What do you do when you don't believe any more?

[Catherineanne]

Catherineanne, thanks for the encouragement and support.

I'd say I still have a mustard seed's worth of faith, but I really don't any more.

Maybe I only have an orchid seed's worth.

(http://waynesword.palomar.edu/plfeb96.htm

Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches." ~ Matthew 13:32

(I also wonder why this thread gets a good proportion of folks from outside the US of A.)

A seed is all that it takes.

Many Christians find it very threatening when they hear of someone such as yourself, with very real doubts, and I suspect the more entrenched into fundamentalism they are, the harder it is to consider doubt in others. They think this means that either your faith was not real in the first place, or else that if they associate with you they will lose their own faith, as if doubt is some kind of virus to avoid.

Those of us with rather more years of the Christian journey under our belt will know, I think, that this is a very real, very normal part of Christianity. It is not that you have lost anything, just that it is time to move on.

I know you have a whole heap of books to read, but if I can suggest one more, outside the evangelical arena, and with a different perspective, then consider The Dark Night of the Soul by John of the Cross.

It is normal for Christians to pass through this dark night, and it is nothing to be afraid of. You will find it described in Psalm 23 as walking through the Valley of the Shadow.

http://www.karmel.at/ics/john/dn.html

 

[Catherineanne]

Perhaps a good one to discuss would be Deuteronomy 32:8-9.

Thoughts?

When the Most High divided their inheritance to the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, He set the boundaries of the peoples, according to the number of the children of Israel. For the Lord's portion is His people; Jacob is the place of His inheritance.

K, here goes.

If we take the (unBiblical) stance that God wrote every word of the Bible, and that it is literally in every part as he wanted it, then we have a rather bizarre image of God in much of the OT. He appears indistinguishable from a bloodthirsty, narrow minded, jingoistic, tribal leader, with a bizarre preference for Israel over all other nations.

If we take the rather more rational view that the Bible is written by men, and that 'inspired by God' does not mean 'dictated by God', then this 'deity' becomes a back projection. We have a Jewish leader ('Moses') explaining why it is that the Jews have the land they have, and why God is on their side.

What we know to be true is that God did have a particular interest in the Jewish people. What we can now identify as untrue is that as a result of that interest, God sanctioned in ancient times, or would sanction today, the seizing of land that does not belong to them, or the killing of innocent people.

It is very easy to assuage guilt after such rapine behaviour to say 'God wanted me to do it; I was only doing the will of God.' This is a way of avoiding personal responsibility, and is not yet out of fashion as a political stance.

What Christ brings to this is a breath of fresh air. He reclaims morality from the morass of territorial struggles, and makes it a matter of the heart, and of the inner being. He tells us that morality starts with me, and my dealings with those around me. It does not start with invading a foreign land, and claiming that God sanctions genocide.

 

[OldChurchGuy]

When the Most High divided their inheritance to the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, He set the boundaries of the peoples, according to the number of the children of Israel. For the Lord's portion is His people; Jacob is the place of His inheritance.

K, here goes.

If we take the (unBiblical) stance that God wrote every word of the Bible, and that it is literally in every part as he wanted it, then we have a rather bizarre image of God in much of the OT. He appears indistinguishable from a bloodthirsty, narrow minded, jingoistic, tribal leader, with a bizarre preference for Israel over all other nations.

If we take the rather more rational view that the Bible is written by men, and that 'inspired by God' does not mean 'dictated by God', then this 'deity' becomes a back projection. We have a Jewish leader ('Moses') explaining why it is that the Jews have the land they have, and why God is on their side.

What we know to be true is that God did have a particular interest in the Jewish people. What we can now identify as untrue is that as a result of that interest, God sanctioned in ancient times, or would sanction today, the seizing of land that does not belong to them, or the killing of innocent people.

It is very easy to assuage guilt after such rapine behaviour to say 'God wanted me to do it; I was only doing the will of God.' This is a way of avoiding personal responsibility, and is not yet out of fashion as a political stance.

What Christ brings to this is a breath of fresh air. He reclaims morality from the morass of territorial struggles, and makes it a matter of the heart, and of the inner being. He tells us that morality starts with me, and my dealings with those around me. It does not start with invading a foreign land, and claiming that God sanctions genocide.

