous.
I, too, was the Christian apologist whose stack of reference works and support texts stood who knows how many stories high. Coupled with regular scripture reading, I was determined to "show myself approved."
The irony is that through relentless and arduous study (along with the perpetual failings of Christianity to meet my spiritual, social, emotional, and intellectual needs) I confirmed for myself the non-truth of Christianity.
Many Christians who object to me haven't read their _entire_ Bible even once. For those who have read it through completely, it is to them as a "once in a lifetime journey", like a Muslim's journey to Mecca. However, I was committed to reading it cover-to-cover on a yearly basis, through various translations. (Of course, the King James-only lemmings often attribute the various translations for my apostasy.)
I, too, through much study have learned of the true origins of Christianity. Looking back at myself, with my mind-blinders on, I was so certain of the uniqueness of my religion. Gosh, what a deluded fool I was. The idea of an incarnated son-of-a-god coming down to earth is so common in the ancient world. But, given that Christians are generally negligent, not only of their own holy text, but history as well, it's impossible to convince them otherwise.
One who loves Truth, without regard to whether it is "comfortable", cannot continue in Christianity.
(Dave, I was pleased in your having pointed out the countless factions and outgrowths, with each successive generation believing itself to be in possession of "the faith once delivered to the saints.")
As a Christian youth, my favorite pasttime was to criticize other religions (especially Christian "cults", so-called). However, when I turned the same criticisms against my own brand of Christianity, it, too, had to fall.
May the time come on earth when all peoples know that all we have is one another. Then, perhaps, much bloodshed will be averted.
I thought I was wrong once but I soon realized that it was just a thought not a reality.
The value of thinking that you are right rests solely on its comparison to the value of thinking you are wrong. It works the same in reverse. Thinking wrongly is given a value only after one has thought rightly. If one is to do neither, than we are no better than the rest of the animal kingdom. There are two factors that many accept as being the cornerstones of our superiority. The first is our ability to reason and the second being our larynx have dropped deeper into our throats thus allowing us the ability to speak what we are thinking. And hopefully done with sophisticated, well-articulated words and sentences.
I refuse to go quietly God! You made my ancestors out of clay! What is this shit about Jesus being your only son? Wasn't Mary one of your children? Why did you have my half brother killed as a sacrifice to yourself? Who were you trying to impress?
Dano (Yo, God?)
You are right. I did agonized over that very issue for years. How could it possibly be all wrong?
After I dared to admit that my lifetime of Christianity was a mistake, it has been easier to admit error in other areas of my life.
Yes, I have been wrong before, and will probably be wrong again. Knowing that is highly relieving. The pressure is off. I now feel free to take wrong turns and to go back searching for the wrong path.
Case in point about making mistakes.
That's cute.
After I dared to admit that my lifetime of Christianity was a mistake, it has been easier to admit error in other areas of my life.
Excellent observation. That's something I've also found to be true in my own life.
I once felt ashamed of telling people about Jesus, now I feel ashamed of ever having believed the stuff. I have no excuse, I made the decision to become a christian at age 16 and I was not raised in a religious home. I tried to fulfill emotional needs, and with religion being accepted and part of our society, I never thought I could be wrong. Years later, after doing research about religions in general and christianity in specific, I had to admit, that I could not find any truth about god or Jesus. Once I was finally convinced to leave religion behind me, I felt lost for some time, and alone. I had to learn to fill my life with other values. Now I feel very much relieved not having this pressure in my life to live it in a certain way. I also stopped categorizing people, for example into christians and others, gay and straight, higher economic status and lower economic status, better christians and not-so good ones, etc. I can allow myself to see people in a different way, and to be bold enough to not conform to majority and try to be "normal" but just be myself.
Although Horus is not worshipped today, anyone caught doing so would be scorned and ridiculed for worshipping a fictitious character.
So why don't people today feel this way when people give up everything they have to worship this fictitious god, Jesus Christ?
I learned this by believing that I was a Christian and witnessing and proselytizing from memorized and repeated indoctrination, I had to show off my newly found universal knowledge, the Bible says that this is wisdom, but I had not investigated, I had accepted that I received this newly found knowledge as a free gift, it was a free gift alright, but it had hidden costs that involved subservience and submission of my life and my precious time, knowing now it was all in vain.
But sometimes I wonder if Jesus wasn't talking about how truth without religion and traditions would set you free and the people that supposedly quoted Jesus misconstrued and misunderstood everything he may have meant to say, no doubt they were gold diggers looking for reasons to appear to look righteous, there's no way to tell.
I remember writing to a fundy that was supporting a pastor that had molested a little girl, and I told them that to admit that the pastor was wrong, meant that the whole congregation got it wrong, their beliefs were wrong and their whole religious philosophy was wrong, because of one, the one whom commands them to be as they, Saintly holy and pure, if a spirit annointed pastor cannot uphold a moral example, whom shall they follow?
All very brilliant responces before me also.
I have to agree with your comment ... it has been easier to admit error in other areas of my life. I too have found it easier to accept my mistakes and admit to them.
This is a fascinating article. Occasionally as I talk to Christians today who know I'm ex-Christian, I find an emotional boundary that simply precludes any entertainment of the idea they may be wrong. These people, who are some of the nicest people I know, are completely attached to the wonderful story of Christ and all of the good they perceive as coming from Christianity. As one said to me a couple of weeks ago, she just likes being in church and singing with everyone else. I believe she emotionally needs this positive force to be in her life - other than her children, the rest of her life isn't that great. She is very bright and I think if she should ever consider the facts, she would realize it's all BS, but given her emotional state, it would probably be devastating. Consequently, she's afraid to even consider the possibility it's not true.
Dave, you said that you lived as a narrow-minded, non-critical thinking
Christian all through your Christian life and you left it when you started to think critically. Good, but you know Christianity never asks
us to follow Christ blindly. God calls us in Isaiah chapter 1, "Come let us reason together". Reason has the more important place in Christianity than in Atheism. Apostle Paul, who was persecuting Christians became a staunch Christian after his encounter with Living Christ. He did not stop there. He found the accurate fulfillment of the prophecies of the Old Testament being fulfilled in Christ. He studied Greek philosophers and in Athens, as we read in Acts 17, he showed how Christ gives satisfying answers to the questions of the Greek philosophers.
