What would cause you to give up your religion?

[andreha]

In the long haul, nothing could. People who were true Christians and give up their faith tend to come back.

That is so very true...

The Lord has many a way of drawing His own back to Him. Whether it's like a gentle whisper, or a mighty crash of thunder - proverbially speaking.

 

[sk8Joyful]

I welcome responses from anyone and everyone on the following question: "What would cause you to give up your religion?" I am open to all interpretations of the question. However, I would be especially grateful if you could answer yes/no/other to the following:

I would almost certainly give up my religion...
1. If more and better evidence were found
in support of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Enlightened Christians already know of 'evolution', as God allows it, which is to a greater extent than many people realize.

2. If more and better evidence were found in support of the theory that the Earth is very old (billions of years).

Enlightened Christians already know the earth was assembled from materials billions of years old.

3. If the deity or deities of a religion other than my own one day appeared before mankind (beyond all doubt).

Enlightened Christians already know about previous of God's creations, and
are also aware of many 'pseudo'-deities ready to deceive any Christian.

4. If life is one day discovered elsewhere in the Solar System,
for example within the oceans of Titan or Europa.

Enlightened Christians already know that life exists extra-terrestrially, and may well exist in another solar system, considering the fact that as we speak God has already created more worlds. iow God's universe is rapidly... expanding

5. If I were more educated in science and/or theology, and thus better equipped to make informed choices about the probability of each of the various world religions being true or false.

Enlightened Christians already know that the "world's" religions, are just that: Interpreted, or more often concocted by fallible humans, and thus are false to one degree or another. - That is, most humans struggle... with living Congruent with truth: as far as soul-Saved, mind-Joyful & body-Healthy. Even as this Congruency is just how we were all/each by God created, people don't get it, for many reasons: erroneous parental Imprints, misleading teachings, wrong practice, destructive beliefs, harmful attitudes, etc.

6. Other. (Please specify.)

It could help you to remember: "Don't fix what ain't broke" - iow GOD knows what He's doing. He's no fool.

Unfortunately, the same can not be said of humanity-at-large. -
Humanity, incapable of having GOD's (as Jesus Christ's) KNOWledge AS HE,
sorta stumbles around from one concocted "theory", to another - trying to make heads, outa tails, & vice versa.

7. Nothing could cause me to give up my religion. (Please explain.)

Many thanks, Andrew

Having worked in practically every medical specialty, for decades, I know of too many people, who -
1. BEAT the odds, & came back to life,
after flat-lining for hours/days, while science doesn't have a clue.

2. BEAT the odds, & of (supposedly many incurable)-conditions,
often by themselves completely healed, while science doesn't have a clue.

3. On a few occasions, the above required direct Divine-intervention.
On most of them, the individual was able to Connect-deep-inside-her/himself, & CHOSE to return to life, & or heal.

Only other christians caused me to stumble; but GOD Himself has revealed Himself in so many ways, to myself & innumerable other people, that it's really impossible to stop believing. - You see Andrew, for some it takes just one such experience, for others repeated such; but really it comes down to *YOUR choice*. - And I know God lives, by how much He has, does now, & will continue LOVING us.

When you consider that GOD intended leaving us His Fatherly LOVE-letters (aka the Bible),
you also realize the above is true.

Only a fool would give up this blessed religion, right?

 

[andreha]

So true, sk8Joyful.

I still vividly remember the day that I would have died in a pile-up on the freeway, were it not for divine intervention. God gave me a verbal warning, but I was too lost in thought to react. The next moment, He subdued my consciousness and took control of my body to stop me. I only realized what happened afterwards.

 

[LWB]

If upon death I discovered my life was only a virtual reality experience, with the Christian faith as nothing more than a component of that experience; and with my identity restored I clearly remembered exactly who and what I was and knew all the answers to all the mysteries and paradoxes of life, then, and only then I might be tempted to forget my faith.

But if this were the case, surely I might consider such a circumstance to be the ultimate opportunity to make a Kierkegaardian leap of faith, and cling to my belief in Jesus no matter what.

