Stages Of Grief

[Bobo]

The deconversion process has been an excruciating one for me. Really, really painful. I've been going through the five grief stages..denial (I can still be a Christian, I don't have to deconvert), inward anger (I just didn't have enough faith to overcome my doubts..other people can be spiritual in spite of themselves...), outward anger (The church is the enemy, and I must attack it) and depression (The world is hopeless without God, and so am I). I guess acceptance comes next.

 

View my initial testimony here.

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=924

 

But what would I be accepting? Nothing?

 

And then a thought occurred to me today. Because of my evangelical upbringing, I've been conditioned to see the world in black and white. Ironically, I didn't leave Christianity because I wanted some moral freedom, but because I was forced to confront facts that exposed it as a myth. Suddenly, white was black and black was white.

 

But if there's one thing I've learned the hard way in my adult life is that the world is often gray. And I'm really not equipped to handle it. It comes up a lot in the hazy, amoral personal decisions I have to face day in and day out. I've learned that you can't rely on rules for everything, and you have to not only avoid the obviously wrong answer but choose the BEST answer.

 

So, is total deconversion the BEST answer? Is it possible to view Christianity through a gray lens? For example, many people can simultaneously deny the resurrection of Jesus and still call themselves mainline Christians. My gut reaction is to view these people as too cowardly to deconvert, but I wonder if there is something to their logic I'm just missing. Could someone please give me some insight here?

[mwc]

But what would I be accepting? Nothing?

...

Ironically, I didn't leave Christianity because I wanted some moral freedom, but because I was forced to confront facts that exposed it as a myth.

...

So, is total deconversion the BEST answer? Is it possible to view Christianity through a gray lens?

So by your own words you want to cling to what you know is a myth.

 

Is clinging to a known myth the BEST answer? Is this the advice you'd GIVE someone?

 

I left. I went back. I left for good. Now that you know the "truth" you won't be any happier back in the fold. You'll have your old support system but you'll be living a lie (or leave the church and risk losing it all). You'll have to decide what is most important to you. You're at the point in your life where you have to choose. I had to do it. Others have had to do it.

 

What are you truly afraid of?

 

mwc

[Kurari]

Well, there are many types of Theists. I know some who call themselves Christians who still feel most comfortable with following Christian legend and prefer to pray to Jesus, but they no longer read the Bible or follow church teachings.

 

There are also "technically Christian" churches like the Swedenborgians who advocate finding your own path. To them, the Bible is nothing more than a metaphor. They aren't quite Unitarian, but they are very tolerant of all kinds of beliefs in their churches and the sermons are often teachings from all kinds of religions to place alongside Bible teaching.

 

Perhaps it might help you to read about some other religions and go from there. Don't think your faith has to change radically from one thing or another. Keep studying and reading everything you can get your hands on and let your beliefs construct themselves if that makes it easier for you. Run away from any Theist or Atheist that tries to tell you "this is how it is." Make sure you are deciding for yourself.

 

The process might take a while, but it sounds like you've got a good start. It will all pass eventually and you'll be more settled with yourself again soon. Good luck!

[Bobo]

Kurari--

Thanks for the uplifting comments.

 

This brings me to another question though. I recently had a discussion with a conservative pastor (I was crashing the Campus Crusade for Christ meeting at my alma mater to stir up dissent), and he pointed out something that made me stammer.

 

If there's no meta-narrative (e.g., the Bible, the Koran) then how can anyone determine how to be moral? How can we be entitled to any human rights? After all, Hitler thought he was doing the right thing for Germany by killing 6 million Jews. And who am I to say he wasn't? After all, any moral code that he violated would probably be based (perhaps through a few layers) on some sort of scripture. Clearly I think Hitler was dangerously twisted, but I don't have any real proof.

 

Can war ever be just? Could Mein Kampf be a legitimate moral guidebook? How do we know for sure? Couldn't Hitler have just been a martyr (albeit so fearful of his enemies that he committed suicide)?

 

As Sir Leigh deftly pointed out in The Da Vinci Code, history is always written by the winners. So if the we were speaking German right now instead of English, would we still think he was so evil?

 

Anyway, part of my problem is I've lost my moral compass. And I'm not quite sure how to go about finding a new one that's reliable.

 

I'll give you a great example. Part of me thinks that it's my duty to counter-evangelize so others can know the truth...because truth is paramount. But that's something evangelical Christianity programmed into me, and perhaps it's better to live and let live. But, in hindsight, I truly appreciate those who forced me to come to terms with the fallacies of Christianity. So, is it better to do unto others as you would have done to you (they'll thank me later) OR is it better to do unto others as they would have done to themselves?

 

Without that deeper sense of my purpose in life, I am morally paralyzed.

[Bobo]

Addendum:

 

If you think the answer is to live and let live, consider this. Christians give their money to churches. Sometimes it's A LOT of money. I went to a church for a while that built a chapel using hundreds of thousands of dollars that a couple left behind in a will.

 

I know I'm sounding a little like Judas Iscariot here, but how much good could that money have done in the developing world? How many lives could have been saved? Rather than building a chapel, couldn't that money have gone to build housing for the homeless?

