[OPEN] Getting it from all sides

[SallyNow]

I hope this is indeed an open thread!

Does it frustrate anyone else that moderate and liberal Christians (whatever that means!) seem to get critisism from all sides? Some very conservative folks claim moderate and liberal Christians are lukewarm Christians, are Christians who think the Bible is just a good philosophy when in fact moderate and liberal Christians often see the Bible as full of Truth, but not necessarly literal.

And there are the non-religious folks, most of whom are very kind, but some of whom are critical of all religion and think that only the fire-and-brimstone Christians are being honest... that liberal and moderate Christians are just Easter Bunny and Santa Claus Christians who haven't studied Christianity enough! Of course, the truth is that all the moderate and liberal Christians I know are very learned and it is because of this processof Biblical research that they became moderate or liberal Christians.

Why can't we just live and let live? There are some things which are immoral and there are other which are ignorant... but being a moderate or liberal Christian is neither of these!

 

[HumbleMan]

I understand how you feel. I personally have a conservative view of the bible (inerrant) and my faith, but I choose to demonstrate my faith with the love and understanding that both Christ and Paul showed to the sinners and the unbelievers. So when I stand up for my views, I get hammered (sometimes) for being a fundie (which I am totally not in the current sense of the term), and when I show compassion and work to make someone's life better, I am called a liberal or socialist.

I hate to tell these people, I am what I am (props to Popeye), and God will judge me one day, as He will all. And I'd rather be judged on what I did rather than what I told someone else to do.

 

[SallyNow]

Oh! That's another thing: why we use these labels (conservative, moderate, liberal) which have so many meanings and yet can be meaningless jargon when used improperly or as an insult, or to stereotype whole sections of humanity!

 

[dies-l]

I hope this is indeed an open thread!

Does it frustrate anyone else that moderate and liberal Christians (whatever that means!) seem to get critisism from all sides? Some very conservative folks claim moderate and liberal Christians are lukewarm Christians, are Christians who think the Bible is just a good philosophy when in fact moderate and liberal Christians often see the Bible as full of Truth, but not necessarly literal.

And there are the non-religious folks, most of whom are very kind, but some of whom are critical of all religion and think that only the fire-and-brimstone Christians are being honest... that liberal and moderate Christians are just Easter Bunny and Santa Claus Christians who haven't studied Christianity enough! Of course, the truth is that all the moderate and liberal Christians I know are very learned and it is because of this process of Biblical research that they became moderate or liberal Christians.

Why can't we just live and let live? There are some things which are immoral and there are other which are ignorant... but being a moderate or liberal Christian is neither of these!

There's really two ways to look at that situation: One is the more natural response, which is to allow yourself to become upset by the fact that it's so hard to find someone to relate to, to see your beliefs as a sort of anomaly or to become discouraged and/or irritated by the fact so many people seem to see it that way. Another is to be encouraged and see your "unique" beliefs as an opportunity. Think for a moment about the words of Jesus in the beatitudes, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Now, I am not suggesting that we should take on the "persecution complex" that seems to be so common among some evangelical groups. But, we should keep in mind, that according to Jesus' words, there is a blessing in that feeling of "persecution" that we may feel, however slight may be. So the question then, when you have such feelings, can be, "how am I being blessed in this moment?" rather than "how do I make it stop?"

So, what is the blessing that goes with the skepticism that we seem to be receive from both sides. The biggest opportunity that I see is opportunity. When we refuse to think of Christ's body as an exclusive club, we open up doors of conversation with people who have become skeptical of Christ's message. Because we think about things differently, we are able to share the gospel with people who have grown skeptical or even cynical of the Church. This doesn't mean that every conversation will necessarily convince the other person, but our ability to have the conversation allows us to show the other person the love of Jesus, even if only for a moment. And, that is really what it's all about, isn't it? So, one blessing is the opportunity to love and build relationships with people who have been turned off by others in the Church. Another blessing is the sense of brotherhood that we can share with other believers. Even if they do not reciprocate, we can see the most conservative of believers as our brothers and sisters in Christ. Even where we disagree with their modus operandi, we can relate to them as colleagues in a common endeavor , that being to share God's love with a world that needs it. We can know what it is to disagree with them in love. And, in doing so, we are able to have a unique and exciting conversation with them as well.

