What is your best apologetics rationale for me, an ex-believer?

[cogito76]

In the spirit of full disclosure, I am an ex-evangelical Christian who no longer believes. I would describe myself now as agnostic.

I'm interested in what arguments you might use in discussion with me - a believer for many years who has heard (and used) many of the arguments I think you will use, before rejecting them later on. I finally rejected them as I found they did not hold up to rational scrutiny (not that the process was anywhere near as clinical and easy as that sounds!).

So which argument/position do you find the most rationally compelling for your belief? Or do you rely upon factors other than rationality to support your belief?

Cogito.

 

[ChristianT]

The Bible says, "Do not deceive yourselves. If anyone of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight." 1 Corinthians 3:18-19

Logically, since God is the Creator, He would find some degree of excitement in me. Since He is also personal and loving, He would desire to have a relationship with me.

However, I do not believe on reason alone. If a tiger is sitting outside your front door, you aren't going to ponder the possible solution as to how it got there, you are going to run for the phone and call animal control or 9-1-1. There is no logic there...

The way it works:

Tiger --> Fear --> Call for help

The logical solution:

Tiger --> Fear --> stay in safety inside your house

The moral solution:

Tiger --> Fear --> Fight it and kill it

The humane solution:

Tiger --> Fear --> tranquilize it and transport it to a zoo or natural habitat.

I can go on, but logic and reasoning alone do not influence a thought, action, or belief.
Anyway, I would rather know and relate with my God, than know about but be distanced from Him.

I choose experiences, logic, evidence, statistics, poll in that order.

Experiences: All or some events that happen and take place in my life and the lives of others that might or might not happen for everyone else.

Logic: The process of elimination and what comes from what and why

Evidence: the way the world works and all of the results and laws that are universally consistent

Statistics: The sorts of things within the universe that spark the idea that this universe wasn't accidentally or blindly made (numbers, amounts, temperatures, populations, probability, etc.)

Poll: How many people believe what, and who is popular within what belief system.

 

[Whisper of Hope]

The Bible says, "Do not deceive yourselves. If anyone of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight." 1 Corinthians 3:18-19

Well said, ChristianT. And Amen.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In the spirit of full disclosure, I am an ex-evangelical Christian who no longer believes. I would describe myself now as agnostic.

I'm interested in what arguments you might use in discussion with me - a believer for many years who has heard (and used) many of the arguments I think you will use, before rejecting them later on. I finally rejected them as I found they did not hold up to rational scrutiny (not that the process was anywhere near as clinical and easy as that sounds!).

So which argument/position do you find the most rationally compelling for your belief? Or do you rely upon factors other than rationality to support your belief?

Cogito.

I rather think that engaging Christian faith is a matter of the whole mind, which implies emotions AND rational capacity, and that the act of faith is not something reducible to responding to a dichotomy between Wish Fulfillment and/or logic.

Although I may reconsider the priority of reasons for which I have faith (and we are not asking here how much faith I have, but rather whether or not I have 'faith'), for me, the pragmatic test is probably the most, or one of the most, persuasive--Jesus' moral teachings 'work.'

For instance, when I act like the kind of Christian that Jesus intended, it seems like my relationships with my spouse, child, extended family, friends, co-workders, customers, etc. tend to be maintained at a higher, closer, more intimate and robust quality. However, I've observed that on those occasions in my life when I have sought retribution, acted arrogant, used coercian, manipulated a situation to my advantange, used vulgarity, expressed rage, and otherwise brought tears to other people, my relationship with those persons have tended to disintegrate.

So, in short, one of my main reasons for continuing in 'the faith' is that love, grace, understanding, compassion, empathy, sympathy, and burden bearing typically work for building relationships. It also helps that these are commanded by a God who offers blessings and consequences for the application or neglect of these acts--it helps me to think twice when I'd rather act impulsively.

So, there's one reason, Cogito76.

 

[cogito76]

Thanks for the reply, ChristianT.