If there is no Lord Jesus, I guess I would be left a psychotic mess in the celestial madhouse, and the virtual experience Earth 1.0 would be banned pending investigation.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Yes, this is partly true—religion adapts to the times. It is interesting that Christianity should be different today to what it was in the Middle Ages; after all, the holy books themselves, and their teachings, have not changed. It must be our interpretations of them which change.

Depends on how you define different. Different in liturgical practice, administrative organization, and culture? Certainly. Different in doctrine? Only if you're Protestant. The vast majority of the Christian world (Catholics, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox) have steadfastly resisted change for the past 2,000 years. Now, obviously there have been schisms and divisions, but the amount of variation we find in the apostolic churches is substantially less than the variation we find in the Protestant denominations.

For members of the ancient apostolic churches, we do not believe that we have changed. Catholicism does have the concept of doctrinal development, but it is distinctly different than doctrinal change. Development of doctrine is sort of like a seed growing into a tree. It is a fuller exploration of the deposit of faith.

But all of this is outside the scope of this discussion. If you want to know more about how Catholics and Orthodox view the nature of Christianity and change in beliefs, I suggest you ask in One Bread, One Body (Catholics), The Ancient Way (Orthodox), or Voice in the Desert (Oriental Orthodox).

One example of this reinterpretation which springs to mind is the Pope's decision in 2007 to officially reinterprete the concept of limbo to preclude the banishment of unbaptised babies. There are many other examples, not the least of which is the steadily rising number of Old Earth Christians, and those who believe in Darwinian evolution. Such beliefs represent a truly grand departure from "classic" Young Earth Christianity, in which the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and was created in 7 days.

Limbo has never been a dogma or doctrine in the Catholic Church, just pious speculation. The statement in 2007 doesn't seem to be any different than what theologians had previously speculated: that unbaptized babies go to Limbo. The official teaching remains that it is unknown.

As for evolution and belief in an old earth, this is obviously a new development. But it's not a theological development. It's a new development because of new evidence. A non-Christian 500 years ago wouldn't subscribe to evolution, simply because the theory didn't exist and the evidence of the time (or lack thereof) didn't point to it. Christian theology has always accepted the possibility of a non-literal interpretation of Genesis. Augustine, for example, believed that the world was created instantly and the creation week was an allegorical framework for describing it.

Having said that, the proportion of Americans who say they believe in a young Earth is somewhere between 10% and 45%, depending on the poll (Wikipedia). This is a significant fraction of the population. My Old Earth-related questions (1 & 2) therefore stand.

Which is quite sad.

Dark_Lite: I can agree with your statement, "There is no incompatibility between science and faith", but only if we finish that sentence with, "provided that one is free to interpret the Bible (or other holy book) any way they choose." If selective interpretation is not allowed, then one must take all the Bible's (or other book's) stories literally. However, if one is able to pick and choose which stories/teachings to take literally and which not, then of course science and faith can be made to agree. Indeed, in the minds of millions of people, they do agree.

I disagree. Complete openness of interpretation is not required for rationalizing science and faith. If we are to define the set of "orthodox interpretations" as those interpretations found in Christian history and accepted by the Church at large from the beginning, then we have plenty of precedent for non-literal interpretations of the creation account. I already cited Augustine as an example. There are others, but I forget their names off the top of my head. In this case, we have a finite set of interpretations, but still are able to rationalize science and faith.

This raises another question: what do you think the Christianity of the future will be like? But I will save that for another time! Thank you for your answers, Dark_Lite and drich0150.

For Catholicism, it will remain largely unchanged from its current incarnation. There may be organizational differences or new codes of canon law, but the beliefs will always remain the same. The same for the other apostolic churches of Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy. For Protestantism, I imagine it will continue to fracture into many different belief systems, as it has from its inception in the 16th century.