Your branding of Christianity as a non-thinking religion is a serious misunderstanding of the faith and no
wonder you left Christianity blindly.
Yes, you are right that conversion stories do not prove the trustworthiness of Christianity. In fact, the Bible never claims that it is true because it converts bad people into good people. Bible says that because Christ rose from the dead our faith is not vain (I Corinthians 15). Thus, the resurrection of Lord Jesus is the essential testimony of the truth of Christianity.
How sad, you ignored that historical evidence and blindly became an atheist. Repend and reconvert to Christianity my friend. Before it is too late. The judgment of God will burst upon the ungodly soon. Before that happens experience the love of Christ and come back to the church.
Long Live Christianity, Glory to Lord Jesus Christ
There is always something around that humanity tries to grab at to cease being wrong. And if one is wrong someone else will want the one being wrong to suffer badly.
If one is right then there is power in that. This power becomes wrong anyway.
In the universal sense, wrong and right are purely a human concept altogether, based on rules and ideas created by humans based on what they each experience.
The world can appear flat to some who never been outside it. Are they wrong? Not from what they see and experience. Therefore they can't be wrong. But the world is not flat to those who have looked outside of it, from space. Are they right? Perhaps, but only from what they see and experience. If some type of anomoly passed by their viewpoint at the proper times, distorting their image of the world so it was flat, how would they know any better?
You can also travel in circles on a flat surface.
It's more about "perception" than right and wrong.
What is bad is when one tries to force someone else to percieve things the way they do and anything else would be deemed "wrong" and thus the person being "wrong" should suffer. It's like a never-ending catch-22.
"You're going to hell."
"No, you're wrong. I'm not."
"Yes you are. The Bible says so."
"The Bible was written by men. So it's not correct."
"Men were inspired by God so it was correct."
"No you are wrong. I can prove it."
"No YOU are wrong. When you die you will see I was right all along!"
"The facts are plainly spelled out here..."
"Those 'facts' were written by people too! So how do you know they are true from what you say?"
"So how do you know the Bible is right?"
Etc. Etc. Etc.
You could go in circles forever with this. It's all about perception. And in perception there is no right or wrong.
And I've found also that you can prove virtually anything to be "true" or "right" if you work hard enough at it and analyse it enough. Anything can be twisted into anything.
What is important is that we each enjoy what we perceive to be the way our lives are, and change things that we don't like. And not let anyone else determine how we should live.
Once they get into your head, they have you. Your perception changes radically. Same as if you stop believing in what you are sure is not true.
At least, that has been my observations.
The older I get, the more I seem to be aware of what I don’t know. I love learning new things and sometimes this means “unlearning” concepts I once thought to be true, or as your article so adroitly points out, I must admit to being wrong. Here, you have only asked Christians to accept the possibility that they “might” be wrong – not that they are, in fact, wrong.
No one, Christian or otherwise, should be afraid of doing this. This is a very healthy approach to achieving any worthwhile goal or accepting scientific and philosophical theories – religions included. I will never forget the class I took on “The Cults”. As the instructor expounded the mutual characteristics of these apostate (going to Hell) groups, I remember whispering to the guy next to me, “gee, these sound like this church!” Many that heard my comments laughed and the instructor thought that we were laughing about how absurd the cults were, not that our church met its own definition of “A Cult!” I have been very skeptical about being “Religiously Correct” ever since!
Again, a righteous literary work!
After reading thousands of times that he can't prove the bible to be correct by quoting the bible, he just keeps on doing it. His brain is impermeable to reason.
Is it possible that some of the totally brainwashed cult members cannot be saved, just put out of business by drinking the Kool Aid or taking the ride on the comet?
Dano (Global warming is more significant than sin. Right?)
No, Paul, what I basically said was that I spent 30 years in Christianity and refused to seriously entertain the idea that I might be mistaken about the truth of Christianity. I was entirely sold out to the cult -- just like you are now.
Paul said: "Your branding of Christianity as a non-thinking religion is a serious misunderstanding of the faith and no
wonder you left Christianity blindly."
If you say so.
Paul wrote: "The Bible never claims that it is true because it converts bad people into good people."
No, but Christian testimonials are frequently given by Christians as one of the main evidences for the truth of Christianity.
Paul wrote: "Repend and reconvert to Christianity my friend. Before it is too late. The judgment of God will burst upon the ungodly soon. Before that happens experience the love of Christ and come back to the church."
No thanks, Paul.
However, you have my sincere gratitude for reminding me what it was like to be a True Christian™. In the unlikely event that I'm ever tempted to return to the loving/hell-threatening embrace of Christianity, all I'll have to do is read through a few of your posts again, and I'll be cured of the temptation.
In a way, reading what you have to say is like receiving an inoculation against a virulent disease. A shot of an anti- bacterial or viral agent can initially make a person slightly ill, but the eventual effect is immunity from infection.
Keep up the good work, Paul. The longer you are here, the more people will be cured.
Do you honestly believe that a God created the whole universe in just six days, including over 125 billion galaxies, similar to our own, just so he could toss people into hell, based on whether they believed in Jesus or not?
Paul do you believe that other galaxies exist?
Why would a God go to the trouble to create a universe knowing that some people would be subject of a burning hell?
What pleasure does this God get out of sending people to hell?
I know you will say, God sends no one to hell, people send themselves to hell.
But I didn't make the rules, I didn't create the universe.
You must realize Paul, that the people who wrote the Bible it was not a God, nor Jesus, if God can create the universe in just six days, why can he not write his own book?
This God could have just as very easily wrote his rules for salvation on giant rocks etched permantly in all languages on every continent every 10 miles and could destroy anyone coming near those giant rocks to amend them or deface them.
Yet Paul, this God chose 'people' to write his book, that he admitted himself, was a mistake in making, because their hearts were continually wicked, he supposedly destroyed the first generation, when did people's hearts stop being so continuely wicked?
You must realize Paul, the people that wrote those books had no education, they thought the world was flat, and that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the Sun revolved over the Earth, and they had no knowledge of other galaxies existing similar to our own, they also thought that the heart was the center of all thought and emotion, they had no medical knowledge of the brain, surely this god would have told them about the brain, but the word brain is not mentioned in the bible, why not Paul.
Paul, you cannot rightly say that your beliefs are correct. If the world was flat and the Earth was the center of the universe, then you might has some valid points, but your belief is centered on what people thought in their minds, through their world view, over 2000 years ago, their perception of the world thousands of years ago.
Paul, do you believe that other galaxies exist, similar to our own?
If not, then you do not live in present day reality.
Paul, do you believe that other galaxies may also contain other human beings, similar to us?
If not, then you do not live in present day reality.
Paul you never mention the word science, this is scary for people not willing to accept what we now know about our universe.
Paul your old 2000 year old religious philosophy is dead, it died with Jesus, Jesus predicted his return in the disciples life time, Mark 9:1
Christopher Columbus predicted the end of the world 150 years, after his discovery of America, Billy Graham predicted the end of time in 1960's, now you Paul are predicting the end of time being near, but anyone can make that claim, it means nothing.
Predicting the end is near, shows blatant ignorance of a brainwashed fundy, because the Earth is billions of years old.
Paul is a prime example of someone who is afraid to admit that he is wrong, he's done made a public commitment and to admit that he is wrong, would mean his religious colleagues would scoff and ridicule him just as he scoffs and ridicules us all here.
When I was in religion, I was wrong, totally wrong, because I trusted the people that wrote the Bible knew more then me, they may have known more than the people of their day, but now after 2000 years and more with the advancement of scientific and medical knowledge, I no longer believe that the Bible holds more knowledge than what is known today.
Paul it's up to you to prove to us that the Bible holds more knowledge, than what is known today in this age of the 21st century.
So far you haven't done that, just to let you know.
At one point as a teenager, I got lonely. I'd been an outsider all my life, and my lack of belief, which I made no secret of, entitled me to generous helpings of grief from the "children of god'. So, since I couldn't yet avoid going, I thought, 'what if I'm wrong?'and studied it, tried to become a believer. At the end of six months of this, I knew that the object I'd been trying to sell myself so hard was NOT a Baby Ruth bar, it was a turd. Nothing more than that, and I'd accomplished what I set out for. From the first words it made no sense at all. Nothing but circular reasoning that many people were willing to keep in a corner of their lives, something they wouldn't test as they'd test the claims of a car dealer.
I think, though that an examination of at least the west's look at changing of the mind. Error has always been punished. To admit error is to invite punishment and ridicule. We find that out in school from ay one, it is a mark of failure. There have been times it was punished by death, so maybe we are loathe to admit it for good reason.
It is true that such things are not as dangerous as once they were, but the fires if the auto da fe are well banked with plenty of wood standing by, and the instruments of inquisition are well oiled, in good order, and ready to hand. And people willing to use them. All at the word of someone strong in his belief who wants to eradicate error.
A very interesting argument. I agree with salvitore in that it was written courteously, and for the most part, from a non-biased view.
However, There were a few things on which I would question you.
Firstly, you said that Christianity has "changed and mutated so much". How? In what ways has Chrstianity changed? It's major premises are still the same, even most of its minor premises are still the same. The Bible is still the same as it ever was, and that is, amung other things, what keeps Christianity together
As to your references to conversions of Children not being reasoned and studied, I agree with you. However, many children (such as myself) have learned to think critically and reason our faith.
You seemed to be implying that Christians use the testimonies of converted people as evadence for the truth of the Bible, and I would agree with you that this is not logical. However you turned the argument around and into a straw man fallicy and a part-to- whole fallicy by implying that ALL Christians do this.
Still, here are a few names of people who can hardly be called illogical who were Christians.
-Descarts
-Sir Isaac Newton
-Roger Bacon
-Copernicus
-Johannes Kepler
-Galileo
-Blaise Pascal
-Gregor Mendel
-Thomas Aquinas
All these men helped shape the world as we know it, and all were whole hearted followers of Christ.Even if they were persicutd for their faith, they believed. They knew they had truth, and believed in God with conviction.
I have anouther question, how do you know that "these stories of redemption...speak less to the effaciousness of religion and more to the natural human instinct for personal survival"? Were you there to ask these converted people? Maby in some cases this could have been true, but You or I will ever know for sure.
One last thing, Now that you have renounced you faith in thing unseen you are claiming to have found truth. You are claiming that since you have renounced Christianity, then you have discovered what we Christians have been "trying" to find, truth.
As usual, a perfect piece. Everything you felt, I felt, too. All the reasons you found to leave the faith were the same as mine. I did not leave because of people. I especially like your point of 'controlled' reading of religious people. When I've asked Christians to honestly read books outside their faith, they'll say, 'yes'. But then I find out they spoke with their priest or minister who answered all their questions! Unbelievable how those Christians won't even admit that their information is spoon fed. It must be they are afraid to be wrong.
I did not struggle too much with that. It was easier for me to admit I was wrong. However, I am not like most people, so this helps me to be able to maybe reach others who are questioning. It must be their fear of being wrong.
There is, however, quite a bit of truth in what you are saying in regards to the thought process of many professing Christians.
Excellent article very informative.
When is the book coming out.?
Maybe an ebook for a start.
ebay 99 cent auction
viral marketing ?
just a thought
If there is a god.You are for sure without a doubt his leeding man.
Maybe your a god yourself.
maybe I'm wrong
Christians admit to being wrong when they convert. But, how many do it as children, or as adults in some difficult time of life. Neither children nor distraught adults generally make well reasoned decisions. Few, if any, adult Christians convert because everything in their life is going great and they've taken the time to investigate all the competing religions out there to arrive at the conclusion that Christianity is the truth.
Those who leave Christianity do so after considerable investigation. It is not done lightly or because of an emotional experience that "reveals" some truth.
That's the point.
That made me laugh!
Thanks!
Maybe what you noticed, the desire of Christians to be spoon-fed, is less the fear of being wrong and more just plain pure mental laziness.
Regardless, fear and laziness are a good recipe for being controlled by others.
Yes, and that's a real problem in a reality where the only absolute is "change". "Knowledge" that is revealed from within religious convictions is not subject to change, yet, knowledge as we aquire it from the empirical world around us is guaranteed to change. A perfect example would be that there exists a "Society" of people who still insist the world is flat.
.....and that is, amung other things, what keeps Christianity together.[the fact that the bible is the "same"]
THOUSANDS of denominations/sects = "together"? The fact that Christians fall on opposite sides of the fence on anything from abortion...to evolution...to capital punishment...to war...to the shape of the earth, is "together"? I'm sorry, but I totally disagree.
Religion, Christianity included, is totally divisive. Wake up.
Actually, I find almost the complete opposite to be true. Of the people I've observed leave the Christian faith, it was due to a crisis in their life, an emotional time.
My point is, your general theme is true. Many people don't like to admit they are wrong. But your point can be equally applied to christians, non-christians, atheists, agnostics, etc.
Really? How many have you personally observed leaving the faith? Is it a large number? What were the exact circumstances and reasons given? Did they become Christians as children or during a life crisis? How old were they when they left? Had any of them become Christians after careful investigation and thoughtful consideration? Was the emotional time, as you called it, something caused by Christianity or because Christianity couldn't address their need? Or was it something altogether different? Did you personally interview any of these people?
I'd be interested in anything you can share. Sincerely.
well, i don't know how to share every case of apostasy that i've observed so i'll just share a few examples.
To give you a little background on who i am. I am a christian. I said the 'sinnners prayer' when i was a kid. I made a serious, reasoned commitment to Christ when I was 17. I went to Bible college for 4 years. I have been pastoring for almost 4 years now.
I dated a girl that did not grow up in the church. She became a Christian at 18. She was not in any kind of crisis at her conversion, simply found a church that was loving and accepting. Her church was filled, though, with a pastor and the kind of people you describe in your post: Cult-like (but considered to be evangelical).
We dated for our entire first year of college. She was considered the model bible college student. top in the class. personable, etc. Knowing her better than anyone else, though, I could tell she had some messed up concepts about who God is.
She eventually graduated 2nd in our class. The following year she went to Japan to teach english for a year with another of our classmates. While she was there, she got incredibly homesick. She became very lonely. Couldn't deal with a different culture. Etc.
At the end of her time there, or shortly thereafter, she decided she was no longer a Christian. Currently, she won't even dialogue with most or any of her former Christian friends.
So, in that case, we have the opposite of what you are saying. We have a girl that converted to Christianity while life was going fine. And then un-coverted during a crisis. On top of that, we have someone who isn't even willing to dialogue with Christians (thus, isn't open to the possibility that she is wrong).
my point is, there are cases both ways. To answer your specific questions, I know the details of a dozen of my college friends who left the faith. And probably a dozen other people. Of course, i KNOW of hundreds, but only enough details on a couple dozen overall. The majority of these, it seems to me, left the Christian faith during a personal crisis in their life.
I'm an arminian. I have no reason to doubt most or many of these weren't Christians to begin with. I suspect they simply didn't have a very true view of who God was or what the christian faith entailed.
Like I said, a lot of what you say is true for many Christians. And it's true for many non-Christians.
I strive to always be open to the possibility that I am wrong. I am slow to change my views, but I've made major changes in various doctrines over the past few years. I've had to admit I was wrong about such things.
You said: "I have no reason to doubt most or many of these weren't Christians to begin with. I suspect they simply didn't have a very true view of who God was or what the christian faith entailed.
So, in other words, they were Christians but were really were not exactly true Christians. Or, perhaps the Holy Spirit just didn't reveal Himself in a big way to them in order to straighten out their skewered thinking. Or, it was something else altogether. But regardless, (as I read between the lines of your post) Christianity is still absolutely true.
Do you hear yourself?
Well, whatever.
I think your girlfriend, rather than proving your point, actually lends weight to mine. She, for whatever reason, became a Christian after living 18 years apart from religion. (As an aside here, I’d like to say that perhaps my definition of childhood is broader than yours. To me, 18 years old is very young. I realize 18-year-olds can vote and drive, but no one wants them drinking. Few people at 48 think 18-year-olds have the knowledge or experience to make wise life-changing decisions, although 48-year-olds generally agree that when they were 18, they thought they had it all together. But I suppose this is off topic.) Anyway, she tried Christianity, and found it unsatisfying, for whatever reason. Then, she left it, and is now no longer interested in arguing about it. The reaction of your girlfriend may be completely understandable considering this statement you wrote:
"Knowing her better than anyone else, though, I could tell she had some messed up concepts about who God is."
This suggests to me a possible reason as to why she may not want to talk to you. I mean, "My understanding of God is right, and yours is wrong" is fairly offensive, even if well intentioned. If you really knew her better than anyone, which after only a year of dating, I find doubtful, it seems reasonable that she knows you equally well.
And your own testimony tends to confirm my little rant. You were immersed in Christianity from day one. You finally made a solid commitment at 17, but 17 (like 18) is very young. You didn’t say one way or the other, but I’d guess you didn’t really give much thought to Islam, or Confucianism, or for that matter, atheism. My guess is that the only choice you thought realistically available to you was to be a backslidden Christian or a committed Christian. However, admittedly, on this I’m only guessing.
You wrote: “Of course, i KNOW of hundreds, but only enough details on a couple dozen overall. The majority of these, it seems to me, left the Christian faith during a personal crisis in their life.”
My purpose in asking for the details was more an exercise for you than informational for me. There are hundreds of detailed testimonies on this site, so I have the advantage of actually knowing the details. “It seems to me” testifies to a lack of real experiential knowledge, to borrow a phrase. Plus, when people do leave a cult, there will be a lot of anger, but that doesn’t mean the anger is what caused the faith to fail. Anyone who really believes in Christianity doesn’t just leave because they are homesick, or because someone pissed them off. Those things may help a person re-evaluate, but to ascribe true believer apostasy to something shallow, is, well, shallow.