This brings me to a third point, we can be peacemakers. It feels sometimes like we are entrenched in a middle ground between the cynics and "true believers." God's kingdom needs both, and by relating to both camps, we have an exciting opportunity to unite, that is to bring the cynics into the church and to shape the Church into a more loving, welcoming, and Christlike body. One trend that I have been seeing among evangelical churches is the great effect that liberal theology has had on them. Many churches in the evangelical movement are really focusing on teachings of grace and forgiveness and reaching out to people where they are. Such churches still hold to strongly orthodox theology in many ways, but are learning to place people above theology, and to love people, even the worst of "sinners" the same way that Jesus did. I sincerely believe that such churches are made possible because of the model of liberal and moderate Christians who have been doing the same thing for a long time.

So, while it can be difficult to hold views that aren't well respected on either side, being able to think through such things and to hold onto such views despite opposition can be a source of great blessing and opportunity. Even the opposition itself can be an opportunity to love others as Christ does. And, while it can be hard at times, when nobody seems to relate, it can be reassuring to think about the blessings (for ourselves and for others) that are created when we place ourselves in such a position.

I struggle with this too. Sometimes, I get upset and down about it. Sometimes, I learn to see it as opportunity. When I do the latter, my relationship with God is strengthened, and I have peace and joy in my life. When I do the former, I struggle. But, I find, that when I am healthiest in my relationship with God, I am not all that bothered by the fact that no one seems to agree with me. And this is the point that I am always trying to seek in my relationship with God.

 

[BeginnerOnAPath]

I understand that you don't like it when other people judge your religious beliefs, but democracy benefits when ideas aren't above criticism because some people base their identity on them. Ideas must earn respect on their merits.

Liberal Christians invite criticism, for example, when they speak of respecting science while continuing to believe in supernatural creator entities. Respect for the scientific method should preclude saying things like "you can't prove God doesn't exist, so I am justified in believing in Him." Liberal Christians also sometimes protest that they do not believe in a vision of God that is incompatible with science. For example, "I see God in the love we show for each other, or the miracle of every new day" and similar sentiments. Ok, so why is it necessary to use a word that betokens supernaturalism for things that need no supernaturalism to be described? We already have words like "love" or "awe" or "wonder" to describe what you are talking about, why dress it up in outdated supernatural concepts?

I suspect it is because there are many social benefits to being able to say "I believe in God," even if in your mind you redefine it to be non-supernatural. Atheists are the most distrusted minority in society. I see Liberal Christians looking to have it both ways by using religious language to stay in the "religion club," while redefining it to avoid being lumped in with evangelicals and fundamentalists who lose respect for being even more irrational. I'm not accusing anyone of consciously and cynically doing what I describe, I'm just saying that people react unconsciously to social pressure. That same social pressure breeds prejudice against atheists. It is better to fight that social pressure than it is to bow to it. As long as Liberal Christians feel the need to "prove their bona fides" to avoid being labeled atheists, actual atheists will continue to lack social support, continue to be hated and feared. That's injustice.

 

[fuzzymel]

I am liberal and have no interest whatsoever in science. I personally see myself as liberal because I prefer to believe in Gods rules rather than church rules/traditions.

I also have respect for peoples beliefs (Christian or not). Just because I dont agree with it doesnt mean their beliefs are not valid. Problem is a lot of Christians dont show the same kind of respect.

 

[dies-l]

I understand that you don't like it when other people judge your religious beliefs, but democracy benefits when ideas aren't above criticism because some people base their identity on them. Ideas must earn respect on their merits.

Liberal Christians invite criticism, for example, when they speak of respecting science while continuing to believe in supernatural creator entities. Respect for the scientific method should preclude saying things like "you can't prove God doesn't exist, so I am justified in believing in Him." Liberal Christians also sometimes protest that they do not believe in a vision of God that is incompatible with science. For example, "I see God in the love we show for each other, or the miracle of every new day" and similar sentiments. Ok, so why is it necessary to use a word that betokens supernaturalism for things that need no supernaturalism to be described? We already have words like "love" or "awe" or "wonder" to describe what you are talking about, why dress it up in outdated supernatural concepts?