What is the tiger at the Door to make you believe? Are you referring to Sin?

I do agree that in times of fear and stress we don't always act in reason - emotion and fear can guide our thoughts, actions and beliefs.

But I would argue that this is not humanity at its best. In my opinion, rational and considered thought based upon evidence, logic and reason (in that order) is the optimal basis for guiding our thoughts, actions and beliefs.

Cogito

 

[Publius]

nt

 

[drich0150]

In the spirit of full disclosure, I am an ex-evangelical Christian who no longer believes. I would describe myself now as agnostic.

I'm interested in what arguments you might use in discussion with me - a believer for many years who has heard (and used) many of the arguments I think you will use, before rejecting them later on. I finally rejected them as I found they did not hold up to rational scrutiny (not that the process was anywhere near as clinical and easy as that sounds!).

So which argument/position do you find the most rationally compelling for your belief? Or do you rely upon factors other than rationality to support your belief?

Cogito.

Rationality in this instance is a term used to isolate and exclude any of the typical factors God uses to connect with His people. Rational is only need for those who do not know God, nor are not able to see or hear Him actively partake in their life. It is a last resort of sorts for an isolated man to determine the direction of, or active nature of God.

Truthfully if you were in an active relationship with another person how much "rational" is needed to discern what the other person wants? would you just ask the other person in the relationship? Why do you suppose our relationship with God is to be any different?

 

[cogito76]

So, you knew the Lord?

In 1984 I said the sinners prayer. I prayed. I praised. I spoke in tongues. I certainly thought I had a personal relationship with God through Jesus.

In fact, I was talking to myself......not a completely useless thing to do, as I projected the best of me (and a lot of my father!) onto the (I now think) imaginary character I was praying to. That imaginary entity certainly did help me to do *some* good, as described by 2PhiloVoid above. I have to say I also projected some of the worst of me as well, and met plenty of people in the church who, through their "walk with God" were less than optimally good to others (examples of sexism and homophobia spring to my mind as I type).

Now, I find I can do good without "knowing the Lord".

(For clarity, I am not saying God is imaginary -I don't know if God exists or not!. I am saying the construct I worshipped was imaginary.)

Cogito.

 

[Publius]

In 1984 I said the sinners prayer. I prayed. I praised. I spoke in tongues. I certainly thought I had a personal relationship with God through Jesus.

In fact, I was talking to myself

So then you didn't know Christ?

I am saying the construct I worshipped was imaginary.)

So then, if Christ was imaginary, how could you know Him?

 

[ChristianT]

Thanks for the reply, ChristianT.

What is the tiger at the Door to make you believe? Are you referring to Sin?

I was simply referring to if an actual tiger appeared at your door (around where I live, wild animals showing up isn't new, but a tiger would be surprising and scary), however you could apply it to a situation figuratively. I just didn't intend it as a metaphor

I do agree that in times of fear and stress we don't always act in reason - emotion and fear can guide our thoughts, actions and beliefs.

In some cases, the decisions made in a state of fear has saved many lives. I have read a book on the different stages people go through in disasters, and 1 out of 2 decisions are generally made:

(1) I hear a loud noise and I discover what made it
(2) I hear a loud noise and play dead hoping whatever caused it doesn't harm me.

#1 would present evidence of what made the noise, however
#2 would possibly allow you a chance to live longer if the noise is say, a gunshot.

Both are equally valid and acceptable responses, but in the context of a situation, either one could be a deadly decision.

In the case of it actually being a gunman, #1 could cause you demise
In the case of a collapsing building (such as 9/11), #2 would not be effective in you escaping danger.

Emotions guiding us isn't completely a bad thing. . . Just half of a bad thing

But I would argue that this is not humanity at its best. In my opinion, rational and considered thought based upon evidence, logic and reason (in that order) is the optimal basis for guiding our thoughts, actions and beliefs.

Cogito

I believe that other people should be the fourth basis of a thought and action. In the book, The Unthinkable, the author talks about many cases in 9/11 and a fire story where if not for the actions of people who decided to leave the building, many people would have died because of their evidence, logic, and reasoning.

The problem with logic and reasoning and even evidence to a degree is that all of the above may not be completely gathered.

Some people in the fire story were not aware of the fire in the other room, no staff announced a fire, and there was no sign of fire. The reasoning and logic of the guests would lead them along with the evidence to think and believe that there was no fire, and thus their belief would have killed them. *Note, many people actually did die because of their disbelief in the fire, our hero couldn't reach them all*

Yes, this sounds similar to our predicament and our "hero" sounds similar to Jesus, but the incident I referred to was known in "Unthinkable" as the Beverly Hills fire.

Back to the BH fire, the people who reasoned "no fire" had all the visible evidence, which is all they had until their room caught flames, but upon what they had, they came to their conclusion. Whereas the people who heard our hero-waitor tell everyone about the fire and his urges to evacuate, the people who took this and led by faith in this worker, their lives were saved. He even went back into the flaming building later on several times to bring out more people.

Of course, I don't throw out ALL reasoning, logic, and evidence as incomplete, but I take what we have, trust that what we don't have is what G-d says is there, and that is how I base my relationship with G-d. You could call me a "BH Christian," You can call me Christian in name (both would be applicable ) but whatever you call me, all I want is to follow Christ.

 

[razeontherock]

In 1984 I said the sinners prayer. I prayed. I praised. I spoke in tongues. I certainly thought I had a personal relationship with God through Jesus.

In fact, I was talking to myself......not a completely useless thing to do, as I projected the best of me (and a lot of my father!) onto the (I now think) imaginary character I was praying to.

This is your follow up to your question in your OP, to which I would have asked, "what are your reasons for apostasy?"

My rationale in response to this is already posted in post #9. That being said, I do think that it's possible you may have approached the True and Living G-d in 1984, (when I was first filled with the Holy Ghost btw) and taken a different path than I did. I could have been ordained, but chose not to at the last minute. I would not hazard a guess if you were ever "saved," nor if you are now or not.

I am interested in the differences between us and this sort of thing, and am getting ready to start a thread on the topic here in our Outreach section, in CWR. I hope to see your input there! My time on CF has engaged many, many professing former Christians, (which will be the thread title) and I hope to focus on this aspect with as many of them as possible.

I'll ask you to watch this viddy which describes the process of falling away from the Lord better than anything else I've encountered, and see if it resonates with your experience: (Lyrics start at :35; yah it starts slow. At 3:15 it gets repetitive, but do listen to the end from 3:45 on)

Slow Fade by Casting Crowns with lyrics - YouTube

 

[SolomonVII]

In the spirit of full disclosure, I am an ex-evangelical Christian who no longer believes. I would describe myself now as agnostic.

I'm interested in what arguments you might use in discussion with me - a believer for many years who has heard (and used) many of the arguments I think you will use, before rejecting them later on. I finally rejected them as I found they did not hold up to rational scrutiny (not that the process was anywhere near as clinical and easy as that sounds!).

So which argument/position do you find the most rationally compelling for your belief? Or do you rely upon factors other than rationality to support your belief?

Cogito.

It reminds me of the time when Jesus gave a teaching that all of his disciples found extremely irrational, to the point of being outright embarrassing for them, to say the least.

So they left him.

All but a few of them who stayed behind, just walked away. So when Jesus asked Peter if they were going to leave too, Peter could only shrug and say "Where would we go?"

Sometimes no great apologetic is called for; things are just the way that they are, and that is about it.

But I do wonder, where did the rest of them go? They left the kind of life where they were feeding the masses on a few loaves and a a couple of fish, of healing and encouraging and celebrating and in general just making people who didn't have a lot going for them feel a whole lot better about themselves.

I wonder if where they ended up was any better than that?