 

I'm pretty sure the couple believed they were doing the right thing by willing money to the church, but if they had been deconverted, what would have happened? How much would the world improve if Christians stopped sending missionaries and started sending food, clothing, shelter and education?

[Lycorth]

Hey, Judas made a good point when he told Jeezus™ off like that

 

Xians waste all the chances they get to do real good with evangelizing. There may be loads of Xian charities out there, but compared to the secular ones who focus only on helping and not on pushing fairy tales, which ones do the most good? If that couple left all that money to a local hospital, perhaps some new equipment could've been purchased, for example. Now we just have another waste of wood and steel polluting the skyline in the form of another Xian house of death.

[mwc]

This brings me to another question though. I recently had a discussion with a conservative pastor (I was crashing the Campus Crusade for Christ meeting at my alma mater to stir up dissent), and he pointed out something that made me stammer.

 

If there's no meta-narrative (e.g., the Bible, the Koran) then how can anyone determine how to be moral? How can we be entitled to any human rights? After all, Hitler thought he was doing the right thing for Germany by killing 6 million Jews. And who am I to say he wasn't? After all, any moral code that he violated would probably be based (perhaps through a few layers) on some sort of scripture. Clearly I think Hitler was dangerously twisted, but I don't have any real proof.

"Some sort of scripture" is a very vague term. The word scripture means nothing in this sense. Why not just say that people will do what is right? They won't always get it right 100% of the time in 100% of the cases but by and large we do all right. Look around. It's really not that bad.

 

As for Hitler. He was messed up. There's good evidence that he was on a form of speed for quite a few years (among other problems) that really messed his mind up good. I think it's too easy to just say things like "Hitler was evil" and leave it at that like a lot of people do though.

 

Can war ever be just? Could Mein Kampf be a legitimate moral guidebook? How do we know for sure? Couldn't Hitler have just been a martyr (albeit so fearful of his enemies that he committed suicide)?

Can war ever be just? You ask an extremely hard question. I'd say it can be. I know people will tell me I am flat out wrong and that no war can ever be justified. In the context we're talking I'd say WWII is about the most just war I can think of. I have heard reasons given about the allies to show they weren't altruistic about going to war but overall it's pretty damn close to the best of my knowledge.

 

Morals are a tricky thing. I'd love to tell you that Mein Kampf could never be a legit guide but I can't. Deep down I think we are programmed to not accept certain things but that's just what I want to believe (call it a form of faith if you like). If everyone started acting a certain way then those ways would be the "moral" ways. That's the deal. The thing is when people are "put down" into an underclass, they don't like it. Others empathize and things happen. That's where morals come from in part. So while you can "get away" with things for even long periods of time (look how many thousands of years slavery lasted...and it is condoned in the bible as moral) things do change. This doesn't mean slavery can't come back but I think it means we will be more immune to it.

 

As for Hitler being a martyr? People have tried to make him into one for some time now. So far they haven't had any luck. You nailed it. What kind of marytr wastes himself? The non-martyr kind.

 

As Sir Leigh deftly pointed out in The Da Vinci Code, history is always written by the winners. So if the we were speaking German right now instead of English, would we still think he was so evil?

This depends. Don't forget that it wasn't so much the war that determines how a lot of people feel about Hitler these days. It was the holocaust. The murder of the Jews (and those so many forgotten others). People remember the war of course. The killing and destruction of Europe but it wasn't until after the end of all that when the camps were found and the "monster" that was Hitler came to life. Before that he was the "tyrant." The dictator bent on taking over the world. Nothing new there. But this secret demented "creature" that torutured and killed in his secret camps and laboratories was unknown to everyone. How could this have slipped under the radar so completely? This is what people are truly afraid of. That this type of thing could happen again...but succeed this time. This is always the fear. Hitler was just the most successful to date (some might say Pol Pot or perhaps Stalin but they weren't of the same mold as Hitler nor were many of the other mass murderers of this caliber).

 

My point being is that Hitler didn't reveal his plans to even his own. The people living near the camps didn't even know what had happened. If we spoke German today then the cover up may have been successful. The victor would have convinced us all that the missing people were all living in some far off happy land. If done properly they win and we're happy.

 

This is what you're afraid of. That "evil" can "win." That justice can go unserved. That Hitler won't "get his" some day. I'm sorry. It's true. "Evil" can win. But look at it this way. In the christian sense of "justice" in order for Hitler to "get his" a billion people throughout history who simply did minor offenses (they cussed, they might have stole some gum, they didn't listen to their parents and so on...you know these basically good people and I know you like them) but they didn't believe in jesus also have to go to hell forever do you make the deal? It's your call. Jesus turns to you and says "I'll toss in Hitler but I've got to toss in these one billion others at the same time and you've seen the record of their lives...or they all go to heaven." Do you tell him to toss them in or do you let Hitler off the hook and why? Are you doing what you want or what you think is expected of you?

 

Anyway, part of my problem is I've lost my moral compass. And I'm not quite sure how to go about finding a new one that's reliable.

When I left xianity I didn't run into this problem. The funny thing is that people, including my own mother and my wife, assumed I would (she's still xian). To this day she asks me about it. The thing is *I* know wrong from right. I just know it. I know how I want to be treated. It's not the golden rule lesson. It's just common sense. I'm way over-simplifying it. Like my question above. It's hard. You can serve justice or mercy. Which is more important to you?