I suspect it is because there are many social benefits to being able to say "I believe in God," even if in your mind you redefine it to be non-supernatural. Atheists are the most distrusted minority in society. I see Liberal Christians looking to have it both ways by using religious language to stay in the "religion club," while redefining it to avoid being lumped in with evangelicals and fundamentalists who lose respect for being even more irrational. I'm not accusing anyone of consciously and cynically doing what I describe, I'm just saying that people react unconsciously to social pressure. That same social pressure breeds prejudice against atheists. It is better to fight that social pressure than it is to bow to it. As long as Liberal Christians feel the need to "prove their bona fides" to avoid being labeled atheists, actual atheists will continue to lack social support, continue to be hated and feared. That's injustice.

It seems to me that your assumption about people who reject supernaturalism, while embracing Theism, is somewhat misdirected. There are probably liberal Christians who fit completely the description that you provide. I don't believe, however, this is true of all, or even most, liberal Christians. Most people I've met that define God in terms of some warm-fuzziness, but who reject any sort of supernatural understanding of God do not identify themselves as Christians. This isn't to say that such people don't exist, only that this is far from an accurate description of liberal Christians on the whole. I think that most people who identify themselves as "liberal Christian" believe what they do because they feel lead to believe that way by a real and supernatural Deity, either through Scripture or direct revelation by the Holy Spirit. For example, a person may read Genesis 1, and, believing that God is speaking to him through it, be convinced that God created the universe. He may then hear a scientist explain that the universe was created as a result of a big bang. Some people would say that, if the latter is true, it disproves the former. A liberal Christian, however, may look beyond the assumption that the two statements are mutually exclusive, and understand the former in light of the latter. Thus, he can accept that God created the universe via the big bang, because there is nothing in either of these beliefs that contradicts the other.

My experience is that liberal Christians will tend to grant at least as much deference to their faith as they do to science, but they have yet to encounter a situation in which the two are in direct conflict. More conservative Christians, who accept a more literal translation of the Bible, on the other hand, are more likely to find such conflicts, and thus reject some scientific "discoveries", while not explicitly rejecting the scientific method. But, let's assume for a moment that a scientist could prove that God does not exist. Based on my experience with liberal Christians, I believe that the majority of them would reject this scientific finding in favor of their experience with and faith in God. Now, I don't believe that will ever happen, so my theory will likely never be put to the test. But, I do think it is important to understand what liberal Christians actually believe before you accuse them of betraying the cause that you would like them to champion, but which is contradictory to their beliefs. (Incidentially, there is no specific set of beliefs known as "liberal Christianity" so, I am only to speak in generalities, as it would be impossible to define exactly what liberal Christians believe).

I do agree with you that liberal Christianity, like all viewpoints, should be subjected to criticism.We all grow in our knowledge and understanding of ourselves and others when we face criticism of those who disagree. We grow even more when we subject our own views to criticism. I also understand that Christians are sometimes very resistant to face such criticism in an honest and intelligent way. Liberal Christians are not immune form this criticism. But, I would like to encourage you as an atheist to subject your views to the same scrutiny that you expect Christians to. I've known many atheists that adamantly refuse to do this, but I won't go so far as to make a generalization about this based upon my limited experience. But, regardless of what you now believe, such openness to criticism, I've found, is the only way any of us really grow in our understanding of ourselves and each other, but is one of things that we as humans resist the most.

 

[BeginnerOnAPath]

It seems to me that your assumption about people who reject supernaturalism, while embracing Theism, is somewhat misdirected. There are probably liberal Christians who fit completely the description that you provide. I don't believe, however, this is true of all, or even most, liberal Christians. Most people I've met that define God in terms of some warm-fuzziness, but who reject any sort of supernatural understanding of God do not identify themselves as Christians. This isn't to say that such people don't exist, only that this is far from an accurate description of liberal Christians on the whole. I think that most people who identify themselves as "liberal Christian" believe what they do because they feel lead to believe that way by a real and supernatural Deity, either through Scripture or direct revelation by the Holy Spirit. For example, a person may read Genesis 1, and, believing that God is speaking to him through it, be convinced that God created the universe. He may then hear a scientist explain that the universe was created as a result of a big bang. Some people would say that, if the latter is true, it disproves the former. A liberal Christian, however, may look beyond the assumption that the two statements are mutually exclusive, and understand the former in light of the latter. Thus, he can accept that God created the universe via the big bang, because there is nothing in either of these beliefs that contradicts the other.

