Huntsvil Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 Down that road lies invictus...... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It seems we are all stuck in this modern world view we have been taught about faith and God. But what if we could just chuck the Blble for a moment. At least in the way we have been taught to worship it and not God. Could it be that we have been looking at this whole debate thru a thoroughly corrupted eyeglass and if we could just look at it through our heart (emotion) and take it personally. Could it be that God is not so unlike us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 Sigh... Biblegod is a myth, no matter how you look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted July 10, 2005 Author Share Posted July 10, 2005 It seems we are all stuck in this modern world view we have been taught about faith and God. But what if we could just chuck the Blble for a moment. At least in the way we have been taught to worship it and not God. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Could it be that we have been looking at this whole debate thru a thoroughly corrupted eyeglass and if we could just look at it through our heart (emotion) and take it personally. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Could it be that God is not so unlike us? Hi there, Huntsvil Ah, you wouldn't be related to Amanda would you? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't think that this is your whole thought. But yes of course, Mother Culture gave us the corrupted eyeglass that makes everything look like it all belongs to one species, namely humans. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh sure, except I hope that he's getting close to being out of his terrible twos. (chef mumbles to self, "Lets see 1000 years = a day in god time. Terrible Twos last at least 365 days in people time. That would be 365,000 years worth of Terrible Twos for God. Creation is 6000 years old.") Oh for pete sake, we have 359,000 years to go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 The curious thing about statements like this (I make them too) is that we are treating or speaking of faith as if it were a demon separate from the whole package of TAP. As if we are saying, "I discern that TAP is possessed by the demon of faith." I don't think faith is a demon at all. In truth, I don't think faith has a damn thing to do with religion. It is an expression of spirituality, and has it's place. One of the things I feel sorry about for anyone trapped in a religion is that their faith and spirituality has been HIJACKED by the religion. So much so that they cannot seperate them. Religion=Faith=Spirituality to them. And they use those three words interchangeably, as though they will always mean pretty much the same thing. My ASS. I love the expression I get from people when I explain what deism is. They cock their heads like dogs and the look on their face is: "Whoa.....god without religion? I didn't know you could DO that." And the reason their faces are doing that? I'm warping their socio-cultural paradigm of religion. As much as I enjoy that expression, it IS distressing to see because it characterizes how much people are limited regarding their spirituality. Our society and culture quietly (and sometimes not quietly) steers people into the "accepted" and "sanctioned" spiritual outlets, and encourages us to demonize all other possible methods of spiritual expression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SkizzikS Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 I see the point of the OP, but here is where I would make a distinction. Even though cigarette smoking and other self destructive behaviors are certainly irrational they are however not built upon a series of propositional truths. Cigarettes are chemical stimuli that cause a body to develop a dependency. Christianity is belief system and a very structured one. It holds a great deal more significance to the mind than does a bad habit. Beliefs are thoughts and thoughts are much more readily exposed to reason than are chemical urges. If I am told that thought X is true and I find something that exposes X as false, then reason is much more offended if I ignore these sorts of implications than if I take another drag off a cigarette. I would say that over all reason played the biggest part in my deconversion, though there was a great deal of emotion. I could not deal with the confusion in Christianity, reason told me that something smelled rotten and my emotions said “I have had enough.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SkizzikS Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 One more thought on this. My entrance into Christianity was much more emotionally driven and exceedingly less informed than my exit. FWIW.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanInPA Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 This would raise the question: is reason your tool or your master?---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As it says in the Bible it may be good for a while, but it aint necessarily so. Antonio Damasio discovered in his studies of brain damaged people that people that have their emotional centers wrecked cannot make a decision or cannot make a good decision even when they can still reason logically. The tone of your statement suggests that having "emotion in control" is bad. Is that what you meant? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As you will discover from the first link, people are quite able to be content with cognitive dissonance -- for reasons having to do with survival. Hi Chef. Perhaps my post was rather ambiguous. Your first link didn't work, so I wasn't able to check it out. Now that I think about it, I guess one needs to use reason as well as emotion for survival. All I meant to say was, with the huge amount of evidence for the non-truth of xianity, I don't understand how a reasonable, intelligent person can not give up believing a myth is fact. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fallenleaf Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 Cerise also wrote something the other day that reminded me of my own experience. I prayed hard that I wouldn't lose my faith, yet I did. In fact, I told god to do whatever it takes to ensure I don't lose my faith; including letting me die while I still had it so that I wouldn't die faithless. I am adding this now, as I read through the thread, because this was my prayer as well. I kind of saw the future enough to realize I wouldn't be able to believe forever so I prayed desperately that God would let me die before it happened. I even had an ideal way it would happen, being killed while sharing his word with someone. I always thought that would be a good way to go. Anyway, the irony of this prayer only hit me much later... I was praying to die to go to a place which I believed I would one day understand wasn't real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaded Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 Great thread! I'm glad I have time to actually read through some of this site again. Before reading this thread I would have said that I decided to exit based entirely on reason. I read through the bible and found that it was just too inconsistent to be the product of an omnipotent being. I did turn to it for emotional reasons and looking for the answers to hard questions about life and why prayers were not answered and why things happen the way they do in the world. Reason is a great reason to leave and I think it is what ultimately caused many of us to leave, but it looks like it is emotion that caused us to re-evaluate our belief. The question it brings up is whether we examined Christianity with a prejudice from our emotions or where we honestly seeking to strengthen our faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted July 10, 2005 Author Share Posted July 10, 2005 Hi Chef. Perhaps my post was rather ambiguous. Your first link didn't work, so I wasn't able to check it out. Now that I think about it, I guess one needs to use reason as well as emotion for survival. All I meant to say was, with the huge amount of evidence for the non-truth of xianity, I don't understand how a reasonable, intelligent person can not give up believing a myth is fact. Dan sorry about the link here it is again. http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-11/beliefs.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SkizzikS Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 I kind of saw the future enough to realize I wouldn't be able to believe forever so I prayed desperately that God would let me die before it happened. I remember praying that one too. I even delved into the idea that god set the universe up such that it WOULD contradict his word as a test of faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 I am adding this now, as I read through the thread, because this was my prayer as well. I kind of saw the future enough to realize I wouldn't be able to believe forever so I prayed desperately that God would let me die before it happened. I even had an ideal way it would happen, being killed while sharing his word with someone. I always thought that would be a good way to go. Anyway, the irony of this prayer only hit me much later... I was praying to die to go to a place which I believed I would one day understand wasn't real. Amazing that several had the same prayer. My last prayer was not that I rather die than lose faith, but my prayer was for God to give me faith back again, or at least give me a sign or miracle that were undoubtedly by him. And I'm still waiting for his answer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 My reasons for leaving Christianity rest on my attempts to evaluate its claims rationally. My motivation for starting to reevaluate was influenced by emotion, because I realized as a gay person that sticking around in Christianity was hopeless, and God was unjust. I felt the injustice personally. I thought often, if I had been straight, I may possibly have just slid along in my dogmatic satisfaction and let the cognitive dissonance just lie there, without facing it. I became a Christian from emotion, so I don't think it's inconsistent for emotion at least to provide the push to leave it. I spent a lot of time as a new Christian trying to bring what I believed in line with reason, and for a while, I thought that worked. Now I see there's no way anyone can hold the Bible seriously as a guide to life and as explaining reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 I've read all other posts pertaining to the point that I was trying to make prior to this one. In light of the comments that were made, it seems that honesty is something that takes a back-seat when it comes to matters of faith. Where faith, according to the biblical definition is nothing more than a vision of something hoped for (or something like that), honesty, which isn't given too much of the limelight at all in the bible, seems to be the only thing that would enable anyone to know if their faith were true, or at the very least even slightly likely. Honesty gets you closer to the road to truth. However, it rarely takes you to where you want to go. That is not an honesty issue at all. It's a faith issue. It is an honesty issue as this is what was stated prior to the question. You took it upon yourself to claim it was a faith issue in order to keep from being honest about the question. If I'm not mistaken, this little tactic is known as intellectual dishonesty, is it not? Fruit and vegetables, Fwee. Not even apples and oranges in this case. It could have at least been beef and hamburgers if you weren't so good at evading the question. Okay, let's try this, TAP. You made this comment a few posts back: I can honestly tell you that Jesus walked on water and honestly tell you that I haven't. Now, I'm going to break this down a bit. 1. I can honestly tell you that Jesus walked on water 2. and honestly tell you that I haven't. Which statement is true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 I hate to break it to ya but Fwee is definitely a male. And Cerise is definitely a female. Unless he's been keeping secrets... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totallyatpeace Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 If I'm not mistaken, this little tactic is known as intellectual dishonesty, is it not? Oh, brother. It could have at least been beef and hamburgers if you weren't so good at evading the question. Okay, let's try this, TAP. I wasn't evading. You twisted the topic. You made this comment a few posts back: Now, I'm going to break this down a bit. Fwee?.......never mind. Which statement is true? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 1. I can honestly tell you that Jesus walked on water 2. and honestly tell you that I haven't. 1. It's true (for me) because I have FAITH that what that Bible says is true. 2. True. Because I've never done it. of couse #1 is false for you. P.S. I'm in a pissy mood so it's probably best I don't post anymore tonight. See ya Friday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 I wasn't evading. You twisted the topic. Actually, when I brought up 'honesty', I wasn't sure if it fit into the topic at all. That's why I posted this little gem. I have one quick question to throw in here... Anyone can answer how they see fit. Where exactly does honesty come into play during the deconversion process and, is honesty a reason, an emotion, or something altogether different? I'd say that I did a pretty good job of announcing that I intended to stay on topic when I asked that question. The funny thing is, nobody answered it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 1. I can honestly tell you that Jesus walked on water2. and honestly tell you that I haven't. 1. It's true (for me) because I have FAITH that what that Bible says is true. When you tell someone else that Jesus walked on water, are you lying to them? The answer to that question has nothing to do with whether or not the person on the recieving end of your statement is a believer or a non-believer. 2. True. Because I've never done it. This, is honesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caretaker Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 P.S. I'm in a pissy mood so it's probably best I don't post anymore tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kay Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Why? What emperical evidence can you supply to show this will be the case? Or is a statement of faith? More a general observation really. Half the time, we do things first and find a reason for it later. I didn't believe this at first, but then later, I think it may be true. I honestly don't believe we can put a reason to everything we do - why do I flex my fingers for no apparent purpose? Why do I change sitting positions if I'm not uncomfortable. Why do I swivel in my chair when I'm not restless or bored? It's only when I begin to concentrate on my actions and ask 'why' that half the time, I discover that I never had a reason for doing them to start off with. It's not a statement of faith. I won't be too upset if I'm disproven. Perhaps I'm just a weird person and everyone else does think about every single action, however minute, before they enact it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmatically_challenged Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Tap1. It's true (for me) because I have FAITH that what that Bible says is true. N.T. Faith is a nonsense word that can't be shown to be a reliable method in the real world. It is nonsensensical circular reasoning for a book to be any kind of revelation from a god. There is zero reason to have faith in anything if it is simply hope for things not seen. Xians love to count the hits and give unsubstantiated excuses for the misses in thier personal "evidences" that "validates" having confidence in the bible writers promises and stories. Faith is not useful for anything other than narrowminded self deception. Confidence needs some real evidences. To the Jews faith means fidelity as well as confidence depending on how the word is used, but it was never simply faith in things not seen. (Heb 11:13) These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. The examples given were based on bible characters who allegedly saw and spoke with god or a representative and witnessed miracles before hand in every case. They allegedly had real tangible evidences to build thier faith that there was a god before hand. Faith the way you are using it is a cop out Tap. Where are your evidences to have faith in the bible stories? Did any of these characters get a message from god through a book? No they never did. Does god speak to you in words Tap, OR is your "revelation" mere gut feelings? The bible characters allegedly had more from god than gut feelings or promises made them by anonymous writers of books or letters. (Heb 11:32) And what shall I say more? for the time would fail me to tell of Gideon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthah, of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets: So no. Jesus walking on water is not even true for you Tap until you test your reasons for having confidence in the xian bible by being a skeptic first. Sorry. I personaly have no proofs of a creator either way. I believe that there is no creator yet I will not say "It is true that there is no creator." I simply state that there is no evidence of a creator and that I choose only to have confidence in where the evidence takes me. -No god- is not a truth for me, it is simply a lack of belief only and not a truth. Now that is honesty. ----------------------------------------------------- Fwee As far as the deconversion process many things can lead to honesty. Anger. Frustration. Betrayal. Emotion and Reason plays thier part in the deconversion of people. For some curiosity and reason alone may have caused them to lose all faith. Emotion is what drives us to search in all cases. Even curiosity is an emotion. Anger or betrayal can lead to an honest searching later on down the road. Same with guilt or shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Madame M and Christopher Carrion have done a fine job of explaining the difference between faith and honesty in these posts here from another thread: I hate to revisit this thread, but at the time, I couldn't remember what the "pivitol" passage in the Bible was for me, that caused me to finally put both feet on the path to deconversion until I was answering another thread. I really do hope that I get an answer from Yo-Yo. Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Faith is nothing really, it is a belief in something unprovable. If that something was provable, it would no longer require a faith. So belief in the unprovable somehow gives substance or evidence to unprovable things (ie: not seen). It even admits that this is substance of things that are "hoped for". Hoping for something, is merely wishing or fantasizing or whatever. It doesn't make that something real. So the verse, circular logic at its finest, pretty much admits that there is nothing of substance to faith, except the person wishing for something and making it a mental reality for themselves. That does not make it a reality though. That does not make it true. That was when I realized I had built my life on whispy threads of nothingness. Madame M has hit the nail on the head. Faith, a "quality" generally promoted as positive and desirable, is when considered critically, one of the most psychologically perverse and destructive concepts the human race in its folly devised. It necessitates blind and witless adherence