How many ex-Christians are there here on CF and reason for leaving Christianity?

[Silmarien]

Are thoughts and prayers really empty platitudes? Or is somebody yet again trying to make us feel inadequate and broken? Even though I no longer believe in God the way most Christians do, I still spend time praying, offering intentions, for people in my life. The idea those thoughts are empty is deeply hurtful, and I'm sure this is the case for many people who take "thoughts and prayers" seriously.

If you're using thoughts and prayers as a smokescreen to oppose attempts to actually introduce legislation that could address the problem, then yes. They are worse than empty platitudes.

The not-so-thinly veiled anger and resentments of many in the Christian left bother me almost as much as the petty sexual morality of Christians on the right. Neither are wholesome attitudes. Many people who are enmeshed in exploitative systems of various sorts are not bad or sinful people, and personal attacks are unlikely to bring forth any real dialogue and opportunity for change. In many cases they are simply victims. As Thich Nhat Hanh said, those people need help, not our anger. He correctly understands that environmental destruction, for instance, is rooted in alienation- that "lack" that many Christians peddle in, in the first place.

Alienation? I think there's more going on with Bolsonaro than alienation.

 

[FireDragon76]

If you're using thoughts and prayers as a smokescreen to oppose attempts to actually introduce legislation that could address the problem, then yes. They are worse than empty platitudes.

"Could" being the critical word. People at the turn of the last century thought something as simple as Prohibition would address the problem of alcohol abuse... and it didn't. At least not without serious consequences. Even the best of intentions can ultimately amount to something bad if they lack accompanying insight.

Alienation? I think there's more going on with Bolsonaro than alienation.

I think you aren't taking what I'm saying very seriously. You want to moralize the issue, when I'm saying that's actually counter-productive in the long term.

 

[Chris V++]

I was raised in a Christian faith tradition, left to dabble in new age and Eastern religion, and was restored a reborn Christian. I think I understand what Iconoclast means by Jesus being the author and finisher. I will never thirst again.

 

[Silmarien]

"Could" being the critical word. People at the turn of the last century thought something as simple as Prohibition would address the problem of alcohol abuse... and it didn't. At least not without serious consequences. Even the best of intentions can ultimately amount to something bad if they lack accompanying insight.

I don't think it's at all reasonable to compare attempts to introduce legislation banning civilian possession of assault weapons or even simply to improve enforcement of laws already on the books with Prohibition.

I do think that most of our social problems require a more careful analysis than they often get, but that doesn't make the underlying moral issues disappear. The corporate greed of the NRA is a moral issue.

I think you aren't taking what I'm saying very seriously. You want to moralize the issue, when I'm saying that's actually counter-productive in the long term.

If you want me to take what you are saying seriously, you should not start by complaining about the "not-so-thinly veiled anger and resentments" of the Christian left, and certainly not while simultaneously condemning personal attacks.

 

[dlamberth]

One thing that Thich Nhat Hanh teaches is that no ideology, even Buddhism, should be accepted as absolute truth.

If you meet the Buddha on the road, Kill Him.

 

[FireDragon76]

I can see why this would be confusing; most of us were raised in a very "take it or leave it" religious paradigm where you had to worship one and only one god because he would send you to hell if you did not. You better hope you had the right understanding of him!

Polytheism is decidedly looser and could not function in such as exclusionary framework for socio-political reasons. As populations integrated with those who had differing gods, they had to recognize that such gods probably exist for the other in as equal capacity as their own. As the empires grow up there come more elaborate frameworks for integrating them, such as Ptolemy's reign in Egypt or the Roman expansion into Celtic Gaul, Iberia and Dacia. The Babylonians had to do this to a lesser degree.

Generally speaking its a process of self-discovery where your immortal soul is not on the line and if you're a polytheist; you generally believe that different gods have different focuses in life. Why would you need them in equal measure at all times? Do we not have shifts of needs, moods, priorities and values? It's also key to note that the gods are generally not seen as perfect (by some human standard) or omnipotent; they're agents acting on the platform of the universe and have their own distinct motivations. This is hard to parse from a monotheistic concept but becomes more intuitive as you explore the philosophical arguments.

I know nobody asked but I might suggest John Michael Greer's World Full of Gods for a decent philosophical argument in favor of polythiesm. It's not really out to convert anyone because that doesn't have any connotation the same way it would in monotheist circles but its a fantastic rundown of arguments explaining polytheism.