There is a difference between accepting the results of science as valid, and respecting science itself. Science is not just the results, its the process. Part of the scientific method is not believing extraordinary claims in the absence of compelling evidence. That is where the contradiction between claiming to respect science while believing in supernatural entities lies. And yes, scientists can be and some are believers, but it is because they aren't applying the scientific method to their beliefs. They are engaging in double-think.

My experience is that liberal Christians will tend to grant at least as much deference to their faith as they do to science, but they have yet to encounter a situation in which the two are in direct conflict. More conservative Christians, who accept a more literal translation of the Bible, on the other hand, are more likely to find such conflicts, and thus reject some scientific "discoveries", while not explicitly rejecting the scientific method. But, let's assume for a moment that a scientist could prove that God does not exist. Based on my experience with liberal Christians, I believe that the majority of them would reject this scientific finding in favor of their experience with and faith in God. Now, I don't believe that will ever happen, so my theory will likely never be put to the test. But, I do think it is important to understand what liberal Christians actually believe before you accuse them of betraying the cause that you would like them to champion, but which is contradictory to their beliefs. (Incidentially, there is no specific set of beliefs known as "liberal Christianity" so, I am only to speak in generalities, as it would be impossible to define exactly what liberal Christians believe).

See, my experiences with liberal Christians is that they want to be thought of as rational, and they get annoyed when someone tosses around words like "irrational", "Santa Claus", and so on. The liberal Christians I know of define themselves against their evangelical and fundamentalist brethren by their acceptance of science. I agree that there is no way to know what they would do if what you suggest happens, but if some would reject such proof, and at the same time proclaim themselves respectful of science, then aren't those liberal Christians really fooling themselves?

I do agree with you that liberal Christianity, like all viewpoints, should be subjected to criticism.We all grow in our knowledge and understanding of ourselves and others when we face criticism of those who disagree. We grow even more when we subject our own views to criticism. I also understand that Christians are sometimes very resistant to face such criticism in an honest and intelligent way. Liberal Christians are not immune form this criticism. But, I would like to encourage you as an atheist to subject your views to the same scrutiny that you expect Christians to. I've known many atheists that adamantly refuse to do this, but I won't go so far as to make a generalization about this based upon my limited experience. But, regardless of what you now believe, such openness to criticism, I've found, is the only way any of us really grow in our understanding of ourselves and each other, but is one of things that we as humans resist the most.

Don't worry about it. I used to be a liberal Christian myself. I've thought long and hard about this, and I continue to research religion to try to understand its origins, characteristics, and consequences better.

 

[CaDan]

What is "science"?

 

[dies-l]

There is a difference between accepting the results of science as valid, and respecting science itself. Science is not just the results, its the process. Part of the scientific method is not believing extraordinary claims in the absence of compelling evidence. That is where the contradiction between claiming to respect science while believing in supernatural entities lies. And yes, scientists can be and some are believers, but it is because they aren't applying the scientific method to their beliefs. They are engaging in double-think.

You are assuming that the existence of God is an extraordinary claim that lacks evidence. I am not quite sure how you come to either of these conclusions, except perhaps from your own personal experiences and prejudices. Now, we both have to admit that, using the scientific method, the existence of God can neither be proven nor disproved. On the other hand, the fact that there is insufficient evidence to prove something does not mean that there insufficient evidence to support a rational belief. There are, in fact, logical arguments that support the necessary reality of God. The fact that there may also be such arguments against the existence of God does not render it irrational to place more credence in the former than in the latter. It would seem to me that, if choosing one side of an arguable issue is irrational, then the only "rational" viewpoint would be agnosticism, which is often attacked by both sides as somewhat spineless. Instead, I would suggest that, where the evidence could support either side of a question (such as "is there a God?"), if we are to rationally be able to believe anything, we must rationally be able to place our faith in the side that seems to make the most sense. To (liberal) Christians, this would be to place faith in the existence of God, rather than the lack thereof.