 

[Megaloskhemos]

I came up with something for 'other':

If the mystical experiences of the Church, including both the common and particular (the experiences of the Saints, Hesychasm, etc..) can be adequately explained in an entirely non-Christian context and the exact same kind of experiences can be reproduced in something of a mechanical fashion relying on catalysts outside/opposed to Christianity. If something like this can be done, I would be forced to at least very much reconsider how I understand my faith and understand the epistemology of Christianity. I'm not sure it would cause me to become non-Christian entirely though.


The only other thing I can think of is if somehow some deity of another religion, that I would have been in effect ignoring all this time, places the same level of certainty and conviction in my heart about a different faith. SO... an act of God might do it. I'm not sure how to get to the atheist point though. And I have no desire for it.

 

[Cuddles333]

What would cause you to give up your religion?


#6 Other:



If it were found that all of the circumstanstial evidence proving that Jesus was physically resurrected from the dead, were 100% false.

 

[m.e.t.a.]

Thank you for your thought-provoking replies! I don't have time to respond to everything tonight, but there is one particular subject that I would very much like to ask you about.

To those who have mentioned personal connections or communications with God, may I ask what such an experience feels like? How does it compare to something more mundane that I can relate to, like a dream? (I ask this out of curiosity.)

I do also have a more discussion-relevant question. A personal connection/communication with a deity is something that people of many deistic religions experience. However, it is not always the same deity. For example, Christians speak with God, but most Hindus speak with many gods. How do we explain this, assuming that deistic communication is real, and not simply one of the many illusions that the human mind is subject to?

The prevailing belief among those who have posted here so far seems to be that the multitude of Hindu gods (or the god/gods of most other religions) are actually just aspects of a single, ubiquitous God. But this explanation, while fascinating, feels rather ad-hoc—a convenient way of explaining away the mountains of inconsistencies that exist between different religions. Why would God adopt a single identity when speaking to Christians, but then split Himself into many different “sub-personalities” when speaking to Hindus? And this is to say nothing of the other religions of the world, past and present. Why would God reveal Himself unequally to the peoples of the world—and to some, not reveal Himself at all? This is very confusing.

To me, the most likely explanation is that there are no gods, and that all deistic experiences are the product of autosuggestion and/or illusion. However, I am intrigued by the theory that all deities of all religions may indeed be the same single God. How widespread is this theory? Is it believed by members of all religions, or only by members of Christianity?

This raises a new question that I would not have thought of before. If it were somehow proven that (say) the Hindu gods are definitely not the same as the Judeo-Christian God, would this cause you to question your faith?

Andrew

 

[m.e.t.a.]

I came up with something for 'other':
If the mystical experiences of the Church, including both the common and particular (the experiences of the Saints, Hesychasm, etc..) can be adequately explained in an entirely non-Christian context and the exact same kind of experiences can be reproduced in something of a mechanical fashion relying on catalysts outside/opposed to Christianity. If something like this can be done, I would be forced to at least very much reconsider how I understand my faith and understand the epistemology of Christianity. I'm not sure it would cause me to become non-Christian entirely though.

I am very impressed with your ability to analyse your own belief system in an unbiased manner. It must take great wisdom to be able to exert such control over your mind. For my part, I am trying to remember as accurately as I can what it feels like to hold religious beliefs, but I find it difficult these days. I believed in God once, but that was when I was young and credulous and apt to believe everything my teachers told me. When I changed schools, the religious reinforcement ceased, and my belief slowly diminished, and finally vanished, to be replaced by atheism.

I wish I could remember what caused me to stop believing. I expect that it was due in large part to external factors, such as my not-fully-religious family, and the changing of schools, and many other factors which I was not even aware of—a perceived lack of religiosity in my peers, perhaps. Who knows? In my mind I felt that I had outgrown God as I had outgrown Santa Claus, and that I made this decision consciously, of my own volition. I realise in retrospect that external factors probably played a much larger role in my decision than my own thoughts and deductions ever did.