But, that’s just my opinion.
I await other ex-Christian input.
1. I would never say they weren't 'true christians'. The Bible is very clear that many people will genuinely respond to the Gospel, but later turn away. It is far from surprising. Matthew 13 says this happens for various reasons. Some didn't really understand what they were getting into. Some had a shallow faith. Some let the world tempt them away.
2. My ex-girlfriend has no issues with me. The 1 or 2 former friends that she does still keep in touch with at all (though she won't let them talk about faith), say she speaks very highly of me.
3. Again, the opposite of what you theorieze is the actual reality. In our relationship, I was the one that wanted to discuss different views and whatnot. She was the one that had a legalistic, 'my way or the highway' mentality. She's still like that, that's why she has stopped discussing.
4. I wasn't saying I knew her better than anyone in the WORLD, I was saying I knew her better than anyone at school. The school was in New Brunswick. She was from Alberta. I believe she was the only student from Alberta, but in any case, she didn't know anyone when she arrived.
5. I never seriously considered atheism because I don't consider it a legitimate theory. I considered agnosticism. I'm willing to consider any form of monotheism, which I believe is the only very reasonable approach to worldview. But there are basically only 3 major types of monotheism and they are all related.
"To give you a little background on who i am. I am a christian. I said the 'sinnners prayer' when i was a kid. I made a serious, reasoned commitment to Christ when I was 17. I went to Bible college for 4 years. I have been pastoring for almost 4 years now.
I have no reason to doubt most or many of these weren't Christians to begin with. I suspect they simply didn't have a very true view of who God was or what the christian faith entailed."
Ok so tell us all about God, what is God?
You went to college for 4 years to search the mind of God.
Let me guess your answer, God is truth, peace, understanding and love.
So
Where does God reside?
What is God's favorite food?
Is God a male/female/shemale?
Is God overweight or trim and slim?
Is God black/white/other?
Either anybody can be a "True Christian™, or nobody can be one. There is no "litmus test". You can no more tell someone else that they are not/were not a "True Christian™", than you'd allow them to tell you that you aren't currently a "True Christian". Think about it---it would be absurd to tell an "ex-wife" that she was never "Truly" married, whether you 'think' she had the "true view" of what it means to be married, or not. It's not your call.
Matthew: I could tell she had some messed up concepts about who God is.
There is no "who"...and until there is empirical evidence that is both testable and falsifiable for any such "being", then that's the only place that "God" exists....in "concept". Moreover, I will readily admit error in my thinking and reconvert the second that there is such evidence.
The fact that one is indoctrinated into a specific religion from childhood, yet, comes to dismiss all other religions in adulthood, speaks for itself.
As far people choosing not to discuss specific "God-beliefs" with others---if such a "discussion" entailed someone insisting that "Amon Ra" was the creator and ruler of the universe, while providing zero evidence other than person testimony, hell, I'd probably avoid such discussions too....in fact, I'd probably RUN the other way. lol.
Matthew: I never seriously considered atheism because I don't consider it a legitimate theory. I considered agnosticism.
You were born an Atheist, and you didn't need to "consider" it then. And the truth is, the word "Atheist" would be totally unnecessary if it weren't for people insisting that "god(s)" do exist. Furthermore, "Atheism" deals with "belief"; "agnosticism" deals with "knowledge"...so if you lack belief in a gazillion other "gods", then yes, you DO consider "Atheism" a "legitimate theory". Maybe investigate the definitions a little more before engaging here.
Interesting choice of words: theory, not [...] legitimate.
Matt said: "Some didn't really understand what they were getting into. Some had a shallow faith. Some let the world tempt them away."
You left out: some studied the history and development of Christianity with a vengence, including the constant battle of Christianity against the advancement of science, the belief in magical witches that needed killing, the plethra of obvious contradictions throughout the Bible that need libraries of "Bible Difficulty" books to deal with them, the complete lack of Christian unity on nearly every doctrine, the way the current incarnations of Christianity resemble not in the slightest the versions of the faith considered orthodox in any past generations, and finally, the gross anti-intellectualism of believing in flying fiery chariots, snakes that talk, zombies walking out of graveyards, magic floating ax heads, angels that screw women and produce giants, and everyone's favorite: a flying un-dead god-man who loves us so much he was dead for a couple of days and if we don't show proper appreciation for that wonderous sacrafice, then he will return to mercilessly punish us for all eternity.
That was a reason you left out.
Those reasons you quoted are too simplistic and shallow for me. They are probably effective with teens, however. Most teens do tend to be a bit shallow.
Of course, in all honesty, for over 30 years I parroted much the same type of rhetoric you are undoubtedly filled with. I was entrenched and mired in a religious mindset. I won converts the world over. I even evangelized in Japan.
It's embarrassing.
Anyway, have a great week.
I think your questions are very strange since God is spirit. In other words, my answer for your questions is "N/A"
I never pretended to be able to know for sure who's a true christian and who isn't. That's not my job. I simply said there are some true Christians, some fake one's, and some that won't remain christians.
By limiting yourself to what can be proven by scientific testing, you're making a gigantic assumption and pledging your allegiance to the worldview of naturalism. That's your choice, but I think it's a very bad one (I don't think it even makes good 'sense')
Besides, Christians don't believe in an invisble God, we believe in a God who became flesh. He revealed Himself in history.
You can play with words all you want, but I will state once again that I don't consider atheism a legitimate worldview. Nor do I think people are born atheists, as you say. The evidence is to the contrary.
I didn't mention your supposed case since Matthew 13 doesn't and I was talking about Matthew 13.
Of course, we could dialogue about all the objections that you brought up. But I'll attempt to remember to check back on this site and discuss them as they come up. Needless to say, I believe they are faulty objections based on bad history, misinformation, and observation of misinformed Christianity.
I've visited many sites like this. I find your articles well written in comparison, but your attitudes a bit too close minded to make the site worth a routine visit. Just my opinion.
lata
I think that "answer" is strange, myself. So just what is a "spirit", anyway? The implication is that whatever this "spirit" thing is, it's meta-physical, i.e...beyond physical, hence, why direct questions regarding "God" "can't be" answered. So how does one "detect" something that is "meta-physical", from a physical perspective, using physical senses? Listening.
I do not wish to speak for boomslang (he's quite capable of defending his own views), but I see this type of fallacy frequently and feel compelled to point it out. In your statement above you are painting boomslang as a dogmatist who "pledges allegiance" to a worldview. Simply put, that is complete nonsense. Asking for evidence, or equivalently, for an objective means of making some determination, does not make one a dogmatic materialist. If you cannot meet the simple request for evidence, then please consider what you are left with; a subjective and unverifiable assertion, of which there are myriad. On what basis, then, would you expect anybody to accept your view? By your authority perhaps?
In my opinion, it is both foolish and irresponsible to accept such claims with no evidence whatsoever, for then you are buffeted about by happenstance; i.e. by the inconsequential events that affect which opinions happen to reach your ears. Without evidence or reason, there is no way to reliably detect erroneous claims, which we are all bombarded with daily.
matthew: "Besides, Christians don't believe in an invisble God, we believe in a God who became flesh. He revealed Himself in history."
Here you are playing a word game. You most certainly do believe in an invisible god if your beliefs are even remotely similar to the vast majority of those professing to be Christians. Even if your purported savior existed and at one time donned flesh, he (or his spirit) is ever present is he/it not? Isn't your god omnipresent? Unless you are claiming that god is perpetually seated beside you, wearing a suit of flesh, then you do indeed believe in an invisible god.
matthew: "You can play with words all you want, but I will state once again that I don't consider atheism a legitimate worldview."
I do not believe in your god because I have personally seen no credible evidence for her existence. On the contrary, I have seen thousands of bogus arguments, inflated claims, and outright nonsense in lieu of sound reasoning and evidence. Thus, my worldview contains one less god than yours. Now, please explain why my worldview is not "legitimate". I look forward to a well-reasoned explanation, which includes a definition of what is means for a worldview to be "legitimate".
matthew: " Nor do I think people are born atheists, as you say. The evidence is to the contrary."
If atheism means lacking belief in a god (which is how I use the word), then it would appear that we are indeed all atheists at birth, for our capacity for abstract thinking is effectively zero at birth. If, on the other hand, what you mean by "atheism" is the deliberate consideration of a god concept, and then not believing it (which would also be reasonable), then of course nobody would be an atheist until at least the age of six or seven. Either way, I don't see what the issue is. If you're careful to define what you mean by "atheist", then you can make a fairly clear case for one or the other. If you don't bother to define the word, then all such distinctions are moot.
Correct..."fake" would mean not real. So, again---you are in essence telling them they aren't a "True Christian™. You made a distinction without a difference, and my original point remains.
By limiting yourself to what can be proven by scientific testing, you're making a gigantic assumption and pledging your allegiance to the worldview of naturalism.
So I take it you are "limiting yourself" because you lack belief in Allah? How about Zeus? Shazam? Furthermore, I think the "gigantic assumption" is to say that just because we can conceive of something out of the natural world, that it can, and does, exist.....while not having one drop of objective evidence to support said claim.
Matthew: Besides, Christians don't believe in an invisble God, we believe in a God who became flesh. He revealed Himself in history.
Evidence, please. And if the Holy Bible is "evidence", then the Holy Q'ran is "evidence".
Matthew: You can play with words all you want, but I will state once again that I don't consider atheism a legitimate worldview.
And you can ignore my words all you want, but if you disbelieve in thousands of other "gods"(and you do), then the "non-belief" in those deities makes Atheism legitimate enough for you to apply it where you see fit.
Matthew: Nor do I think people are born atheists, as you say. The evidence is to the contrary.
Again, Atheism is the "lack of belief in gods"..:hic'p:.."lack of belief in gods"..:hic'p:..."lack of belief in gods". Human beings are born into into this world with NO BELIEVE in gods. If you can show me an infant who professes "Christ", or any other deity, I'd be happy to change my mind.
So, that means you will not be defending your statements or answering questions put to you? I think it's a bit rude to call someone "close minded" and then dash off on some pretense.
You're entilted to "your" opinion, but the brainwashed Muslim fundamentalist says the same thing, as does the Raelian, as did members of the Heaven's Gate cult, as does most religious cults, including your cult.
Matthew said, "Nor do I think people are born atheists, as you say. The evidence is to the contrary."
Please provide the evidence?
Cheers
So how does one "detect" something that is "meta-physical", from a physical perspective, using physical senses?
I reply...
Obviously, one is only able to detect a God who is spirit when that God reveals Himself. God has done this in a multitude of ways which we are all free to accept or deny.
Jim Arvo said...
On what basis, then, would you expect anybody to accept your view? By your authority perhaps?
I reply...
Certainly not. First of all, I don't 'expect' anyone to accept my view. I hope they do. But I don't really have any 'authority' to offer. I hope people will submit to Jesus' authority though.
Jim arvo said...
In my opinion, it is both foolish and irresponsible to accept such claims with no evidence whatsoever
I reply...
I reject your notion that there is no evidence whatsover. You are using a logical fallacy of assuming your argument is true and using your conclusion as evidence.
Jim Arvo said...
You most certainly do believe in an invisible god if your beliefs are even remotely similar to the vast majority of those professing to be Christians. Even if your purported savior existed and at one time donned flesh
I reply...
This argument doesn't make any good sense. If God became flesh, that changes everything. I can't really think of anyone in biblical history or in the time since that was asked to believe in God without some physical evidence.
Jim Arvo said...
Now, please explain why my worldview is not "legitimate"
I reply...
I find it interesting that you get defensive over my statement that your worldview is not legitimate when you are part of a website seemingly purposed in discrediting another worldview. That being said, the reason I find naturalism illegitimate is because it demands that something came from nothing. I can appreciate someone saying they don't know how the world came about, but I can only be baffled by someone who thinks there's no need for a causer.
Boomslang said...
"fake" would mean not real. So, again---you are in essence telling them they aren't a "True Christian™. You made a distinction without a difference, and my original point remains.
I reply...
Telling who? You're failing to comprehend my point. I'm saying that there are fake Christians. I never said I know who they are. It's not my job to label who's a Christian and who's not. And even if it were my job, I am unqualified for such a role.
Boomslang said...
Evidence, please. And if the Holy Bible is "evidence", then the Holy Q'ran is "evidence".
I reply...
Are you truly trying to say that all pieces of evidence have equal value? I've never once asked people to trust the Bible blindly. Frankly, I've never asked anyone to trust the Bible. I trust Jesus. Jesus trusted the Bible.
Boomslang said...
if you disbelieve in thousands of other "gods"(and you do), then the "non-belief" in those deities makes Atheism legitimate enough for you to apply it where you see fit.
I reply...
Your impication that all claims are of equal merit is one of the most absurd things i've ever read on the internet. and that is saying a lot. certainly you don't live such a principle out in real life.
Boomslang said...
Human beings are born into into this world with NO BELIEVE in gods. If you can show me an infant who professes "Christ", or any other deity, I'd be happy to change my mind.
I reply...
Once again, this is a disappointing argument. Infants seemingly have no positive or negative view of God. And even if they did we wouldn't know it. Atheism is active. Infants are passive. Every culture in the history of the world has included some level of belief in deity, no matter how isolated. If atheism was our natural state, this would not be so, naturally.
But your challenge, that I produce an infant who's willing and able to verbalize his beliefs, and your statement that you'd change your mind if I produce such an infant, shows your closed mindedness. You've already decided that the only things that would convince you that you are wrong are things you know won't happen. In other words, you've set up the test to fail. Your mindset is the complete opposite of what this article was attempting to produce.
Jim arvo said...
So, that means you will not be defending your statements or answering questions put to you? I think it's a bit rude to call someone "close minded" and then dash off on some pretense.
I reply...
Haha, Mr. Arvo. I've already replied 7 times. And This is my 8th. I've hardly 'dashed off'. I even stated that I'd check back from time to time.
My statement was my honest evaluation of this site. If you guys/girls are up for critique, how will you ever be able to improve? Failure to accept critique goes totally againt the theme of this article. If my critique sucks, don't worry about it.
Passerby said...
You're entilted to "your" opinion, but the brainwashed Muslim fundamentalist says the same thing, as does the Raelian, as did members of the Heaven's Gate cult, as does most religious cults, including your cult.
I reply...
Same thing. Since I'm new to this site, am I to assume that most of you commenters are regulars? You call Christianity a cult, but you type like robots or clones. All truth claims are not equal. That's absurd.
It certainly doesn't fit this genre, nor do I have the knowledge to speak on every single religious belief in the world. But it's stupid to pretend that they are all equally true or equally false. At every point of disagreement one is closer to the truth than the other.
...
Like I said, I think the site is well put together and has some well thought out and well worded articles, but it seems like you're actually hardened toward discussion, which is very odd! I would think you'd be very friendly people who are excited to discuss these issues and seek the truth with passion. In stark contrast, you seem somewhat bitter, hardened, cliched, robotic, etc. (i don't mean to make a blanket statement. I don't know any of you. I'm just expressing my initial impressions).
I, like you (i assume and hope) and most interested in truth. Lovers of truth should welcome all differing viewpoints since they can only help us clarify what truth is. Lovers of truth should love discussion and friendly natured argumentation.
Does it ever cross your mind that perhaps, some of you, to some degree, have become the atheistic versions of what you hate the most?
"Christians don't believe in an invisble God, we believe in a God who became flesh. He revealed Himself in history."
Karen,
I think your questions are very strange since God is spirit. In other words, my answer for your questions is "N/A"
Just the type of synthetic answer I was expecting because, the Little Boy Soldier for God, got way over his head when he came on this website, he thought he would jump on here and convert a legion of Atheists with his college impressive credentials and ancient Biblical wisdom.
He's got his pseudo job of pastor granted by credited college courses.
How can they give scholarly credited courses for an unproven invisible diety?
Does Santa have a credited college course, or Mickey Mouse or Zeus.
Mat:
"I've visited many sites like this. I find your articles well written in comparison, but your attitudes a bit too close minded to make the site worth a routine visit. Just my opinion."
There's not many sites like this one, again another lie!
There's people out in the world like this guy preaching false doctrines, what a disgrace, humanity has allowed religions to dominate their intelligence.
Matthew, grow up! I know you do not want to, you're a religious Bozo zealot, full of lies!
Go, continue to spread your falsehoods and lies it's just exactly what Christians want to hear, how wonderful they are and that Jesus loves them, this is what you learned after 4 years of useless college indoctrination, just another wacked-out brain-dead
fundamentalist.
Matthew you're a dime-a dozen, go jump into the Bible of lies and stay there, until the lies make you sick, bask in the pseudo religiousity, continue to lie to people for money, that's your job, you're a perpetual liar.
"I, like you (i assume and hope) and most interested in truth. Lovers of truth should welcome all differing viewpoints since they can only help us clarify what truth is. Lovers of truth should love discussion and friendly natured argumentation."
Truth??? What one thing in the Bible represents truth???
Waiting...
Atheism is the non-belief in a god. That's not a worldview, it's simply non-belief.
Matt: Nor do I think people are born atheists, as you say. The evidence is to the contrary.
They're not? What are they born, Christian? That's ludicrous. What possible evidence could you have that infants are born with religion?
Matt: Of course, we could dialogue about all the objections that you brought up. [...] I believe they are faulty objections based on bad history, misinformation, and observation of misinformed Christianity.
That's what Christians always say when they don't have anything to say in response, but are determined to remain closed-minded.
Matt: Your attitudes a bit too close minded to make the site worth a routine visit. Just my opinion.
And that's what Christians say when they're beginning to get pissed off. Sorry, Matt, your religion is bunk. There is no Holy Ghost of power, and the only evidence you will ever have for your invisible dead/un-dead peasant-god on a stick is in your head.
Take care.