I looked up that book on Amazon, out of curiosity, and have been reading it all evening. He makes some good points, though I think his use of the word "pagan" is a bit problematic, treating very diverse religions and spiritualities with a very broad brush.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

That's your ideology talking. It's comforting for you to believe that, rather than to be open to the different experiences of other people.

There's a Buddhist nun named Pannavati who is a former Christian pastor. Becoming a Buddhist nun had nothing to do with not valuing her Christian past. Likewise, in the documentary Walk with Me, about Thich Nhat Hanh's Plum Village in southern France, one of the monks there is also a Catholic priest.

Some of us find we have approached the limits of what we can do in a particular faith tradition and we want to live life more deeply.

People make tragic decisions everyday.
Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.
He is not a way, He is the only way.
To turn from Jesus is to welcome second death.
That is a tragic mistake.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

All pagan and new age philosophy does not answer the sin question.

 

[holo]

All pagan and new age philosophy does not answer the sin question.

Sometimes it's not the answer that is wrong, but the question itself.

 

[FireDragon76]

All pagan and new age philosophy does not answer the sin question.

Some do... and some just don't consider it relevant or valid. However, almost no religions think of sin in the starkly juridical terms as Calvinism does.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Sometimes it's not the answer that is wrong, but the question itself.

The fact is that all sin is going to be punished,in the sinner or the substitute.
It is not a question to be debated.
God is going to punish each and every sin.
Every idle word. We are guilty in need of mercy.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Some do... and some just don't consider it relevant or valid. However, almost no religions think of sin in the starkly juridical terms as Calvinism does.

They will think of it for all eternity if they do not repent.

 

[FireDragon76]

They will think of it for all eternity if they do not repent.

It's just those sorts of threats that don't engender respect for Christians.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

It's just those sorts of threats that don't engender respect for Christians.

Facts are not threats. They are certain my friend.
God did not send a multiple choice test down from heaven.
He sent His Son to suffer and die for or sinners.
If our sin was so wicked Jesus had to suffer as our substitute for everyone believing , I would not treat it so lightly as if you had any other option.
Snowflakes do not like straight truth and say it is arrogant and rude, but no one who God saves from their sins thinks that .

 

[ananda]

Facts are not threats. They are certain my friend.

I perceive different facts.

 

[awitch]

Facts are not threats. They are certain my friend.

No, they are very much your personal beliefs. Unless you'd like to hand over your secret collection of empirical evidence, they are not established facts.

 

[FireDragon76]

The fact is that all sin is going to be punished,in the sinner or the substitute.
It is not a question to be debated.
God is going to punish each and every sin.
Every idle word. We are guilty in need of mercy.

Then he should show mercy, regardless of what any of us finite beings happen to believe. If he created the world, he should take responsibility for it.

 

[Rajni]

Those who leave are apostates they were not actually Christians
They were religious but never saved.
1jn2:19

That statement is a good example of the No True
Scotsman fallacy.

It also suggests that True Christians™ are unteachable
and therefore unable to learn from new information and
make changes accordingly.

It is also against forum rules to insist that someone isn't
or wasn't a Christian. I would advise caution on that
front.

 

[Rubiks]

That statement is a good example of the No True
Scotsman fallacy.

It also suggests that True Christians™ are unteachable
and therefore unable to learn from new information and
make changes accordingly.

It is also against forum rules to insist that someone isn't
or wasn't a Christian. I would advise caution on that
front.

The "doesn't really have faith is he/she doesn't interpret the Bible the same way I do" argument is another prominent no true Scotsman fallacy on this website.

 

[Silmarien]

The fact is that all sin is going to be punished,in the sinner or the substitute.
It is not a question to be debated.
God is going to punish each and every sin.
Every idle word. We are guilty in need of mercy.

I worry that this is a somewhat unbalanced approach to the reality of sin. There have been comments in this thread about Christianity creating a toxic environment for people who struggle with self-acceptance, and while I disagree that the problem is the doctrine of sin itself (I think there are good reasons to hold that self-hatred is a particularly pernicious form of pride, and thus a manifestation of sin as well, see for example: Self-hatred, the forgotten human condition - Anthony Bradley), I am concerned that certain approaches to sin are just exacerbating the problem.

What would you say to someone who struggles with self-hatred? Hopefully not "your self-hatred is sinful and you deserve to be punished for it."