To be an atheist requires no less faith than to be a theist. The atheist believes that, in spite of experience of thousands of years of human history, and in spite of no proof to the contrary, God most clearly does not exist. I say this to rebut the notion that belief in a supernatural Deity is extraordinary. Human history suggests that it is quite an ordinary and normal thing for people to believe in a greater being, even one that is supernatural. And, with insufficient evidence to prove or disprove its (His) existence, you can hardly show that it is irrational to choose belief over disbelief. Both choices require a large amount of faith, as both rely on accepting as fact that which cannot be proven.

See, my experiences with liberal Christians is that they want to be thought of as rational, and they get annoyed when someone tosses around words like "irrational", "Santa Claus", and so on. The liberal Christians I know of define themselves against their evangelical and fundamentalist brethren by their acceptance of science. I agree that there is no way to know what they would do if what you suggest happens, but if some would reject such proof, and at the same time proclaim themselves respectful of science, then aren't those liberal Christians really fooling themselves?

If faith and science ever came into direct conflict, then all who accept the validity of both would have to choose one or the other. But, considering that the two do not conflict, but in fact lend support to one another, would seem to support the validity of a belief system that embraces them both.

Don't worry about it. I used to be a liberal Christian myself. I've thought long and hard about this, and I continue to research religion to try to understand its origins, characteristics, and consequences better.

Research is not the same as self-criticism. The problem with most of us is that we aren't afraid to do the research; we are just afraid to allow our attitudes to be changed when our research does not support our current attitudes. My experience is that Christians (myself, even, to some extent) and Atheists tend to be some of the most unwilling people to apply such criticism to their own beliefs. I can't claim to know your heart on this, but I can say you can do all of the research in the world, and if it's done with a closed mind, it will be a fruitless endeavor.

I will also suggest that the fact that you have changed your position does not necessarily indicate that you have now opened your mind. I, myself have gone from liberal Christian to Buddhist to Atheist to Evangelical Christian, and the farther I go in this journey, the more tempting it is for me to act as though I have arrived at the truth.

 

[Mling]

I went through high school with one foot in the Bible club and the other in a Dungeons & Dragons crowd.

Yes, I have noticed this.

edit: hee, random memory. The town I lived in growing up had a 24-hour relay every year to raise money for stuff. I went with my gamer friends one year, and we played random games for most of the night--the sort that many would consider "evil." Our 'campsite' was right next to my church youth group's site. Got some funny looks.

 

[united4Peace]

You are assuming that the existence of God is an extraordinary claim that lacks evidence. I am not quite sure how you come to either of these conclusions, except perhaps from your own personal experiences and prejudices. Now, we both have to admit that, using the scientific method, the existence of God can neither be proven nor disproved. On the other hand, the fact that there is insufficient evidence to prove something does not mean that there insufficient evidence to support a rational belief. There are, in fact, logical arguments that support the necessary reality of God. The fact that there may also be such arguments against the existence of God does not render it irrational to place more credence in the former than in the latter. It would seem to me that, if choosing one side of an arguable issue is irrational, then the only "rational" viewpoint would be agnosticism, which is often attacked by both sides as somewhat spineless. Instead, I would suggest that, where the evidence could support either side of a question (such as "is there a God?"), if we are to rationally be able to believe anything, we must rationally be able to place our faith in the side that seems to make the most sense. To (liberal) Christians, this would be to place faith in the existence of God, rather than the lack thereof.

To be an atheist requires no less faith than to be a theist. The atheist believes that, in spite of experience of thousands of years of human history, and in spite of no proof to the contrary, God most clearly does not exist. I say this to rebut the notion that belief in a supernatural Deity is extraordinary. Human history suggests that it is quite an ordinary and normal thing for people to believe in a greater being, even one that is supernatural. And, with insufficient evidence to prove or disprove its (His) existence, you can hardly show that it is irrational to choose belief over disbelief. Both choices require a large amount of faith, as both rely on accepting as fact that which cannot be proven.




If faith and science ever came into direct conflict, then all who accept the validity of both would have to choose one or the other. But, considering that the two do not conflict, but in fact lend support to one another, would seem to support the validity of a belief system that embraces them both.





Research is not the same as self-criticism. The problem with most of us is that we aren't afraid to do the research; we are just afraid to allow our attitudes to be changed when our research does not support our current attitudes. My experience is that Christians (myself, even, to some extent) and Atheists tend to be some of the most unwilling people to apply such criticism to their own beliefs. I can't claim to know your heart on this, but I can say you can do all of the research in the world, and if it's done with a closed mind, it will be a fruitless endeavor.

I will also suggest that the fact that you have changed your position does not necessarily indicate that you have now opened your mind. I, myself have gone from liberal Christian to Buddhist to Atheist to Evangelical Christian, and the farther I go in this journey, the more tempting it is for me to act as though I have arrived at the truth.

May be off topic...
However I tried the Atheist route...didnt work as I cant stop my belief in God...
I believe what I believe...but again I do understand the OP as one does get it from all sides...
at times one does feel like just letting go and giving up "Christianity"...but I dont want to walk away from God (though I do know God never leaves us).
You mention Buddhist...
I have heard some do believe in God and some dont...
is it worth looking into??
Would you mind me asking about both your positive and negative experiences as a Buddhist?
Thanks

 

[dies-l]

May be off topic...
However I tried the Atheist route...didnt work as I cant stop my belief in God...
I believe what I believe...but again I do understand the OP as one does get it from all sides...
at times one does feel like just letting go and giving up "Christianity"...but I dont want to walk away from God (though I do know God never leaves us).
You mention Buddhist...
I have heard some do believe in God and some dont...
is it worth looking into??
Would you mind me asking about both your positive and negative experiences as a Buddhist?
Thanks

I have been out of town for the last week and a half, so I am just reading this post now. If you're still interested, I will try to post a response after I have had a chance to think about it for a bit.

 

[Im_A]

I hope this is indeed an open thread!

Does it frustrate anyone else that moderate and liberal Christians (whatever that means!) seem to get critisism from all sides? Some very conservative folks claim moderate and liberal Christians are lukewarm Christians, are Christians who think the Bible is just a good philosophy when in fact moderate and liberal Christians often see the Bible as full of Truth, but not necessarly literal.

And there are the non-religious folks, most of whom are very kind, but some of whom are critical of all religion and think that only the fire-and-brimstone Christians are being honest... that liberal and moderate Christians are just Easter Bunny and Santa Claus Christians who haven't studied Christianity enough! Of course, the truth is that all the moderate and liberal Christians I know are very learned and it is because of this processof Biblical research that they became moderate or liberal Christians.

Why can't we just live and let live? There are some things which are immoral and there are other which are ignorant... but being a moderate or liberal Christian is neither of these!

it used to frustrate me, but then when you realize that conservatives and fundies get probably the same amount of criticism from liberal Christians and non-Christians, it's kind of like, well, take the shots with a smile and just live in peace with who you are.

 

[united4Peace]

I have been out of town for the last week and a half, so I am just reading this post now. If you're still interested, I will try to post a response after I have had a chance to think about it for a bit.

Yes...definelty

Thanks

 

[Catherineanne]

Does it frustrate anyone else that moderate and liberal Christians (whatever that means!) seem to get critisism from all sides?

No, this does not bother me. Everyone on earth gets criticism on all sides, unless they are at such an extreme position in relation to the world that they are about to fall off the edge. (And probably psychopathic.)

In a universe of infinite size, any given point within that universe will be the exact centre.... (bit of science there!)

In a theological universe of infinite size (ok, not really infinite, but go with the imagery for a moment) any given person within that theological universe will be at the exact centre of orthodoxy.

Ergo, I do not see myself in relation to my faith as a 'liberal'; I am Christ's true Orthodoxy as I see it; the benchmark of what Christianity is to me, and by extension to the world. Not just me; each one of us must believe this to be true, or else we would move to stand with Christ's true Orthodoxy. Nobody ever willingly adopts a heretical stance.