Well put. As one who grew up in the Episcopal Church I understand the idea one can have faith and be rational at the same time.

Thanks for the insight.

OldChurchGuy

 

[IndyEllis]

I find what you're saying little different from admitting it's essentially a myth.

 

[IndyEllis]

Criada, I am so sorry I missed this earlier. I can tell you put some effort into this and that's great.

Not had time for any real study of this - my children are off school this week, so chaos reigns! Household chores can be ignored (and often are!), small children are more persistant!

Tell me about it. We're putting wood floors in the kids rooms and all their furniture is in the family room. Kids are sleeping on matresses on the basement floor. The whole house is a mess for all this.

However, on a very superficial glance, I assume that what you are reffering to is the "number of the sons of God" in the Dead sea text, which becomes "sons of Israel" in the Masoretic text.

Yes indeed. That's one of the jewels in this passage.

Have not yet looked at any discussions of this - next week, perhaps!

But - whilst the concept of the "Council of gods" are interesting in the context of the reigning polytheism of the time, I can't see much tension between this and faith.

Yeah, a lot of Biblical scholars are discussing something that goes along the lines of the following...

'El is the supreme God of the Canaan pantheon, worshipped by all Semitic peoples and, according to the mythological Ugaritic texts, he is father, creator, eternal, well-disposed, merciful, healer and guarantor of agreements between people and tribes. His blessing bears fertility. Yet, Abraham and his successors did not assimilate sic et simpliciter the protagonist of a polytheistic religion such as 'El; they only inherited those elements which were compatible with the features of the Jahivistic monotheism. Consequently, Abraham's religious experience, different from that of Moses for its inward vitality, is propaedeutic to the late Israelitic religion. The biblical text has carried out a work of religious and cultural recovery by merging the god of the Patriarchs with Jhwh."

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14014395

As their singing away in Praise & Worship at church, I'm always wondering who they're singing to.

Or praying for that matter. It seems that all the time folks quickly swap back and forth between praying to God and then praying to Jesus and then back to praying to God and then back to praying to Jesus.

But I suppose if it's easy to swap back and forth on those, I would have been easy to swap back and forth between El and JHWH.

It is amazing how the tradition is so rich and there are so many layers up layers.

But then, I am willing to accept that revelation played a part here, which is where we differ!

What's interesting about that is that it's even bolder and requires more confidence and certainty than asserting that God revealed true orthodox doctrine directly to you.

So somebody asserts some sort of propositional "truth."

- Jesus is God.
- Mary is the mother of God.
- Allah is the only deity, transcendent creator of the universe.
- Shiva is the destroyer of the world, Vishnu the preserver, Brahma the creator. (In a repeating cycle.)
- Hematite helps us to set our personal, emotional boundaries.

And on and on and on.

Somebody else is more or less asserting this has been "revealed" to them (or from somebody else or from a very long chain of such) and things with them saying the maxim, you'll believe it. Maybe they heard it early enough, often enough, and especially at emotionally vulnerable points themselves.

But it's been asserted as "revealed" in some way or another.

What's weird though is that in any sort of dualistic / rationalistic Christian worldview, any sort of idea could have come from one (or more?) of three different sources.

- Human Imaginations. Somebody just kinda made it up. Seemed like a good explanation. Maybe the kids wanted some explanation. Maybe it helped easy pain or grief. Maybe it provided a sufficiently good working model.

- El/JHWH/angels/Spirit of God/Jesus/Holy Spirit/etc. Asserted as being revealed.

- Satan/Devil/demons/evil spirits/etc. Asserted as an idea from an evil source. OT and Judaism was very monistic in it's nature. But it seems that Christianity picks up dualism with a bigger role for Satan/The Dark Side/etc.

Anyhow, you're "willing to 'accept' that revelation" played a role.

The key question is, how do you KNOW, I mean really KNOW what to be revealed by God, what to be revealed by some evil spirit, vs. what to be just made up?

Of the above maxims of various faiths, which do you assert to be "revealed" and why?

Specifically how do you judge, or if you prefer the more Christian term, "discern" what to be revealed vs. what to be of an evil spirit vs. what was probably just made up?

(Apologies if parts of this post seem judgemental, and other parts somewhat trite! I have just read it through, but really don't have time to edit. So - I will post it as it stands rather than delete it, and ask your forgiveness in advance if I offend!)

Not at all. Maybe my questions could be misconstrued too. No intent on my side either.

I'm just looking for some truth and some honesty.

It just seems there's not a lot of it around.

Here in the religious US of A, around 83% of Americans self profess as a Christian. But only 58% a certain of God existence. How everybody gets to every last point of the Nicene Creed which all the Christians on this site were able to affirm is beyond me.

 

[Criada]

Criada, I am so sorry I missed this earlier. I can tell you put some effort into this and that's great.



Tell me about it. We're putting wood floors in the kids rooms and all their furniture is in the family room. Kids are sleeping on matresses on the basement floor. The whole house is a mess for all this.

Ugh! Good luck! One of those things where you start, and then wonder why...
I'm sure it will be great when finished, though!

Yes indeed. That's one of the jewels in this passage.



Yeah, a lot of Biblical scholars are discussing something that goes along the lines of the following...

'El is the supreme God of the Canaan pantheon, worshipped by all Semitic peoples and, according to the mythological Ugaritic texts, he is father, creator, eternal, well-disposed, merciful, healer and guarantor of agreements between people and tribes. His blessing bears fertility. Yet, Abraham and his successors did not assimilate sic et simpliciter the protagonist of a polytheistic religion such as 'El; they only inherited those elements which were compatible with the features of the Jahivistic monotheism. Consequently, Abraham's religious experience, different from that of Moses for its inward vitality, is propaedeutic to the late Israelitic religion. The biblical text has carried out a work of religious and cultural recovery by merging the god of the Patriarchs with Jhwh."

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14014395

As their singing away in Praise & Worship at church, I'm always wondering who they're singing to.

Or praying for that matter. It seems that all the time folks quickly swap back and forth between praying to God and then praying to Jesus and then back to praying to God and then back to praying to Jesus.

But I suppose if it's easy to swap back and forth on those, I would have been easy to swap back and forth between El and JHWH.

There is a lot of debate as to who we should or shouldn't pray to.
Personally, I think that if we hold a trinitarian belief, then it makes little difference which Person of the trinity we address!
Of course, praying to "God" removes any need to debate..
And perhaps it is the atitude rather than the words used that is important.

It is amazing how the tradition is so rich and there are so many layers up layers.



What's interesting about that is that it's even bolder and requires more confidence and certainty than asserting that God revealed true orthodox doctrine directly to you.

So somebody asserts some sort of propositional "truth."

- Jesus is God.
- Mary is the mother of God.
- Allah is the only deity, transcendent creator of the universe.
- Shiva is the destroyer of the world, Vishnu the preserver, Brahma the creator. (In a repeating cycle.)
- Hematite helps us to set our personal, emotional boundaries.

And on and on and on.

Somebody else is more or less asserting this has been "revealed" to them (or from somebody else or from a very long chain of such) and things with them saying the maxim, you'll believe it. Maybe they heard it early enough, often enough, and especially at emotionally vulnerable points themselves.

But it's been asserted as "revealed" in some way or another.

What's weird though is that in any sort of dualistic / rationalistic Christian worldview, any sort of idea could have come from one (or more?) of three different sources.

- Human Imaginations. Somebody just kinda made it up. Seemed like a good explanation. Maybe the kids wanted some explanation. Maybe it helped easy pain or grief. Maybe it provided a sufficiently good working model.

- El/JHWH/angels/Spirit of God/Jesus/Holy Spirit/etc. Asserted as being revealed.

- Satan/Devil/demons/evil spirits/etc. Asserted as an idea from an evil source. OT and Judaism was very monistic in it's nature. But it seems that Christianity picks up dualism with a bigger role for Satan/The Dark Side/etc.

Anyhow, you're "willing to 'accept' that revelation" played a role.

The key question is, how do you KNOW, I mean really KNOW what to be revealed by God, what to be revealed by some evil spirit, vs. what to be just made up?

Of the above maxims of various faiths, which do you assert to be "revealed" and why?

Specifically how do you judge, or if you prefer the more Christian term, "discern" what to be revealed vs. what to be of an evil spirit vs. what was probably just made up?

I don't really see Christianity as truly dualistic. Satan is, after all, a created being. And possibly different to fallen man only in degree. (That is probably not an accepted view!) A lot of Christians seem to blame satan for their own failures - I am not sure how Biblical this trly is.
Anyway - that's not really relevant here.

Discernment is interesting - and again, very hard to give logical reasons.
There is human discernment - which we all have to some degree. Most people can tell the difference between good and evil on a moral level, without recourse to a great deal of reasoned thought.
Though of course, this would almost certainly owe a lot to cultural factors, and therefor enot be absolute.

Spiritual discernment is harder to justify.
I can give my "gut feeling" the title of discernment - but is it?
I think that true discernment is quite rare in the church today.

But - as to knowing what is true - I could, of course quote scripture. But I won't!
I don't feel that "the witness of the Spirit" is going to be a concept will appeal to you!

Just - I know Jesus.
Better than I know you!
And , I don't know or understand how that comes about.
And I am not decieving myself - I am certainly not just accepting tradition or 'what I want to be true'.
Because for a long time, i didn't want it to be true!
But - I just cannot get away from it. From Him.
So - again - not terribly helpful I am afraid.
Apologies.

Not at all. Maybe my questions could be misconstrued too. No intent on my side either.

I'm just looking for some truth and some honesty.

It just seems there's not a lot of it around.

Here in the religious US of A, around 83% of Americans self profess as a Christian. But only 58% a certain of God existence. How everybody gets to every last point of the Nicene Creed which all the Christians on this site were able to affirm is beyond me.

But possibly your truth is not my truth...

As to honesty - a lot of what we percieve as Christianity is not!
Obviously - since 25% of these people evidently do not know what it is!
Too many blindly accept without thinking.
But rational thought does not have to destroy faith.
And, as I have said before, I admire your honesty greatly!
And I pray that it will lead you to truth...your own truth, not mine nor that of anyone else.
Because if it is not personally arrived at, it means nothing.

 

[IndyEllis]

Criada, what are your thoughts on Postmodernism or, say, Kierkegaard?

http://goinside.com/01/1/postmod.html

 

[Criada]

Criada, what are your thoughts on Postmodernism or, say, Kierkegaard?

http://goinside.com/01/1/postmod.html

When i used the term "your own truth", it was in the sense of ownership, rather than implying any difference in "truths"!
I cannot accept the postmodernist view that there is "no absolute truth".
Even aside from my Christian beliefs, it seems to me that this must inevitably destroy any coherent thought, and ultimately cause a breakdown in society.
And as a Christian, I am worried by the tacit acceptance of pluralism which seems to be creeping into the church.
Truth is truth - there must be absolutes, whether religious or moral.
And the fact that truth is hard to find or to prove does not make it less true.
This worldview seems to me to undermine both faith and science!
(Thanks for the article - interesting, though more positive than my views!)



Kirkegaard, on the other hand, is one of my heroes!
Today's complacent Christianity could do with someone like him to wake it up!
His idea that the "leap to faith" transcends rationality definitely strikes a chord - as does the concept that faith in God without ever having doubted His existance or His goodness is a faith not worth having.
Which seems to me a close approximation of where you are at the moment!
And has been, at times, a very reassuring thought!
Subjectivity is another interesting one.

As is the statement of Climacus that the condition for recieving faith is a gift from God, but its realization is a task which must be repeatedly performed by the believer. (Bad paraphrase - apologies)

I could probably extol Kirkegaard all day - but I am sure that you have heard it before, so I'll stop!

God bless you
And that is a sincere prayer, not a platitude!

 

[gracealone]

HI Old Church Guy.,
Are you at all familiar with Ravi Zacharius International Ministries? RZIM This group of brilliant contempary Christian Apologist's offer a great deal of resources that speak to many of your questions. One of their motto's is "What I believe in my heart must also make sense to my mind."
A very recent publication by one of it's members may be very helpful to you if you want to check it out.
"Doubting - Growing through Uncertainties in Faith"
By: Alister McGrath.

 

[IndyEllis]

Truth is truth - there must be absolutes, whether religious or moral.
And the fact that truth is hard to find or to prove does not make it less true.
This worldview seems to me to undermine both faith and science!

Yes I understand that there are absolutes. Planck's constant and the speed of light are ones that comes to mind. These absolutes have been discovered and consistently tested and attested to time or time. In fact, did you know that the length of the metre is now based upon the speed of light. I think most scientists would concur that truth is hard to find and hard to prove and that the ease or difficulty doesn't make it any more or less true (despite Paul's boasting of suffering, say toward the end of 1 Corinithians, attesting that his teachings are the revealed teachings at the exclusion of other prophets in the early church).

Postmodernism seems to be a transitional phase in Western civilization though its effect certainly linger and will probably continue to do so for a long period of time.

However, what's interesting though today is that many are expecting absolutes, to be just that, absolute.

Since you've asserted there are absolutes, I'd like to kindly ask you to list a dozen. Twelve different foundational absolutes upon which your faith builds.

 

[IndyEllis]

HI Old Church Guy.,
Are you at all familiar with Ravi Zacharius International Ministries? RZIM This group of brilliant contempary Christian Apologist's offer a great deal of resources that speak to many of your questions. One of their motto's is "What I believe in my heart must also make sense to my mind."
A very recent publication by one of it's members may be very helpful to you if you want to check it out.
"Doubting - Growing through Uncertainties in Faith"
By: Alister McGrath.

Grace, hey, I'm the apostate here. Old Church Guy is a really nice, well-informed guy who if I knew in the real world, would like to have as a friend.

Anyhow, of course, I'm familiar with Zacharias. I've read Lewis, Schaeffer, Strobel, McDowell, Young, and many others. Just finished Schaeffer's seminal work. He does an excellent job of debunking the nihilistic implications of that postmodern worldview I was just discussing with Criada vis-a-vis Christianity using a presuppositional method. However, the gentleman seemed to be unread on the natural sciences (like research on other primates and other social animals for instance) as well as unread in many areas of Biblical scholarship (both higher criticism and textual criticism). What's weird though is that using his presuppositional epistemology across a broader body of knowledge could preduce quite the different results. But that said, even with what he did know, he didn't really well articulate how his presuppositionalism got him to his Protestant evangelical set of doctrines. It would have been good to discuss with him in person. I'm sure he would have been one of the most interesting persons to converse with. Like Old Church Guy.

Right now I'm reading Hugh Ross' The Genesis Question. Talk about between a rock and a hard place! Seem's like he's culturally trying to run the gauntlet between the more common array Christian cosmogonies on one side and the more consistent scientific and naturalistic on the other. Anyhow the exegetical bending he has to do, so far out of cultural context of the authors, so different in interpretation from what church leaders have had in the centuries since, is like an exegetical version of the game Twister. I remember trying to do the same in my own mind for several years prior to my deconversion. In fact, I tried to prop up many of the same reconciliations between science and scripture that Ross evidently holds.

As for Zacharias, it's been a while. I seem to recall he like to use derrogatory language, liked to use ad hominems, a few straw men, some red herrings, a false dilemma or two, and a lot of guilt by association. Perhaps you might be interested in something like this on Zacharias. While Schaeffer seems like he would have been a wonderful person with which to converse, Zacharias seems someone would have to just, well, kind of sit and listen to 'til he was done.

Anyhow, in aggregate sometimes I wonder if these guys bother to send early copies of their manuscripts to critical reviewers to help them address their gaps. I mean, if one is otherwise relatively unread, the case presented can seem pretty solid.

 

[Criada]

Since you've asserted there are absolutes, I'd like to kindly ask you to list a dozen. Twelve different foundational absolutes upon which your faith builds.

I could, I suppose, just post the Nicene creed...

But you phrased the question in a personal way.
And I'm not sure that I can answer it that way.
Because, really, for me, there are only three...

That there is a loving God.
That God was made man in Jesus Christ.
That He died and rose again, and in so doing, atoned for my sins.

That's it really.

Obviously I could give you a lot of foundational Christian doctrine - but really, those three are it for me!
And the fact that I love Him.
That is absolute - but not foundational.

 

[Criada]

IndyEllis, have you come accross a guy called Kent Hovind?
Someone keeps trying to get me to read his books,/ watch his videos etc.
Apparently he's a "really good creationist"(!)
I've never heard of him - just wondered if he featured on your reading list?