to a notion or ideal of which the adherent can never be certain, but by which they are obliged to define themselves. Therefore, over time the notion becomes crystallised in the adherent's psyche as fundamental; as something which must be defended at all costs, regardless of the validity of arguments or evidence brought against it. Faith is the prisoner in love with his cage, fearful of stepping into the outside world after so long spent finding meaning in the filth and darkness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Carrion Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 I am truly sick of explaining this to Christians, but hey ho; once more, unto the breach: Without the bible, and its various constituent tomes, there would be no concept in the Christian or biblical notions of God. Genesis arose from an area of the world around the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, historically speaking shortly after the compilation of "Gilgamesh"; an epic work recorded on stone tablets and believed to be the earliest recorded complete religious mythology we are currently aware of. The tablets essentially function as a conglomeration of the varying myths and folk-lore narratives of those various city-states which constituted Ancient Mesopotamia, and it is from this mythology that the creator(s) of Genesis, the first book of the bible, derived much of their "inspiration". In other words, almost every single core-concept or story in Genesis can be attributed in some way to the polytheistic PAGAN beliefs of Ancient Mesopotamia. In Gensis, "God" is given a variety of names, including El, who was the Zeus-equivalent of the Ancient Mesopotamian deities, and Yahweh, who was also highly influential in the pantheon and eventually broke away from the core religion as a separate and extremely bloodthirsty cult. The Christian conception of "God" is little more than the end-result of a small group of malcontents, who desired separation from mainstream Ancient Mesopotamian society for their own political/religious/socio-cultural reasons. The only reason Christians in the "modern" world are so ready to posit the frankly ludicrous argument that the concept of "God" has some form of autonomy outside of the bible, i.e., that it is a pre-existing notion that we, as its creations, are all instinctually aware of from birth is because over centuries of repression and cultural conditioning the concept has entered into the collective consciousness of most modern Western states and civilisations. We therefore become aware of it from a very early age, especially if we are born into a household or community in which faith in said concept is highly pervasive. Believe or not, or whether you like it or not, there were thousands of hundreds of religious or mythological ideologies thrown up by the human race long, long before the biblical or Christian concept of God was even contrived, and there are thousands of hundreds in existence now which, by dint of their geographical location, function quite nicely without any interference from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saviourmachine Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 When you tell someone else that Jesus walked on water, are you lying to them? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Misinformation That's bugging me more and more. So often I realize that I have something to say about for example the sincerity of Paul (he does display himself as a former, pious pharisee... so why does he not mention his lessons from Gamaliel? it's only in Acts). I guess I read it once in The Problem of Paul (by Hyam Maccoby). That's why I often try to invoke people to self study in stead of giving possible misinformation. The greatest sin in my environment. (I'm studying knowledge engineering. ) It's very difficult to be alert all the time. To think critical if texts are according to my own beliefs. Consider dangerous thoughts Later I realized that one way out can be to eliminate elements of doublethink and especially crimestop. Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought.It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments...and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity. ~ 1984 Be never too shy or scared to think out things completely. I don't believe in e.g. the big bang theory (as currently stated), that keeps me sharp. Deconversion In my case it was an interplay between ratio and emotions too. I purposely tested the foundations of my faith. Firstly, I investigated biological evolution and decided that it had to be true. I became a christian evolutionist. Secondly, I listed reasons I had to believe (besides personal experiences): prophecies, sincerity of gospel writers, etc. At that time I encountered this site. Still a believer I was very interested what the non-christian side of the coin was. Prophecies turned out to be a very weak ground to build my house upon. I didn't want to build it on sand, you know! In conversations with AUB (see former chat on his site) and others my view at the biblical writers did change too. That was the time I started to reconsider how I felt about god and christianity. Former nasty emotions came back. I tried to relocate again things like birth defects, disasters, third world hunger, people that never heard from the christian god, etcetera in my "belief system", but I couldn't anymore. (If I remember well, at that time, I didn't belief in hell, so that didn't cause me problems, except for the issue that god failed to communicate properly through his word.) Above that, I had a clear moment of recognizing that a god can't bring justice. In things people do to each other, the victims have to forgive their culprits. It's not fair if someone else (in this case: god) forgives someone what he/she has done unto you! It doesn't work like that in my opinion! Good luck everybody in being at the edge of our possibilities! To study everything that can be studied, without becoming crazy like a fox. PS: Thanks for your post, Joseph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totallyatpeace Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 I am truly sick of explaining this to Christians, but hey ho; once more, unto the breach: Without the bible, and its various constituent tomes, there would be no concept in the Christian or biblical notions of God. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> For the record..... I agree with you and there is no reason to explain it again. Toss the book? Toss the faith. It's that simple. Tap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts