Why I am no longer a Christian

[Albion]

Most people who are non-believers once where a believer and they got to where they are for likely very good reasons.

Just telling someone "to believe" because it is the right thing to do just doesn't cut it. Speaking for myself, the christian story simply became "unbelievable" to me and I couldn't reconcile it any longer and convince myself that it was true.

Non-believers usually get to where they are with much thought and often times (at least in my case) a thorough objective review of the bible, the world we live in and trying to make sense of it all.

I think that's an eminently fair answer. We believe that the Bible, if rightly understood, can resolve a lot of the difficulties that non-believers have, BUT that's not to say that simply advising anyone with doubts to "read your Bible" is the best answer.

 

[bhsmte]

I think that's an eminently fair answer. We believe that the Bible, if rightly understood, can resolve a lot of the difficulties that non-believers have, BUT that's not to say that simply advising anyone with doubts to "read your Bible" is the best answer.

I appreciate your response.

The old; if you only understood the bible, you can resolve your difficulties is something I am way past and it carried no weight with me.

Christians themselves, don't agree on what the proper interpretation of the bible and this is understandable, when the bible is examined objectively. Some people examine the bible from a "theological" standpoint, but I took another approach and studied the book from a scholarly and historical standpoint and it was an eye opening experience. If a story is to be believed, one would want to know the source of stories information, who wrote the book and how credible it is from a historical standpoint. IMO, few christians dive into the bible from this approach and for obvious reasons don't question the source of its contents or the credibility of the content and they skip right to theologic interpretations, which there are too many to count.

Pew did a poll a couple of years ago, in which they tested the religious knowledge of non-believers vs those of various religious beliefs and the results were interesting. Non-believers scored the highest in religious knowledge, while christians scored the lowest. IMO, this supports my claim that non-believers usually got the place they are, with a thorough objective review of the information and not just going along with what someone tells them they should believe.

 

[Albion]

I appreciate your response.

The old; if you only understood the bible, you can resolve your difficulties is something I am way past and it carried no weight with me.

Christians themselves, don't agree on what the proper interpretation of the bible and this is understandable, when the bible is examined objectively. Some people examine the bible from a "theological" standpoint, but I took another approach and studied the book from a scholarly and historical standpoint and it was an eye opening experience. If a story is to be believed, one would want to know the source of stories information, who wrote the book and how credible it is from a historical standpoint. IMO, few christians dive into the bible from this approach and for obvious reasons don't question the source of its contents or the credibility of the content and they skip right to theologic interpretations, which there are too many to count.

Pew did a poll a couple of years ago, in which they tested the religious knowledge of non-believers vs those of various religious beliefs and the results were interesting. Non-believers scored the highest in religious knowledge, while christians scored the lowest. IMO, this supports my claim that non-believers usually got the place they are, with a thorough objective review of the information and not just going along with what someone tells them they should believe.

Well, I agreed with you on the main point about simply recommending the Bible to a doubter as though that's the whole enchilada and there's nothing more that's needed for a resolution of the problem. However, I can't agree with the rest of what you wrote here and I must be honest enough to say so. It used to be fashionable in academic circles to say that the Bible is not credible, Jesus probably never existed, the internal contradictions are too obvious, and so on. But this book--the most scrutinized writing in all history--has stood up to all of those assaults and is now accepted by all but a few scholars as a credible, even remarkable, historic document.

You can, of course, dismiss all the parts that claim a divine cause or origin for what's written there, but not the overall veracity of the writings. That doesn't mean, of course, that there aren't some textual problems that remain difficult, as exist with almost all ancient documents.

 

[KWCrazy]

But the church's actions were the last straw on the camel's back that was my willingness to believe.

Is this a theme? I've seen the same post from at least a half dozen people now, each of them saying that the actions of the church or it's members were "the straw that broke the camel's back." The similarities are just too coincidental; as is the sudden change to atheism. It's interesting that one who claims they once knew God personally now claims He doesn't exist. If He doesn't exist, then you never knew God personally and you were never saved REGARDLESS of how much time you spent in church.