This is God speaking here!
Beg, borrow, buy, or steal, Richard Dawkins' THE GOD DELUSION" Read it and come back here and do a book report!
When you have done that I have another assignment for you. I am NOT going to let you into heaven until you get over your obsession with your outdated mythology.
In the meantime please don't tell any children they are going to burn in hell, or there is a mean little guy with a red suit a tail and a pitchfork trying to get them to do bad things.
NOW GIT!
Dano speaks for "HER"
Matt: One is only able to detect a God who is spirit when that God reveals Himself. God has done this in a multitude of ways which we are all free to accept or deny.
No evidence listed at all to support this claim, just a bold statement of Matt's authoritative belief.
Matt: I don't 'expect' anyone to accept my view. […] I hope people will submit to Jesus' authority though.
Matt’s view of authority is that Jesus’ exists and has authority. Matt wants everyone to submit to Matt's view of authority.
Matt: I reject your notion that there is no evidence whatsover. You are using a logical fallacy of assuming your argument is true and using your conclusion as evidence.
Another unsupported statement of authority. Saying something is a logical fallacy does not make it a logical fallacy. One should be able to identify the fallacy, not just throw a meaningless blanket statement out, because that in itself would be a fallacy, or at least an appeal to authority (in this case, Matt's authority).
Matt: This argument (that God is invisible) doesn't make any good sense. If God became flesh, that changes everything. I can't really think of anyone in biblical history or in the time since that was asked to believe in God without some physical evidence.
No physical evidence is offered to support this claim either. Again, only an authoritative statement of belief is offered that such evidence exists, somewhere.
Matt: I find it interesting that you get defensive over my statement that your worldview is not legitimate when you are part of a website seemingly purposed in discrediting another worldview. That being said, the reason I find naturalism illegitimate is because it demands that something came from nothing. I can appreciate someone saying they don't know how the world came about, but I can only be baffled by someone who thinks there's no need for a causer.
I'm not defensive. I'm having fun. No one knows how the world came about. At one time no one knew what caused lightening, earthquakes, or tornadoes. These forces of nature were believed to be cause by a god. Christians believed these forces of nature were caused by GOD or Satan, depending on the prevailing theology of the day. Now we know better. As science moves forward, God retreats. Today he’s retreated all the way back to the beginning of the universe.
Matt: Frankly, I've never asked anyone to trust the Bible. I trust Jesus. Jesus trusted the Bible.
Can anyone say circular? God exists because the Bible says so. The Bible is true because the God of the Bible says so. Jesus existed because the Bible says so. The Bible is trustworthy because the Jesus in the Bible says so.
Matt: Your impication that all claims are of equal merit is one of the most absurd things i've ever read on the internet. and that is saying a lot. certainly you don't live such a principle out in real life.
No, what was meant is that Matt applies atheistic principles in his life every day when he rejects the claims of other non-Christian theists. Matt is an atheist when it comes to the myriad of gods believed in throughout history and the world, except of course, the one he was brought up and trained to believe in. Had Matt been born in Iran, he’d be spending his time in a Mosque, and his arguments would have been equally unsupported.
Matt: Once again, this is a disappointing argument. Infants seemingly have no positive or negative view of God. And even if they did we wouldn't know it. Atheism is active. Infants are passive.
Atheism is non-belief. A-theism: non-belief in a god. Atheism is the default position when one does not have a god belief. Infants are, by default, atheists, because they have to be taught about god. Infants, are , as you admitted neutral. In other words, they are non-believers. Belief is active. Non-belief is passive, as in, "I'm sorry, I just don't believe that story." Infants also do not believe in Santa, the Tooth Fairy, Bigfoot, UFOs, Allah, Mithras, Zeus, Ra, or any other invisible magical entity. Infants are non-believers until taught otherwise. If an infant is isolated from all human verbal contact, the infant will not learn language. Infants learn everything from parents and other people. Infants are atheists. This is obvious.
What Matt seems to think is that the word atheism is an organized denominational movement with doctrines and beliefs marching to war, or something, against religion. All atheism is, is the non-belief in gods, goddesses, angels, devils, and levitating, magical, face-changing, super-saviors on a stick. Some atheists apply their non-belief for various humanist causes, but there is absolutely no "one way" to be an atheist. It only means non-belief.
Matt: Every culture in the history of the world has included some level of belief in deity, no matter how isolated. If atheism was our natural state, this would not be so, naturally.
That’s not entirely true. Please read this article: Primitive Skepticisms.
Matt: But your challenge, that I produce an infant who's willing and able to verbalize his beliefs, and your statement that you'd change your mind if I produce such an infant, shows your closed mindedness. You've already decided that the only things that would convince you that you are wrong are things you know won't happen. In other words, you've set up the test to fail. Your mindset is the complete opposite of what this article was attempting to produce.
Rather than even attempt to offer what he would see as a better way to support his statements of belief that infants are born with religion, Matt chooses instead to toss criticism at the question itself. That’s because Matt believes what he believes and has nothing with which to support that belief except his belief.
My statement was my honest evaluation of this site. If you guys/girls are up for critique, how will you ever be able to improve? Failure to accept critique goes totally againt the theme of this article. If my critique sucks, don't worry about it.
I’m not worried about it… at all. I wonder if Matt is up for critique?
All truth claims are not equal. That's absurd.
All religious truth claims are absolutely equal. None are able to offer any support for their truth claims outside of their religious writings and the belief of believers. Matt also resorts to calling something absurd without showing how it is absurd.
Lovers of truth should welcome all differing viewpoints since they can only help us clarify what truth is. Lovers of truth should love discussion and friendly natured argumentation.
I wonder if Matt can honestly list any books he’s read that are written from the perspective of rejection and non-belief in Christianity. He has already admitted to some measure of ignorance when it comes to his religious competitors.
Does it ever cross your mind that perhaps, some of you, to some degree, have become the atheistic versions of what you hate the most?
No one wants to think they are wrong. However, as I stated, most of us here have already admitted to being wrong about religion. And for many of us, that admission was costly. Some here are former ministers who now are struggling to put fo