 

[Faulty]

I'm interested in what arguments you might use in discussion with me - a believer for many years who has heard (and used) many of the arguments I think you will use, before rejecting them later on. I finally rejected them as I found they did not hold up to rational scrutiny (not that the process was anywhere near as clinical and easy as that sounds!)

You stopped learning too soon. You had answers you "believed" but didn't actually know.

If my little boy came to me one day and told me he rejected math at school today, and he'll no longer be doing it because that day he had learned "2+" and it just didn't make any sense to him, I'd have to tell him to stop the nonsense and get out his homework until he also learns "2=4", and puts them together properly "2+2=4".

But salvation is not simply a head-thing. Who is Jesus to you? Not who is Jesus based on verses you may have memorized, but who is He to you today, personally? You can have all the appropriate answers memorized, but that in itself will not save you.

He's not going to learn it halfway, then think he's got it all figured out.

 

[lesliedellow]

Personally I would take the line that conversion is an activity of the Holy Spirit alone, because only he can change hearts. In the final analysis there is no proof which could compel somebody to believe, and rational arguments are secondary to the desire to believe.

If you have the desire, then your option is either to go with it, or to hang around demanding proof. Such proof as there is, if you can call it that, is existential, and comes over a period of years - or even decades.

If you are a former creationist, the reason it din't sound plausible is that it isn't plausible.

 

[aiki]

In the spirit of full disclosure, I am an ex-evangelical Christian who no longer believes. I would describe myself now as agnostic.

That's too bad. It's been my observation that external conformity to Christianity often obscures a lack of genuine heart-submission to Christ. People frequently mistake high emotion and "miraculous signs" (speaking in tongues, prophetic utterances, etc) for a genuinely spiritually transformative experience with God. It's relatively easy to go through the motions of a religious experience; it's a far more difficult thing to truly submit completely to the will and way of Christ.

I'm interested in what arguments you might use in discussion with me - a believer for many years who has heard (and used) many of the arguments I think you will use, before rejecting them later on. I finally rejected them as I found they did not hold up to rational scrutiny (not that the process was anywhere near as clinical and easy as that sounds!).

What this sounds like to me is, "Try and convince me that I was wrong in the choice I made to apostasize. You won't succeed. I know your arguments and I've rejected them all." It doesn't sound like you're particularly open to being mistaken...

So which argument/position do you find the most rationally compelling for your belief? Or do you rely upon factors other than rationality to support your belief?

I experience God daily. This is the bedrock of my faith. The many arguments I could offer in defense of my faith simply exist in answer to the challenges offered against it that reject my personal experience of God.

Selah.

 

[bling]

Thanks for the reply, ChristianT.

What is the tiger at the Door to make you believe? Are you referring to Sin?

I do agree that in times of fear and stress we don't always act in reason - emotion and fear can guide our thoughts, actions and beliefs.

But I would argue that this is not humanity at its best. In my opinion, rational and considered thought based upon evidence, logic and reason (in that order) is the optimal basis for guiding our thoughts, actions and beliefs.

Cogito

Would it not even be better to have our thoughts, actions and believes guided by what has been given to us if we have already been given a huge unbelievable amount?

If you were given totally undeservingly and unconditionally a thousand trillion dollars with no strings attached, by a benefactor that risked his life to give you the gift, how would you behave, think and act toward this benefactor and His Children?

As an unbeliever you have not been given anything except an opportunity, but the benevolent giver wants to give you and is doing all He can at great pain to himself, a huge undeserving and unconditional gift (the most powerful force in all universes).

This benevolent giver cannot force you to accept the gift (that would be like a shotgun wedding with Him holding the shotgun), so it has to be your choice and there has to be at least perceived likely alternatives (or it is no choice).

To accept such a gift is accepting pure charity and no one likes to accept charity, so what will it take for you to accept charity?