 

I'll give you a great example. Part of me thinks that it's my duty to counter-evangelize so others can know the truth...because truth is paramount. But that's something evangelical Christianity programmed into me, and perhaps it's better to live and let live. But, in hindsight, I truly appreciate those who forced me to come to terms with the fallacies of Christianity. So, is it better to do unto others as you would have done to you (they'll thank me later) OR is it better to do unto others as they would have done to themselves?

 

Without that deeper sense of my purpose in life, I am morally paralyzed.

Your example hits home. Let me give you an answer. The Internet. Seriously. I attack my wife with this shit and my family and it's not a good idea (if you do it try to do it "tactfully" maybe by "explaining" history and then touching on a biblical topic here and there but nothing too direct...I did that and freaked my mom out but good). I hit up a few others but the internet is *the* outlet unless there is a real reason to do otherwise (and I mean a real reason). You can get it out here and people can come to you. Put up a website (mine's slowly coming together in it's billionth yet unseen and somehow still crappy revision) and you can annoy xians on appropriate debate sites like this and their xian counterparts).

 

Trust me. You'll get past all this. You really will. I've been bumming around here almost a year. When I first came by I said I'd never stay. I was wrong. I blow off some steam now and then. It helps. It get tired of hearing the same old crap. I was xian for over 30 years. My mind was so up in it I never even knew it. It was wierd. Now I hear people say what I said. It's like I can read their minds and then they deny it and the words they use are almost exactly what I would have said. I've had conversations (with people I know well) where I've written down a few phrases that I *knew* they'd say as a result of things I'd say as an apostate. It's that predictable. Then I'd show it to them like a magic trick and they'd *deny* it happened even while I sat there holding it. How's that for denial? That's where you are coming from. Don't expect it to go away quickly.

 

mwc

[mwc]

Addendum:

 

If you think the answer is to live and let live, consider this. Christians give their money to churches. Sometimes it's A LOT of money. I went to a church for a while that built a chapel using hundreds of thousands of dollars that a couple left behind in a will.

 

I know I'm sounding a little like Judas Iscariot here, but how much good could that money have done in the developing world? How many lives could have been saved? Rather than building a chapel, couldn't that money have gone to build housing for the homeless?

 

I'm pretty sure the couple believed they were doing the right thing by willing money to the church, but if they had been deconverted, what would have happened? How much would the world improve if Christians stopped sending missionaries and started sending food, clothing, shelter and education?

I've seen both sides of this. Look around this site. I've no love of xians. But where I used to live there was an average little church. They spent their money building a homeless shelter instead of building up their church. The shelter was nothing fancy. It was an okay thing. It fit the church. So it wasn't like some ornate church with a dumpy shelter or vice-versa. The city came along and the church could not afford to make all the upgrades needed to the shelter and was forced to tear it down (which meant leaving it condemned for awhile because they could not afford to tear it down right away). It was a sad lose-lose story.

 

I'd have to say that usually the money is used on useless upgrades though. The leaders of the church know the people won't give money that just "goes away." If they see the church upgraded or the youth group getting sent to bible camp or something they know their money is being put to "good use." Charities and all that sound good but they don't generate repeat donations since you can't usually see any results.

 

mwc

[AgnosticBob AtheistPants]

Kurari--

Thanks for the uplifting comments.

 

This brings me to another question though. I recently had a discussion with a conservative pastor (I was crashing the Campus Crusade for Christ meeting at my alma mater to stir up dissent), and he pointed out something that made me stammer.

 

If there's no meta-narrative (e.g., the Bible, the Koran) then how can anyone determine how to be moral?

 

Do you honestly need a book to tell you what is right and what is wrong?

 

How can we be entitled to any human rights? After all, Hitler thought he was doing the right thing for Germany by killing 6 million Jews. And who am I to say he wasn't? After all, any moral code that he violated would probably be based (perhaps through a few layers) on some sort of scripture. Clearly I think Hitler was dangerously twisted, but I don't have any real proof.

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." Self-evident. In other words, obvious. I've heard that Jefferson originally wrote this in a different manner, that made our equality a spiritual or religious matter. Apparently Franklin wasn't happy with that and believed that despite what religion we follow, we're still equal. No scripture can give you authority over anyone else. It certainly can't give you the right to impose your beliefs based on that scripture onto another. No scripture could have ever given Hitler the right to murder millions of Jews simply because "it is written." No, he killed millions of his equals. He was wrong based solely on that fact. All men are obviously created equal. Killing for the sake of killing does not work for the good of mankind.

 

Can war ever be just? Could Mein Kampf be a legitimate moral guidebook? How do we know for sure? Couldn't Hitler have just been a martyr (albeit so fearful of his enemies that he committed suicide)?

 

This is such misguided christian rhetoric. How do you know for sure that murdering millions of innocents was an injustice? Come on. You know the answers already. Just let go.

 

As Sir Leigh deftly pointed out in The Da Vinci Code, history is always written by the winners. So if the we were speaking German right now instead of English, would we still think he was so evil?