 

[gracealone]

Sorry INDY for calling you Old Church Guy.
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you about Ravi. Have you seen any of his sessions with college students at different Universities? The floor is open for them to ask him any questions they want to about Christianity. Nothing is planned they just step up to the mic and ask. He is always very respectful of everyone and what they have to say, he listens intently and answers in a very sensitive and loving way. He is not interested in being right he is interested in leading them to Christ, because he truly believes that "Jesus didn't come to make bad men good, but to make dead men live." He's one of the few people who can actually go into Islamic fundmentalist countries and speak to heads of state about the love of Christ and actually be listened to. This is because he speaks to folk with love, honor and respect.
Just curious though, when you read all these authors that you mentioned why, do you read them? Do you read them with the intention of debunking them or with a desire to somehow disprove that Jesus is exactly who He said He was? Or are you really wanting to know the truth concerning Christ? God said, "If you seek me you will find me, if you seek me with all your heart." To quote Ravi, "Intent is prior to content". If your intention or your will is set to disbelieve then no argument no matter how convincing will sway you.
Also... What exactly would God have to do to get you to believe that He is and that He loves you? What more could He do than He has already done? If He should come to you undisguised, (instead of God incarnate), in His glorified state, would your belief in Him be based on choice or faith or just a compelled mental assertion? If just a mental assertion then how could that be called a chosen relationship. Do you think you or any one of us could deny His diety to His face?
Any how if Jesus isn't the Christ, if His death is insignificant, His life a sad picture of someone who thought He was God but really wasn't, then why should we pay any attention to one word of advice that He would have to say. And yet here are all these people, myself included, who for centuries have given their entire life over to knowing and serving Him and have greatly benefited from that relationship. I guess you probably think we are all just as deluded as He was. If so.. it's the most wonderful delusion of all. A whole multitude of folk who live and die happy in Christ. (I often wonder why that bothers or disturbes so many folk who aren't Christians.) In the end one must certainly choose to answer Christ's question, "Whom do you say that I AM?"
Balls in your court my friend. You are for now, free to choose.
I pray that you will "cleave to the sunny side of doubt"

 

[gracealone]

P.S.
Have you read any GK Chesterton? My sincere apologies if you mentioned him already. (I'm involved in too many other threads I'm afraid.)
Also... if you don't mind me saying so.. I don't believe that God would only make Himself available to the "well read"/ intelligentsia. I prefer the God who once said. "Unless you have faith as a little child you can in no way enter the Kingdom of God." Whew!!! big relief to someone as unread and clearly not even 1/4 ( OK... maybe 1/8th), as intelligent as you are. How kind of God to gift you with such a brilliant mind. ( I guess that's why they call it "gifted") Such a great salvation!!!.. offered to one a dull as myself is exactly what I need.
Warmly, Gracealone

 

[IndyEllis]

But you phrased the question in a personal way.
And I'm not sure that I can answer it that way.
Because, really, for me, there are only three...

That there is a loving God.
That God was made man in Jesus Christ.
That He died and rose again, and in so doing, atoned for my sins.

That's it really.

Obviously I could give you a lot of foundational Christian doctrine - but really, those three are it for me!
And the fact that I love Him.
That is absolute - but not foundational.

Nice that you picked up on the personal wording.

Because it really points to my next question, how did you determine these three propositions as being "absolutes?"

And also one more. You had mentioned the atonement of your "sins." What are you meaning by "sins" (like a list or something) and why do those need atoned for? (I'm asking because I think you're not quite at the foundational level - your foundational absolutes seem to be resting on something.)

 

[IndyEllis]

IndyEllis, have you come accross a guy called Kent Hovind?
Someone keeps trying to get me to read his books,/ watch his videos etc.
Apparently he's a "really good creationist"(!)
I've never heard of him - just wondered if he featured on your reading list?

If he's a "good creationist," I'd hate to see a bad one!

Maybe after he serves out his 200+ year tax fraud sentence we can talk about him more.

 

[IndyEllis]

Just curious though, when you read all these authors that you mentioned why, do you read them?

I used to read them to validate my faith. I went through a four-year period wanting to know, and I mean really know the truth and why I believed what I believed. Not to explain it to anybody else, but to seriously understand for myself.

After 35 years as a devout Christian, last autumn I reached the tipping point of cognitive dissonance.

I "came out" to my wife about two months ago.