It reminds me of the minister who was talking to Joe Selfrighteous one day about coming to services. "Oh, no, that's not for me," Ol' Joe said. "There's too many hypocrites in that church."

The minister just shook his head. "Not true, Joe," he said. "Always room for one more."

 

[bhsmte]

Well, I agreed with you on the main point about simply recommending the Bible to a doubter as though that's the whole enchilada and there's nothing more that's needed for a resolution of the problem. However, I can't agree with the rest of what you wrote here and I must be honest enough to say so. It used to be fashionable in academic circles to say that the Bible is not credible, Jesus probably never existed, the internal contradictions are too obvious, and so on. But this book--the most scrutinized writing in all history--has stood up to all of those assaults and is now accepted by all but a few scholars as a credible, even remarkable, historic document.

You can, of course, dismiss all the parts that claim a divine cause or origin for what's written there, but not the overall veracity of the writings. That doesn't mean, of course, that there aren't some textual problems that remain difficult, as exist with almost all ancient documents.

I am not in the "Jesus did not exist camp", as I believe he likely was a real person, who was indeed crucified.

What the bible has stood up to in regards to it's "historicity" and credibility of accuracy is not widely agreed upon by scholars and historians. Keep in mind, the vast majority of biblical scholars and most historians, are in fact christian, so that simple fact must be digested when different opinions are viewed.

At best and IMO from all the research that I have done from a blend of christian and non-christian scholars and historians; the bible has pieces that would be considered historically reliable and also contains errors, additions that happened centuries later and numerous contradictions along with authors of the gospels that are mostly unknown. Putting this all together, does not paint a picture of a document that would be considered "historically reliable" and some scholars and historians are in this camp, as am I. To me, the bible is a book of "theology", not a book of reliable history.

Lastly, to me at least, the bible itself is some of the evidence I used to finally determine, the christian story and the God as described in the bible is a man made fabrication. Simply looking at the world we live in and then comparing this to the God of the bible, made the story something I couldn't reconcile any longer.

I have no beef with anyone who wants to believe the story, if it is something that makes them a better person. Just don't, put yourself on a pedestal and judge non-believers, make claims as fact that can not be verified, etc etc.. Just say you believe because you have faith and that is fine by me.

 

[FireDragon76]

I appreciate your response.

The old; if you only understood the bible, you can resolve your difficulties is something I am way past and it carried no weight with me.

Christians themselves, don't agree on what the proper interpretation of the bible and this is understandable, when the bible is examined objectively.

The Bible is not the only possible guide to understanding the "deposit of Faith". There are also the decrees of Church councils, the Church fathers, the writings of eminent saints, and so on. Christianity is primarily a faith about history over ideas or even abstract doctrines- we understand the core doctrines of Christianity as primarily historical statements about what God does. Understanding the origins of the Bible and how it was transmitted to us and traditionally used and understood can help make sense of the Bible more than just expecting the Bible to make sense to us without any context.

He doesn't exist, then you never knew God personally and you were never saved REGARDLESS of how much time you spent in church.

Let's not be judgemental, OK? People can have spiritual experiences of all sorts, then walk away from a religion. It is very complicated.

 

[bhsmte]

The Bible is not the only possible guide to understanding the "deposit of Faith". There are also the decrees of Church councils, the Church fathers, the writings of eminent saints, and so on. Christianity is primarily a faith about history over ideas or even abstract doctrines- we understand the core doctrines of Christianity as primarily historical statements about what God does. Understanding the origins of the Bible and how it was transmitted to us and traditionally used and understood can help make sense of the Bible more than just expecting the Bible to make sense to us without any context.

Yep, I understand all that.

 

[keith99]

I appreciate your response.

The old; if you only understood the bible, you can resolve your difficulties is something I am way past and it carried no weight with me.

Christians themselves, don't agree on what the proper interpretation of the bible and this is understandable, when the bible is examined objectively. Some people examine the bible from a "theological" standpoint, but I took another approach and studied the book from a scholarly and historical standpoint and it was an eye opening experience. If a story is to be believed, one would want to know the source of stories information, who wrote the book and how credible it is from a historical standpoint. IMO, few christians dive into the bible from this approach and for obvious reasons don't question the source of its contents or the credibility of the content and they skip right to theologic interpretations, which there are too many to count.

Pew did a poll a couple of years ago, in which they tested the religious knowledge of non-believers vs those of various religious beliefs and the results were interesting. Non-believers scored the highest in religious knowledge, while christians scored the lowest. IMO, this supports my claim that non-believers usually got the place they are, with a thorough objective review of the information and not just going along with what someone tells them they should believe.

Bolding mine.

I'd wager even decades since any real study of Scripture I still understand it far better than most Christians. And I'd hazard I have read and remember quite a few enlightening Christian books.

The one that comes to mind is Foxx's book of Martyrs. Specifically the chapters about protestants martyred at the hands of the Catholic Church. For many were burnt alive when asked to repent their 'heresy'. And many replied that they would be glad to if they could be shown their error by scripture and plain reasoning.

Of course they could not because the 'right' interpretation could not be arrived at from scripture and reason, only by accepting a conclusion brought in from outside scripture.

So forgive me if I find it amusing (and sad) that now Protestants are now insisting that the same kind of correct understanding is needed that their forefathers died and died horribly resisting.

 

[Albion]

I am not in the "Jesus did not exist camp", as I believe he likely was a real person, who was indeed crucified.

I understand. That was just one of many examples of skepticism about the Bible that once were thought scholarly but no longer are.

 

[KWCrazy]

Let's not be judgemental, OK? People can have spiritual experiences of all sorts, then walk away from a religion. It is very complicated.

It's not a question of being judgmental, it's a question of logic. How does one proclaim that a God he knew personally doesn't exist? If God doesn't exist, he never knew God personally. If he had a personal relationship with God, then he cannot be an atheist. I'm seeing a pattern of people here making the same claim and using the same terms. Does anyone find that odd?

I think you can walk away from religion and become non religious, but an atheist is NOT just non religious, an atheist denies the very existence of God in any form.

 

[FireDragon76]

Bolding mine.
So forgive me if I find it amusing (and sad) that now Protestants are now insisting that the same kind of correct understanding is needed that their forefathers died and died horribly resisting.

Except we aren't all Protestants here.

I for one do not think the Bible is clear and perspecuitous in its meaning in every way.

 

[Albion]

Except we aren't all Protestants here.

I for one do not think the Bible is clear and perspecuitous in its meaning in every way.

What exactly is it that you folks are trying to prove? If it's that following something OTHER than the Bible is preferable, just explain how IT is always going to be interpreted identically and accurately by every last person who uses it.

 

[bhsmte]

It's not a question of being judgmental, it's a question of logic. How does one proclaim that a God he knew personally doesn't exist? If God doesn't exist, he never knew God personally. If he had a personal relationship with God, then he cannot be an atheist. I'm seeing a pattern of people here making the same claim and using the same terms. Does anyone find that odd?

I think you can walk away from religion and become non religious, but an atheist is NOT just non religious, an atheist denies the very existence of God in any form.

Contrary to what you believe or may be willing to acknowledge, it is quite possible to truly believe in something and then for various reasons, come to the conclusion at some point you were mistaken.

Again, in my personal example, the more I learned about the christian story and the bible, the more my belief in the christian God waned, until it got to a point I couldn't reconcile it any longer without fooling myself and I could not do that.

In regards to people who claim they had a personal relationship with God, well your mind can convince yourself of a lot of things, if you have a strong enough need for it to do so. There have been plenty of clergy who have been ardent believers for most of their lives and who have come to a realization, they were not honest with themselves and they couldn't believe any longer.

The Clergy Project - Home Page

 

[FireDragon76]

What exactly is it that you folks are trying to prove? If it's that following something OTHER than the Bible is preferable, just explain how IT is always going to be interpreted identically and accurately by every last person who uses it.