 

Yes. His own people were turning against him in the end. He was insane.

 

Anyway, part of my problem is I've lost my moral compass. And I'm not quite sure how to go about finding a new one that's reliable.

 

No, you're just letting the magnetic field of christianity interfere with it. You know what is right and what is wrong. You've been indoctrinated into human society for all your life. What is best for society as a whole?

 

I'll give you a great example. Part of me thinks that it's my duty to counter-evangelize so others can know the truth...because truth is paramount. But that's something evangelical Christianity programmed into me, and perhaps it's better to live and let live. But, in hindsight, I truly appreciate those who forced me to come to terms with the fallacies of Christianity. So, is it better to do unto others as you would have done to you (they'll thank me later) OR is it better to do unto others as they would have done to themselves?

 

Truth is objective. There is no "ultimate truth." The closest we can come to one is live and let live, but there will always be exceptions.

 

Without that deeper sense of my purpose in life, I am morally paralyzed.

 

Sorry to hear that. Personally, being released from the belief that there is some "deeper purpose" in my life has freed me to live life to its fullest. I'm not worried that I'm not living up to "His plan for my life" or any other such bullshit because there is no "He" and there is no "plan". I make the plan. I set the pace. I choose how I will live, how I will treat others, and how I will react to the way others treat me. I can choose to work for the common good or only for my own good. There's nothing paralyzing about it at all for me.

 

If you think the answer is to live and let live, consider this. Christians give their money to churches. Sometimes it's A LOT of money. I went to a church for a while that built a chapel using hundreds of thousands of dollars that a couple left behind in a will.

 

I know I'm sounding a little like Judas Iscariot here, but how much good could that money have done in the developing world? How many lives could have been saved? Rather than building a chapel, couldn't that money have gone to build housing for the homeless?

 

I'm pretty sure the couple believed they were doing the right thing by willing money to the church, but if they had been deconverted, what would have happened? How much would the world improve if Christians stopped sending missionaries and started sending food, clothing, shelter and education?

 

I'm not sure what this whole thing has to do with live and let live. The couple that left the money to the church believed they were doing the right thing because they were brainwashed into thinking that way. You are absolutely correct to think that the money could have gone to much better use than building a new chapel. This was one of my primary gripes with Christianity as well. So many pastors driving around in Lexus, Cadillac Escalades, BMW's, Mercedes, all with the same "the lord has blessed me" excuse. BULLSHIT. You've taken money from your parishioners and bought yourself a nice car you sorry fuck. That money should have gone to feed the starving, or to build homes for the homeless, or to clothe the less fortunate. But it's all about the almighty buck to far too many so called shepherds. It's just more evidence that scripture means nothing but what you want it to mean. There are no "true christians" today. If there are, they don't have computers, televisions, dvd players, nice cars, or any other unnecessary luxury items. They have only what they need to survive, and they work tirelessly and selflessly for others. That's Jesus' definition of a Christian, and he should know, right? He was the Christ.

 

Just be true to yourself, Bobo. I know it's hard to let go of something that's been such a part of your life. I'm still struggling with it and so are many of the others here at ExC. You don't need a written authority to be moral. You know what is right and what is wrong. You really do, even without a god figure to dictate it to you.

[Guest revpo]

Interesting and good suggestions.

I will only say...don't go back and ask a pastor, you have already been programmed from all those years it's like a psychological effect and its embedded into you.

Read as someone said, like as I always mention THE AGE OF REASON..T. PAINE, this will help you, and if you still want to fall back...start your own so called religion for now and stay away from revealed religions..they were started by man, embed fear and grief into one's self, a dangerous situation, collect money for themselve's and more punishment for the followers...look at the evangelists...charlatan's, miracles<pitiful>no such thing, just take someone's money.

Enjoy nature and say this is my religion a natural refreshing look , you wake up every morning and see it.

 

Good luck, and welcome

 

revpo

[pandora]

Agnostic Athesit-- I'm Bobo's wife.

 

We just saw Over the Hedge a few days ago, and we LOVED it... Bobo has aspirations to be an urban planner, too... so we appreciated the movie's sense of humor.

 

"But I like the cookie."

 

 

(thanks for helping hubby out, guys... he's been really down lately about all this...)

[Lorena Rodriguez]

Bobo,

 

I, too, have problems with the black-and-white thinking that I learned when I was a xtian. I recently wrote something on my blog to nag about that.

http://exfundamentalist.blogspot.com/2006/...ules-and-i.html

 

The trick with us is that we have to learn to think for ourselves. There is no book or person that is going to tell us what to do or think at any given moment. We have to sit back and find our own solutions--and be responsible for the consequences. It is difficult because all the thinking was done for us in the past, but we most and we can do it.

 

Currently, I am studying the teachings of several New Thought denominations (Unity, Science of Mind). I am sure they are just a stop in my journey, but it is helping me learn to think for myself.

 

I am sure your current confussion in temporary, though. We all go through periods like that.

 

You will figure it out, of that I'm sure.

[mwc]

The trick with us is that we have to learn to think for ourselves. There is no book or person that is going to tell us what to do or think at any given moment.

The funny thing is that when you sit back and think about it (no pun intended) when it comes to things like this we were sort of doing it for ourselves all along. I mean when you were a xian and made a decision you just made it most of the time. If it was a tough one you may have prayed and that "feeling" that was "god" was really just you telling you what to do. It was you each and every time all along. That "moral compass" was just assumed. It's still inside Bobo. He just has to learn to trust himself. He has to know that he's a good guy and trust himself. (Pandora surely thinks he is at least although he seems quite worried he's on the verge of becoming the next Hitler or something...or maybe he might be considering trying some "forbidden" things now that the shackles are loosened...this makes you human, not evil but don't do them if it makes you uncomfortable or simply because "you can" to rebel in some way but only because you find nothing wrong with them and you truly wish to do them and they do no harm to you or anyone else...unless it's "fun" harm and you both know the safety word. ) The right decisions will come just as often as they did before. The thing is Bobo now gets to take credit for both the right and wrong decisions now and not just the wrong ones. How cool is that?

 

mwc

[Kurari]

Kurari--

Thanks for the uplifting comments.

 

You're welcome. Don't be hard on yourself, you're not doing anything wrong.

 

 

This brings me to another question though. I recently had a discussion with a conservative pastor (I was crashing the Campus Crusade for Christ meeting at my alma mater to stir up dissent), and he pointed out something that made me stammer.

 

If there's no meta-narrative (e.g., the Bible, the Koran) then how can anyone determine how to be moral? How can we be entitled to any human rights? After all, Hitler thought he was doing the right thing for Germany by killing 6 million Jews. And who am I to say he wasn't? After all, any moral code that he violated would probably be based (perhaps through a few layers) on some sort of scripture. Clearly I think Hitler was dangerously twisted, but I don't have any real proof.

 

This is a very old and bogus thinking trap. Morality is not a solid, it's a fluid. All morality is subjective. You should NEVER stop questioning your morals. There is always going to be some situation that will make you balk and wonder if your commonly held beliefs are appropriate for any given situation. You're beliefs, your intents, and your actions are what is going to shape your life and affect the others around you.

 

Morality needs to come from personal awareness, and we ALL have the ability to create our own. A lot of people here have their own ideas on whether that ability is God given, but one thing is absolutely clear: It's not religion given. Religion is not necessary to have in order to lead a moral life. If that were true, this board wouldn't even exist.

 

 

Can war ever be just? Could Mein Kampf be a legitimate moral guidebook? How do we know for sure? Couldn't Hitler have just been a martyr (albeit so fearful of his enemies that he committed suicide)?

 

As Sir Leigh deftly pointed out in The Da Vinci Code, history is always written by the winners. So if the we were speaking German right now instead of English, would we still think he was so evil?

 

Society's morals are always going to change. Hitler IS a martyr to many. Is he a martyr to you? Are you saying he's evil because you were told he was or because you really believe that he was?

 

Hitler's beliefs weren't anything new. He formed them out of other people's works and created his own belief system and made his own choices about it. A lot of people agreed with him and still do. A lot of people don't. Hitler could just as easily decided to continue art school and become a painter. Why does God necessarily have anything to do with any of this.

 

There really is no such thing as a "universal" morality or any set rules about it. And the thing about morality that you create yourself is that you're totally responsible for it. Which is both liberating and scary. The liberation is permenant, the scariness dissapates.

 

Anyway, part of my problem is I've lost my moral compass. And I'm not quite sure how to go about finding a new one that's reliable.

 

You're doing just fine. Keep doing what you're doing and keep thinking it over and let your morals form themselves out of your own thoughts and research and feelings on the matter. Really, is just because you left the church mean everything you were taught a complete crock to be discarded? If it's something that works for you, by all means, keep it! If not, well, find something that does. You're allowed to pick and choose what you want to think.

 

I'll give you a great example. Part of me thinks that it's my duty to counter-evangelize so others can know the truth...because truth is paramount. But that's something evangelical Christianity programmed into me, and perhaps it's better to live and let live. But, in hindsight, I truly appreciate those who forced me to come to terms with the fallacies of Christianity. So, is it better to do unto others as you would have done to you (they'll thank me later) OR is it better to do unto others as they would have done to themselves?

 

Without that deeper sense of my purpose in life, I am morally paralyzed.

 

That's a product of your conditioning. If we can live good, moral, and happy lives without christianity, you can too. As I said, if christianity or any religion was a prerequisit for that, this board wouldn't even exist.

[Kurari]

Addendum:

 

If you think the answer is to live and let live, consider this. Christians give their money to churches. Sometimes it's A LOT of money. I went to a church for a while that built a chapel using hundreds of thousands of dollars that a couple left behind in a will.

 

I know I'm sounding a little like Judas Iscariot here, but how much good could that money have done in the developing world? How many lives could have been saved? Rather than building a chapel, couldn't that money have gone to build housing for the homeless?

 

I'm pretty sure the couple believed they were doing the right thing by willing money to the church, but if they had been deconverted, what would have happened? How much would the world improve if Christians stopped sending missionaries and started sending food, clothing, shelter and education?

 

All very good questions. I think you can answer them on your own.