I then measure everyone else in relation to my own central position. Conservatives are to the right of me, Ultra Libs to the left of me. Fundies are on the lunatic fringe, way out on the edge of existence, and tolerated just as a bouncy young puppy would be tolerated, for their cuteness, even if they are not housetrained.

And given that I am, as demonstrated, the centre of the said universe, it is understandable that any comments/attacks/criticisms will be aimed from the edge to the centre, and will be perceived from where I stand as 'getting it from all sides.'

The comfort we can find is that only extremists only get it from one side. So if that is true of you, be careful not to fall off the edge.

 

[Catherineanne]

take the shots with a smile and just live in peace with who you are.

This is a very important point. People of insecure faith will often overdefend, in an over robost manner which is felt very much as an attack. It is an important part of secure faith (wherever on the spectrum it falls), imo, not to do this.

 

[dies-l]

May be off topic...
However I tried the Atheist route...didnt work as I cant stop my belief in God...
I believe what I believe...but again I do understand the OP as one does get it from all sides...
at times one does feel like just letting go and giving up "Christianity"...but I dont want to walk away from God (though I do know God never leaves us).
You mention Buddhist...
I have heard some do believe in God and some dont...
is it worth looking into??
Would you mind me asking about both your positive and negative experiences as a Buddhist?
Thanks

When I was a Buddhist, I practiced in a Vietnamese Zen temple. Therefore, my understanding is fairly limited to that specific sect of Buddhism. My understanding is that most Buddhists are agnostic, although belief in a personal God is not inconsistent with Buddhist teachings in general. Essentially, the center of Buddhist spirituality is the Three Treasures: the Buddha, the Sangha (i.e., the spiritual community, roughly analogous to the Christian idea of "the Church"), and the Dharma (i.e., "the Truth"). For many Buddhists the Three Treasures become the main object of worship and seem to have a somewhat godlike character. Because these are spiritual ideas rather than persons, they are distinct from the Christian concept of a personal deity.

My belief, at this point in my life, is that Christian spirituality is based on complete truth, and there is no reason for me to seek truth from other spiritual traditions. Therefore, I would never encourage any Christian to look outside of Christian teachings to supplement her spiritual practice. While I definitely believe that there are some positive attributes to Buddhism, these seem to be the areas where it is more analogous to Christian beliefs. For example, Buddhism stresses the importance of living at peace with others, having deep compassion, and living in the present moment (not worrying about the future or dwelling on the past). Although all of these are inherent in Christian belief, they are often underemphasized in some churches, whereas they seem to be central to Buddhist practice. So, I guess these would be the "positives" of Buddhism.

But, as I have mentioned, I no longer practice Buddhism. The reason that I left is frankly that I was living a lifestyle that was difficult to reconcile with Buddhist teachings (around the same time, I was becoming addicted to alcohol and pornography). Buddhism did not really offer a means of overcoming these poor lifestyle choices. Instead it merely taught me that the way to achieve happiness was to perfectly adhere to the eightfold path (i.e., live a perfect life). Because I was unable to do this, I was frustrated, and ultimately chose my "sin" over Buddhist practice. It simply didn't help me just to know that my actions were incompatible with achieving the perpetual bliss that Buddhist teachings claimed to offer. Eventually, I came to believe a in a personal God, who extended grace to sinners, and who would offer the strength that I lacked to overcome my addictions. This, I found to be a more accessible source of peace and joy than meditation and the eightfold path. Christian teaching did not just tell me that my lifestyle choices were incompatible with a deeper joy in life, but it offered a way for me to overcome these choices through grace and trust in an all powerful God that would help me with these issues. Buddhism is a form of practice, rather than a belief in a god or gods, and so it tends to rely on one's own internal strengths to achieve joy and overcome destructive choices. This is perhaps its most negative attribute in my mind, as I have found myself to be in need of a personal God to supply strength and grace where I find it lacking in myself.

I hope this all makes sense. I have tried to condense roughly ten years of personal experience into a relatively brief snippet. Please let me know if you have any other questions.