Oh, now I remember! I should have made this the number 1 talking point in my original post. This was the big one that decided everything for me. The idea of "good and evil". I lost endless sleep debating this in my mind, over and over, for years. Everyone knew that good people went to Heaven and bad people went to Hell. But I also saw that life itself can make a person evil. For example, some people just have an unlucky life, for reasons outside of their control. Sometimes a child is born to unloving parents, and is teased at school, and may never recover from this trauma. They may go on to live a tormented, bitter life as a result, driven by a mounting hatred that finally leads them to lash out at the world that gave them so much pain. This is the life story of many serial killers. But what choice did these people have? Weren't they merely slave to a combination of bad luck combined with animal instinct? Doesn't this example show that random chance can shape a person's life in extreme ways, even drive someone to the brink of murder?

I asked this question of my friend, who simply replied that she had to believe in free will, or what was the point in living? She says that a person born into such horrible circumstances as I described above always has the choice to turn their life around. That is, she believes a person is always able to choose to do good, even if external factors outside of their control have acted to twist them towards evil.

I pointed out that it seemed to me she was choosing to believe in free will because she wanted free will to exist. She pointed out, rather cleverly, that my sentence contained a contradiction. I started listing real-world examples of when people's supposedly "free" will is actually being controlled by external factors (advertising, propaganda, mob behaviour etc.). I concluded that free will is not free, but is determined by a combination of genes, sum life experience, physiology, and external factors. If there is no free will then there is no good and evil, no Heaven and Hell, and no God. At this point we agreed to disagree.

What do you think?

 

[AlexBP]

I do also have a more discussion-relevant question. A personal connection/communication with a deity is something that people of many deistic religions experience. However, it is not always the same deity. For example, Christians speak with God, but most Hindus speak with many gods. How do we explain this, assuming that deistic communication is real, and not simply one of the many illusions that the human mind is subject to?

The question that I have to ask myself is whether it's actually true that members of all religions see and hear from God in the same way that Christians do. The fact that God sent the Holy Spirit to earth to be our helper and guide is a central part of the Christian religion, mentioned in both the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed. Hence we Christians do believe that God sends out communication to believers, though our doctrine does not say how often it will happen or in what way. If all communication from God to members of the church were to cease it would certainly be an indication that our understanding of God and his ways needed some revision.

So then I must ask, what do other religions believe on the same topic? It is certainly not true that members of all religions experience direct communication from God. Muslims do not have holy visions or hear the voice of God. They believe that the God gave his final revelation to mankind to the Prophet Mohammed and that it's recorded in the Koran; God has nothing more to communicate. Jews believe that God spoke to them through the prophets, but there have not been any Jewish prophets for two thousand years.

The case of Hinduism and Buddhism is more difficult to summarize because those religions are based on thoughts so different from what we westerners believe. Neither of those are unified religions with agreed-upon doctrine. Some branches believe in certain deities while others believe in none. Among those that do, there are various approaches to the question of communication with deities. Some early Hindus used drugs to work themselves into a trance in which they supposedly were in touch with the divine, though this approach hasn't been used much lately. Other approaches center around deep meditation, chanting, fasting, and other methods by which individuals can supposedly disassociate from the world of everyday reality and contact a deeper reality. However, all agree that only a few selected individuals are capable of reaching the deeper reality in this way.

This obviously makes for a quite different understanding than the Christian one. Christians believe that God can choose to reach out to anyone and some of the most famous Christian visionaries have been children, the poor, or other social outsiders. We do not believe that only a select elite have the ability to do what's necessary to reach out to God.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I would almost certainly give up my religion...

1. If more and better evidence were found in support of the theory of evolution by natural selection.
No effect. I already believe evolution is likely true, though guided by God.

2. If more and better evidence were found in support of the theory that the Earth is very old (billions of years).
No effect. I already believe that.

3. If the deity or deities of a religion other than my own one day appeared before mankind (beyond all doubt).
Other powerful spiritual beings do exist, the angels and the fallen angels at least, and perhaps others, but if so, they are lesser beings than the Creator, and not to be worshiped. If for example, Odin and Thor appeared, and seemed friendly and not evil, I would give them respect, but never worship. And from what I know of them, they'd probably like that and respect me more for it.