[LosingMyReligion]

I went through the stages of deconversion grief when I first joined this website(I think I was in the inner anger stage). Now, finally, I think I've come to a place of acceptance about it. I'm no longer angry. Now, I just don't care and I'm quite happy about it.

 

But I can see where you are coming from Bobo. I was born and raised up in the Christian religion. And when you first deconvert you feel like a vital piece of you is missing. The question, "Where in the hell do I go from here?" continually pops up. I was so afraid of giving up my belief in Jesus that I tried to find every single way that I could to stay in it...

 

That is when I found ex-christian.

 

I think you should chat here with us, alot. Read about different religions, alot(if you don't convert to any of them you still have the oppurtunity to see how Christianity rips them off). The best thing about deconverting is that you will learn about who YOU are. And you will, ultimately, learn to believe in yourself.

 

As for me I am sort of dabbling in Wicca and Buddhism...I like both of those faiths. But I'm not rushing into anything. This is MY time to get to know myself and what I want.

 

Believe me it gets better!

[AgnosticBob AtheistPants]

Agnostic Athesit-- I'm Bobo's wife.

 

We just saw Over the Hedge a few days ago, and we LOVED it... Bobo has aspirations to be an urban planner, too... so we appreciated the movie's sense of humor.

 

"But I like the cookie."

 

 

(thanks for helping hubby out, guys... he's been really down lately about all this...)

 

I'm always glad to give my two cents. I understand entirely where your husband is. I've been there...and at times am still there. It's good to have someone to rant to and to bounce your questions off of. This is a great place for just that. I really wish we could get localized meetings going though. The internet is great, but in person can really be nice too.

 

Yes, I LOVED Over the Hedge too. Hammy is God! Did you see how he {edited for spoilers} like that? He has to be God!

[pandora]

Off topic... but Ag. Atheist, do you know where I can go and see all the fine print on the food boxes and stuff from the movie? I only caught one while watching it... the "Girl Scout" cookies box that said, "Guaranteed to make you gain weight." I am sure that there were lots of other things in the movie too that I didn't catch.

[Bobo]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." Self-evident. In other words, obvious.

 

Counterpoint: The word created poses a problem here. That implies that someone or something created us -- and preordained that we should be equal. BUT without a creator God, then who's to say we're equal? If we simply evolved (as I believe we did), then perhaps we're not equal.

 

Perhaps, in the light of natural selection without a creator, it's morally defensible to exploit poorer, defenseless people just because we can or just to advance the human species.

 

Of course this makes me GROSSLY uncomfortable because repressing people just seems wrong. But people haven't always thought this way. Slavery and segregation used to be more socially acceptable. Christians often make the argument that evolution is racist -- and I definitely see their point.

 

No, you're just letting the magnetic field of christianity interfere with it. You know what is right and what is wrong. You've been indoctrinated into human society for all your life. What is best for society as a whole?

 

Exactly! I was indoctrinated. My moral compass was environmental, not innate. Think about people who grow up in abusive environments -- many of them become abusers themselves. People who are taught hatred and bigotry often become hateful and bigoted themselves. Before I met my wife, she dated a white guy from South Africa. He grew up under apartheid and developed some very racist ideas.

 

"Human society" is a gross oversimplification. Society in Rwanda is very different than society in the United States, and the resulting values and morals are different too. So who's to say what's right?

 

P.S. My wife sincerely believes I'm insane to think this way, but I'm just trying to think rationally. My philosophy professor trained me well...in a sadistic sort of way.

[AgnosticBob AtheistPants]

Counterpoint: The word created poses a problem here. That implies that someone or something created us -- and preordained that we should be equal. BUT without a creator God, then who's to say we're equal? If we simply evolved (as I believe we did), then perhaps we're not equal.

 

There’s no need to believe there was any “preordination” of this equality. You don’t like the word “created” because to you it implies a creator. Well, what is that creator? Can you point it out? Can you show me beyond any doubt that a single individual that you know as “God” created you, me, or any other person? Second, third, and any other number of hand accounts don’t cut it. You need to be able to produce the creator yourself or it’s hearsay that it exists. No silly stories about watches and watchmakers either. A watch is not a living organism. It can’t evolve. We have plenty of evidence to support the theory of evolution, so we know one plausible possibility of our origins. What we don’t know is if the matter from which we evolved was created or has always existed. If it’s always existed, then we’ve always existed in some form or fashion and our “creation” applies only to our current form. If the matter was created, then we don’t know how, why or by whom and there is no evidence to support any theory about it, religious or otherwise. For this discussion, all we need to be concerned with in either case is the fact that we are here and we as humans are all born equal.

 

Our equality comes at birth. We are born equally defenseless. We are born equally capable of success or failure. We are born equally capable of learning right from wrong. The environment in which we are raised is what determines where we go from there. I agree this would seem to mean that perhaps Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, or bin Laden could be right. Does that mean they ARE right? No.