The Bible has to be understood in light of the Tradition handed down from the Apostles, so of course the Bible is confusing when you expect the Bible to be something it is not. I just don't expect the Bible to be an answer book. The mystery and plurality of interpretations is part of the point, we do not just read the Bible but God's Word also reads us.

 

[Albion]

The Bible has to be understood in light of the Tradition handed down from the Apostles

Says who? The idea that God's revelation is actually revealing is not all that mysterious or incomprehensible.

So now I asked about the alternative that was suggested. If we would be better off following something OTHER than the Bible, just explain how it is going to avoid the alleged problem with the Bible, i.e. that different people come up with different interpretations.

It is certainly true that every church that bases its belief system on Tradition rather than Scripture has a different interpretation--in fact, a wholly different Tradition--than the next one does. So how is that any improvement?

 

[FireDragon76]

It is certainly true that every church that bases its belief system on Tradition rather than Scripture has a different interpretation--in fact, a wholly different Tradition--than the next one does. So how is that any improvement?

Every church has a traditional way of interpreting the text, a hermeneutic, and those that claim they do not are often the ones that get into the most trouble using the Bible.

 

[bhsmte]

Every church has a traditional way of interpreting the text, a hermeneutic, and those that claim they do not are often the ones that get into the most trouble using the Bible.

Churches typically find ways to interpret text that fits whatever philosophy they want it to fit. Whether that be very conservative or more liberal and is why there are so many different interpretations out there.

 

[FireDragon76]

The hermeneutics that individuals use to interpret the Bible are always shaped by the community they find themselves within (I disagree that they are consciously chosen, that implies a level of autonomy human beings do not have). This is why it is not surprising an atheist comes to different conclusions about the Bible than a Christian. I for one would rather understand the Scriptures within the same community that actually wrote them down.

I don't think being a Christian is primarily about having the right understanding of the Bible or the right doctrines, it is about belonging to the same community Christ started centuries ago. So the issue of plurality of interpretations of Scripture does not trouble me that much. People that think it does matter, to the point it undermines Christianity, simply have an incorrect understanding of the Church and what it means to be a Christian.

 

[Albion]

Every church has a traditional way of interpreting the text, a hermeneutic, and those that claim they do not are often the ones that get into the most trouble using the Bible.

You mean they have a customary or accepted way of doing whatever it is. That is not at all what "Sacred Tradition" or "Tradition" means when we're discussing the Catholic approach to determining doctrine.

 

[bhsmte]

The hermeneutics that individuals use to interpret the Bible are always shaped by the community they find themselves within (I disagree that they are consciously chosen, that implies a level of autonomy human beings do not have). This is why it is not surprising an atheist comes to different conclusions about the Bible than a Christian. I for one would rather understand the Scriptures within the same community that actually wrote them down.

I don't think being a Christian is primarily about having the right understanding of the Bible or the right doctrines, it is about belonging to the same community Christ started centuries ago. So the issue of plurality of interpretations of Scripture does not trouble me that much. People that think it does matter, to the point it undermines Christianity, simply have an incorrect understanding of the Church and what it means to be a Christian.

How exactly do you belong to the same community and understand the scriptures from the anonymous authors (at least for the NT) who wrote them down 2000 years ago?

How one views a book, can be significantly jaded by pre-conceived notions and simply - what they want to believe and the bible is an excellent example of this psychological reality.

Christians themselves, interpret the bible in a myriad of ways and also have significant differences of opinion on which parts of the bible are accurate, from a historical perspective and which parts are not to be trusted or simply, don't align with the reality of the world we live in. There is a significant amount of reconciliation that has taken place amongst christians over the years to make the bible work, as we find out more realities about the world we live in. You see, the real world (science for example) has not had to adjust it's findings based on what the bible says, but interpretations of the bible, have had to be altered over time, when scientific evidence is so overwhelming (and contradicts the bible) and many christians simply find a way to adjust their view and still make their beliefs work for them.

Then of course, you have the conservative christians, that will flat out deny any scientific discovery as being bogus (and evil) if it conflicts with the bible, but this group is getting smaller as reality hits home with people.