She bought me about 20 more books to read thinking I'd find something there or something.

Now I'm reading them to honor her request.

Reading 100% Christian authors and the Bible proper now. Probably will be this way for the rest of the year.

Anyhow it is amazing how the Christian authors "proofs" are all over the map. YECs, OECs, evolutionary creationists, traditional apologetics, presuppositional apologetics, literal interpretation, symbolic interpreation, and on and on.

Rather than helping steer me back to some sort of faith, it is just making things clearer and clearer. I mean without a scientific method guiding, without a requirement to support assertions, without a peer review process, without a skeptical bias, each of these authors toss around this or that off propositional "truth" as absolute truth.

I assert _______________ as true.

Do you read them with the intention of debunking them or with a desire to somehow disprove that Jesus is exactly who He said He was?

Again, originally it was about finding the truth.

Now, I'm going through them because my wife asked.

However, you do have a valid point. I mean, once you've read enough they're pretty easy to pick apart.

As far as the "Jesus exactly who He said He was," there's a whole lot more to orthodox doctrine than that one.

And with regard to your framing of that statement it just seems weirdly naive to be frank.

I mean, what I have, here right now at my bedside bookmarked in Galatians where I'm presently reading is...

- A bible
- Printed by a known publisher
- Based upon a translation by a known translation committee
- Using a number of known manuscripts with various variations in their text
- Coming from a number of unknown professional copyists
- Coming from more generations of copyists
- Selected in it books by several church councils
- Debated which should be included
- Coming from some more copyists, probably mostly amateur
- Coming from an unidentified author
- Coming from a century of oral tradition
- Saying what they thought that Jesus said

And who does he say he is?

Well Matthew 27:43 says that someone said that he said that he is the Son of God.

Perhaps a bit like the "sons of God" of Genesis 6. (How those zany Nephilim fit in is quite the myster isn't it? Err, unless we come to understand other ancient Mesopotamian texts.)

But we should worry about God having other sons all that much.

After all we are all "sons of God" per Galatians 3:26.

No wait!

Jesus is the only son per John 3 and 1 John.

Kind of like Isaac was the only son of Abraham per Hebrews 11.

But wait. Abraham had other sons like Ishmael.

And about a billion people on the planet consider Ishmael the son of the sacrifice.

Somewhere somebody's making something up.

Or are you really wanting to know the truth concerning Christ?

Yep!

God said, "If you seek me you will find me, if you seek me with all your heart."

Yep, and he specifically said that to the Jews in Babylonian captivity. We're you also thinking he said that one to you to?

To quote Ravi, "Intent is prior to content".

I find that insulting. I just spent four years in a part-time level-of-effort pursuit of wanting to know the truth in hopes and expectation of confirming my faith.

Simply insulting for the amount of time and work I ended up putting into this.

If your intention or your will is set to disbelieve then no argument no matter how convincing will sway you.

Sigh.

Such logic is circular and could be universally to support any position.

You don't believe Thor because you don't want to believe in Thor. There are scales on your eyes and your heart is hardened and no argument convincing argument will sway you. Yet you continue to go on and call Thursday, Thursday. Yep, you'll do it tomorrow and call the day Thursday and still not admit to your belief in Thor.

Just fill-in the blanks. It's an empty universal argument.

How in the world one could find comfort in this sort of thing is beyond me.

I couldn't.

Had to go find the truth.

For myself.

Also... What exactly would God have to do to get you to believe that He is and that He loves you?

Show up.

What more could He do than He has already done?

Evidence himself in a way that would be materially different from the characteristics that can be easily explained by human imaginations and myth.

If He should come to you undisguised, (instead of God incarnate), in His glorified state, would your belief in Him be based on choice or faith or just a compelled mental assertion?

Huh? You've used a lot of words there that have lots of different means depending upon different Christianities.

If just a mental assertion then how could that be called a chosen relationship.

A relationship that is only in one's mind would unfortunately have to be classified as a delusion.

Do you think you or any one of us could deny His diety to His face?

Nope. That's the point.

Any how if Jesus isn't the Christ, if His death is insignificant, His life a sad picture of someone who thought He was God but really wasn't, then why should we pay any attention to one word of advice that He would have to say.

Where in the world did you get that he thought he was God???