 

I’m no scientist, but I truly believe that “morality” is inherent. There are studies on the matter. I’ve been reading on this particular site and it makes a lot of sense: http://www.onelife.com . But forget studies even. Let’s go back to infancy and very young childhood. If you watch very small children, you see that their instincts are to share, to help, and to care. Before they learn to be greedy and self-centered, they give freely. They try to help each other. They seem genuinely concerned about those around them in distress. As they grow older, their behavior changes. They learn to get what they want by taking it from the weaker child. They learn to use force. They learn to hoard their possessions rather than share them. Where do they learn these things? Experience. Watching others. Certainly these behaviors can be attributed to survival instincts as well. But they are very egocentric and singular. They don’t involve others. They completely disregard the survival benefits of working together to achieve the goal. We are an egocentric animal, but we do have the instinct to work together for our own good and the good of others. Look at the United States. Our country was founded on this type of belief system and look at us now. In only a little over 200 years, we’ve become the most powerful country in the world. This is NOT to say that the US is a perfect country or a perfect model for society. Of course it isn’t. Nothing is perfect nor will it ever be. But we do work together for a common good, punishing those (for the most part) who work against that good.

 

But now you’ll say “How do you know that this is the ‘right’ good? How do you know that those you claim are working against the ‘right’ good are wrong?” I don’t think you’ll ever find a satisfactory answer, especially if you can’t accept an inherent evolved morality.

 

 

Off topic... but Ag. Atheist, do you know where I can go and see all the fine print on the food boxes and stuff from the movie? I only caught one while watching it... the "Girl Scout" cookies box that said, "Guaranteed to make you gain weight." I am sure that there were lots of other things in the movie too that I didn't catch.

 

No, sorry pandora, I sure don't. I've looked around on the movie site a little, but didn't really see anything. I can't wait til it comes out on DVD though. DEFINITELY one to freeze frame and try to find quirky little funnies they stuck in!

[Bobo]

I’m no scientist, but I truly believe that “morality” is inherent. There are studies on the matter. I’ve been reading on this particular site and it makes a lot of sense: http://www.onelife.com . But forget studies even. Let’s go back to infancy and very young childhood. If you watch very small children, you see that their instincts are to share, to help, and to care. Before they learn to be greedy and self-centered, they give freely. They try to help each other. They seem genuinely concerned about those around them in distress. As they grow older, their behavior changes. They learn to get what they want by taking it from the weaker child. They learn to use force. They learn to hoard their possessions rather than share them. Where do they learn these things? Experience. Watching others. Certainly these behaviors can be attributed to survival instincts as well. But they are very egocentric and singular. They don’t involve others. They completely disregard the survival benefits of working together to achieve the goal. We are an egocentric animal, but we do have the instinct to work together for our own good and the good of others. Look at the United States. Our country was founded on this type of belief system and look at us now. In only a little over 200 years, we’ve become the most powerful country in the world. This is NOT to say that the US is a perfect country or a perfect model for society. Of course it isn’t. Nothing is perfect nor will it ever be. But we do work together for a common good, punishing those (for the most part) who work against that good.

 

 

Do you really think that's true? Do you think that experience really teaches us to become more selfish? I suppose that happens in some cases, but it's probably the norm. The fact is, as Freud so deftly put it, that infants are egomaniacs. They only think of themselves, and they believe the world revolves around them. Everyone they see exists for the sole purpose of meeting their needs. As they mature, they learn that other people count too. It's a parent's job to teach a child to share and to respect others (not that all parents actually do this). Children are cruel. They are the most concrete example of natural selection and the pecking order that parallels the animal world -- the bigger kids beat up the smaller ones and steal their lunch money!

 

Think about it...do we think of selfish adults as mature? No...they're more like little kids. Sometimes we tell them to "grow up."

 

I'm going to disagree mightily with the notion that morality and truth are subjective. If that were the case then it makes it OK to live in a fantasy world where the earth was created in six days and water can turn into wine if that makes you feel better. But it's not real.

 

I want to believe what is real, but I know that, as a human, my emotions can be misleading or even selfish. My life experience has taught me (the hard way on occasion) that I can't trust even my own judgment because I'm not omniscient. I still have a lot to learn, and I'm open to the possibility that I might learn something later in life that convinces me to follow Christianity again or that it might be true and I won't know until it's too late.

[Bobo]

Do you really think that's true? Do you think that experience really teaches us to become more selfish? I suppose that happens in some cases, but it's probably the norm.

 

Correction: I suppose that happens in some cases, but it's probably NOT the norm.

[Jimmy]

Greetings,

 

I read your post about the CCC leader telling you that you cannot be moral without any meta-narrative. I think that this is a common notion held in common by many Christians (I would bet that it stems back to C.S. Lewis' 'Mere Christianity') and I think it is completely wrong whether one is religious or not.

 

The meta-narrative/universal moral code is fundamentally unethical. A meta-narrative implies that right action can be spelled out propositionally and holds true for all people in all situations. However, life is messy (i.e. too complicated to be spelled out propositionally) and universal moral codes always break down and end up reflecting injustice. The reason for this break down is, I think, that the uniqueness and variability of real persons is subverted in order to put people into categories. These categories are of course defined by the moral code. As such, instead of respecting persons in their own right they are treated as belonging to a category. I would go so far as to say that it is the meta-narrative that always becomes the means by which people are dehumanized and turned into mere objects like rocks and trees (see note 1 below) that can be manipulated without regard to their well-being. In a crude statement: universal moral codes/meta-narratives are the very things that enable bigotry.