4. If life is one day discovered elsewhere in the Solar System, for example within the oceans of Titan or Europa.
I don't think it says anywhere in the Bible that God created life only on Earth.

If I were more educated in science and/or theology, and thus better equipped to make informed choices about the probability of each of the various world religions being true or false.
I think I'm educated enough to make informed judgments about that.

6. Other. (Please specify.)
a) If I received an unmistakable direct divine revelation (something like Paul's road to Damascus experience) that Christianity as we practice it is not what God wants, and that this (whatever) is what He wants.
b) If there was absolute proof that Jesus' resurrection didn't happen. But frankly, I think a) is much more likely.

7. Nothing could cause me to give up my religion. (Please explain.)
Nothing that seems at all likely. See my answer to 6.

 

[LWB]

I do also have a more discussion-relevant question. A personal connection/communication with a deity is something that people of many deistic religions experience. However, it is not always the same deity. For example, Christians speak with God, but most Hindus speak with many gods. How do we explain this, assuming that deistic communication is real, and not simply one of the many illusions that the human mind is subject to?

The prevailing belief among those who have posted here so far seems to be that the multitude of Hindu gods (or the god/gods of most other religions) are actually just aspects of a single, ubiquitous God. But this explanation, while fascinating, feels rather ad-hoc—a convenient way of explaining away the mountains of inconsistencies that exist between different religions. Why would God adopt a single identity when speaking to Christians, but then split Himself into many different “sub-personalities” when speaking to Hindus? And this is to say nothing of the other religions of the world, past and present. Why would God reveal Himself unequally to the peoples of the world—and to some, not reveal Himself at all? This is very confusing.

To me, the most likely explanation is that there are no gods, and that all deistic experiences are the product of autosuggestion and/or illusion. However, I am intrigued by the theory that all deities of all religions may indeed be the same single God. How widespread is this theory? Is it believed by members of all religions, or only by members of Christianity?

This raises a new question that I would not have thought of before. If it were somehow proven that (say) the Hindu gods are definitely not the same as the Judeo-Christian God, would this cause you to question your faith?

Andrew

When all the cultural baggage is removed from faith, as with the mystical branches of all the major religions, including Islam in the form of Sufism, and even atheistic philosophies like Zen, there is almost a unanimous agreement regarding the ineffable nature of God.

How cultures convert this universal experience into such diverse expressions seems very fractal to me. Like how a relatively simple mathematical formula can lead to infinite novelty, yet all of it related.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

3. If the deity or deities of a religion other than my own one day appeared before mankind (beyond all doubt).

5. If I were more educated in science and/or theology, and thus better equipped to make informed choices about the probability of each of the various world religions being true or false.

This seems the most pertinent to me. Being somewhat (self) educated on most religions to a decent degree, the conclusion I've come to is that Christianity makes the most sense given the world we're in. Of course, Christianity isn't merely a mental acceptance of a certain proposition, but there are elements like that.

7. Nothing could cause me to give up my religion. (Please explain.)

At the risk of sounding fideistic, I don't see myself ever really changing. It's like if someone came over and asked you to stop believing in your mother; well, you don't simply accept that she exists, you know her in a personal, intimate, warm way. There's probably not really too much that could be done to make you think give up your belief in her, I'd imagine.

 

[elman]

=m.e.t.a.;57488393]I would almost certainly give up my religion...

1. If more and better evidence were found in support of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Nope already believe in natural selection.

2. If more and better evidence were found in support of the theory that the Earth is very old (billions of years).

Nope, already belive that.

3. If the deity or deities of a religion other than my own one day appeared before mankind (beyond all doubt).

Perhaps.

4. If life is one day discovered elsewhere in the Solar System, for example within the oceans of Titan or Europa.

Nope. I don't know that earth is the only place God created life.

5. If I were more educated in science and/or theology, and thus better equipped to make informed choices about the probability of each of the various world religions being true or false.

I have looked at them as best I could. Have not found anything to compare with the teachings of Jesus.

6. Other. (Please specify.)

I continue to change my theology. I embrace more reasonable ideas.