Citation please.

Anyhow, you're going down the path of what's called a false dilemma among logical fallacies.

Why we should pay attention to what he is attributed to have saying is because the significance of religion and of Christianity in the world.

Religion is one of the primary driving forces in human history. Power, sex, money, religion, race, possession, compassion, family, reciprocity, gender, etc. are each significant forces worth of study and understanding.

And yet here are all these people, myself included, who for centuries have given their entire life over to knowing and serving Him and have greatly benefited from that relationship.

Indeed true.

Mormons included.

Jehovah's Witnesses included.

Not all that different from the comfort, community, identity and even purpose that Hindus find in their beliefs and the benefits of their beliefs.

What you seem to be attesting to is what's called belief in belief. Where one "believes" the belief because of the benefits of the belief. It's fundamentally rooted in a "it feels good" type of value. But just because something feels good doesn't make it right.

I guess you probably think we are all just as deluded as He was.

I think it would be quite hard to know his mental health this many centuries removed with the limited information available.

Here might be a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Whether or not you are deluded, I don't know.

If so.. it's the most wonderful delusion of all.

A whole multitude of folk who live and die happy in Christ. (I often wonder why that bothers or disturbes so many folk who aren't Christians.)

That's almost a proof-by-fill-in-the-blank. Here try this one...

A whole multitude of folk who live and die happy Red Sox Fans. (I often wonder why that bothers or disturbes so many folk who aren't Red Sox Fans.)

In the end one must certainly choose to answer Christ's question, "Whom do you say that I AM?"

I don't know.

My counter question would be, how fast could my grandfather run a mile?

Balls in your court my friend. You are for now, free to choose.

I pray that you will "cleave to the sunny side of doubt"

And journey to the heavy-side layer.

 

[IndyEllis]

P.S.
Have you read any GK Chesterton? My sincere apologies if you mentioned him already. (I'm involved in too many other threads I'm afraid.)

No worries. I haven't read Chesterton at all. Anyhow, many of the things you've brought up have already been discussed in this thread. Reminds me of Ecclesiastes (which is my favorite book in the bible).

Also... if you don't mind me saying so.. I don't believe that God would only make Himself available to the "well read"/ intelligentsia.

Wouldn't that stink if he did!

I mean Canaanite babies and pre-Columbia Americans are one thing, but regular folk in modern world should at least get a fair shot!

I prefer the God who once said. "Unless you have faith as a little child you can in no way enter the Kingdom of God."

Yep. I remember praying the sinner's prayer at the age of four. I think I could have been indoctrinated into about any belief system at that point.

Anyhow, last weekend I came out to a couple more people - a good moral man about ten years older than me and his Christian wife. I just found out he was a non-theist a few weeks ago despite having known him more than 15 years. Anyhow, I was shocked when, as I told the story of my deconversion, his Christian wife said it was kind of like "growing up."

Whew!!! big relief to someone as unread and clearly not even 1/4 ( OK... maybe 1/8th), as intelligent as you are. How kind of God to gift you with such a brilliant mind. ( I guess that's why they call it "gifted")

Pshah. I've just sought hard.

True I have a decent vocabulary now and am well read on a number of subjects but it really wasn't for any reason other than just really wanting to know.

Such a great salvation!!!.. offered to one a dull as myself is exactly what I need.
Warmly, Gracealone

Enjoyed the conversation.

 

[Criada]

Nice that you picked up on the personal wording.

Because it really points to my next question, how did you determine these three propositions as being "absolutes?"

And also one more. You had mentioned the atonement of your "sins." What are you meaning by "sins" (like a list or something) and why do those need atoned for? (I'm asking because I think you're not quite at the foundational level - your foundational absolutes seem to be resting on something.)

Indeed they are.
As I have said before, on the deep-seated, inexplicable and, I know, purely subjective knowledge that He is real, and that I know Him.

And, really, I am sure that you know exactly what I mean by sins.
Those things which I do which I know are wrong. Not culturally wrong - though I know that culture does form our consience. But anything that cuts off my communion with God. Like yelling at my children because I am feeling tired and irritable....

And I suppose that sin and atonement are all related to the perfection of God. And justice. And most of all, mercy - of which I am a recipient. And for which I thank God continually.
And some things cannot be rationalized.