 

To act ethically, we need to take an approach to people that is based on dialogue. When one understands the other, one comes to see what is compelling and meaningful to the other and thereby come to see what we dispositionnally enact in a taken-for-granted manner (crudely put: our biases are made visible to by dialogue with others). One can see oneself through the eyes of the other and act upon the knowledge of: (1) our own enriched self-understanding via the other, (2) our understanding of the other, and (3) the ways in which these two understandings interrelate (see note 2 below). Note that this is not a live-and-let-live philosophy but rather the commitment to engage in mutual understanding followed by judgment - that can of course be revisited. In short, ethical actions are fundamentally interpersonal.

 

BTW, on a more personal note. I have read a little bit of philosophy and a lot of social science. From my reading I would position myself by saying that I think that there is something salvageable in Christianity. (I think that one needs to categorically reject fundamentalism and take a very critical look at the socio-historical development of evangelical Christianity) However, this site seems to be a place for ex-Christians to express their experiences, hurts, and joys and not the place for me to stage a proclamation. I am not here to 'defend the faith' because I honestly struggle with my own faith at a profound level such a proclamation would be hollow to a certain degree. My role here is more to learn in ways that are impossible in a Christian community (blatently self-centred I'll admit).

 

Best,

Jimmy

 

Notes

1. I know that there is a contingent of readers here who feel that 'naive' people such as myself need to wake up to the fact that we are nothing but objects - qualitatively the same as rocks and trees. I reject this position because I do not think that it can account the richness of things such as language and art. I am not building this argument here. I recommend reading Charles Taylor's: 'Human Agency and Language: Philosophical Papers 1' & Bakhtin's 'Toward a Philosophy of an Act' for pro. Maybe read Michael Tomasello's: 'The Cultural Origins of human Cognition' or S. Pinker's new book for con.

 

2. Incidentally, I think these sort of non-propositional ethics are the only way that anyone can in good conscience fulfill the attitude embedded in the statements: (1) love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and strength (if you take God’s purported love for his creation seriously, you actually should see no difference between God and the other), and (2) love your neighbor as yourself. I don't want to proselytize here. Think of this note in a polemic sense: perhaps something like my critique of Christianity.

[AgnosticBob AtheistPants]

Do you really think that's true? Do you think that experience really teaches us to become more selfish? I suppose that happens in some cases, but it's probably [not] the norm.

 

I'm not saying that experience is the only thing that teaches us to be that way. I acknowledge that these things are also probably part of our survival instincts. But it's apparent that we also have instincts that tell us working together is a means of survival as well. Cultivate those over the egomaniacal instincts and you get someone well suited to life in society. Just my opinion.

 

I'm going to disagree mightily with the notion that morality and truth are subjective. If that were the case then it makes it OK to live in a fantasy world where the earth was created in six days and water can turn into wine if that makes you feel better. But it's not real.

 

This sounds terribly much like a Christian defending Christianity as the source for morality. Just change it to:

 

If that were the case then it makes it OK to live in a fantasy world where the earth was created by a big bang and man came from monkeys if that makes you feel better. But it's not real.

 

You said in your initial post:

 

But if there's one thing I've learned the hard way in my adult life is that the world is often gray. And I'm really not equipped to handle it. It comes up a lot in the hazy, amoral personal decisions I have to face day in and day out. I've learned that you can't rely on rules for everything, and you have to not only avoid the obviously wrong answer but choose the BEST answer.

 

Doesn’t the fact that things are all in shades of gray necessitate the subjectivity of truth and morality? If it were objective, there could be no shades of gray. There would be right and there would be wrong and there would be no in between, only black and white. Everyone would have the same morals. The only choice would be whether or not to adhere to them. If you do, you’re “black”. If you don’t, you’re “white”. Now in a different subject, perhaps there is objective truth, but when it comes to philosophy and religion, I doubt it.

[Ouroboros]

The meta-narrative/universal moral code is fundamentally unethical. A meta-narrative implies that right action can be spelled out propositionally and holds true for all people in all situations. However, life is messy (i.e. too complicated to be spelled out propositionally) and universal moral codes always break down and end up reflecting injustice.

Impressive. You put it very well Jimmy.

 

The reason for this break down is, I think, that the uniqueness and variability of real persons is subverted in order to put people into categories.

Could be, and I think it's also explained in the "proverb": We judge our own actions on our intention, while judging others by their actions.

 

Like the criminal system is somewhat based on if a person intentionally did some thing or accidently. The term "premeditated murder" comes to mind as opposite to "act of rage" or "act of passion" etc.

 

We like to make life simple by creating simple rules to follow, while (like you said) life is messy, and the rules really never apply 100%. The moral code is more like a guideline, something that is to strive to, but never can be completely accomplished. For instance, "don't steal", can be interpreted different. If I write down a personal note for something I need to do at home, and I use the company's pen, I wasted a little paper and a fraction of ink, for my own personal use. Was that stealing? Where should one draw the line of what is considered stealing? Even the meta-narrative/universal moral code has to be interpreted subjectively.

 

Well, I just wanted to say, it was a good post Jimmy.