 

[robertvroom]

Where I start would depend on where you are currently at. If you are an atheist, I would start with the beginning of the Universe, and the fact that it is fantastically fine-tuned. It is so fine-tuned in fact, that the main scientific theory is that an infinite number of unobservable, unprovable universes popped into existence from absolute nothingness at a finite point in the past.

From there I would discuss the amazing chances against even a single functioning protein coming to exist by chance in the Universe, even given 13.72 billion years (Stephen Meyer discusses these issues in his book, The Signature in the Cell). I would also mention that if morality is anything other than an evolutionary development, it is strictly relative, and nothing is actually good or evil.

If you are still a theist, I would start with the prophecies of the Old Testament (Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, Isaiah 50, Zechariah 2, 3, 12, Daniel 9:24-27...) I would then discuss the fantastic evidence from archaeology and history, especially the evidence surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus which all but the most liberal handful of scholars accept (including Ehrman, Crosson, Spong and many other highly liberal scholars). These facts include

The twelve facts below are the minimal facts as given by Gary Habermas.

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).


Lastly, I would discuss the fantastic number of early documents for the New Testament, and the reasons to think that the basics of the Christian faith (including the Resurrection) were being preached in Jerusalem within 10 years of the crucifixion.

 

[food4thought]

My faith has been grounded in real experiences with God, things that cannot be rationally explained away as anything else. I did for a while fall away because I thought some of those experiences were explained away, but upon further thought and experience, I realized my "God" experiences really were of a differrent nature than what I thought explained them away.

I would really be interested in hearing about your journey away from God, because I think it would shed some insight for all of us on what apologetics we might use to help you.

All that said, the Bible is the thing that I keep coming back to. Fulfilled prophecy, particularly in the book of Daniel; signs of knowledge that the authors could not have known when written; etc.

Here are a few audio files on Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy that I think you should here, even if you are already familiar with the prophecy:

66/40 Radio Broadcast

66/40 Radio Broadcast

66/40 Radio Broadcast


Hope these help kindle a spark of your former faith.

In love;
Mike

 

[danluc]

I would really be interested in hearing about your journey away from God, because I think it would shed some insight for all of us on what apologetics we might use to help you.

I would also be interested! I'd like to hear about what kinds of rational thought had led you to lose faith? And if you could have your faith back, would you?

 

[andreha]

In the spirit of full disclosure, I am an ex-evangelical Christian who no longer believes. I would describe myself now as agnostic.

I'm interested in what arguments you might use in discussion with me - a believer for many years who has heard (and used) many of the arguments I think you will use, before rejecting them later on. I finally rejected them as I found they did not hold up to rational scrutiny (not that the process was anywhere near as clinical and easy as that sounds!).

So which argument/position do you find the most rationally compelling for your belief? Or do you rely upon factors other than rationality to support your belief?

Cogito.

Well, for what it's worth, here's my 2c:

Child-like faith tends to lead to very powerful manifestations. When one tells a small child something, they tend to believe fully. Some children have such powerful testimonies, that they find that no adult would believe them when they talk about those testimonies. I'm an example of one of those children, who heard about Jesus, and called out for His help - about 34 years ago. After asking His help, I was instantaneously freed from a torment that made me lose the will to live. That confirmed my faith in God.

Since then, I've personally experienced a lot of miraculous events. Also, all the answered prayers solidified my faith. I still experience miracles. Like the other day, when my little baby girl found a shard of glass and began chewing on it. I heard the crunching sounds - loud and clear. It was only after checking her mouth that a sense of horror filled me. What was more amazing was that she had absolutely no injuries of any kind. No pain, no blood, no tears.

Here's the problem:

All these testimonies are hard to believe for someone who wasn't there. I know - many Christians find it hard to believe when I tell them about the things that the Lord does in my life.

So, where does that leave you? Well, if you truly desire to experience God's influence in your life, you'll have to ask Him for yourself. Also, if you struggle to believe, then confess that to Him, and ask Him to give you faith, with which to believe. The thing is that we need to be completely honest, open and humble before God - like a child.