Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Running The Gauntlet


Centauro

Recommended Posts

One of the things that I like about the confusing approach is that it forces the other person to build their entire argument from ground up instead of just disagreeing with individual points that you're making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Centauro

    26

  • Citsonga

    10

  • Shyone

    9

  • ClaraOlive

    7

Well, on the way home from our weekend we listened to chapter 3 in the first book of John.

 

I listened intently and had a question about verses 6-9, especially verse 9: "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."

 

I innocently asked, as an inerrant literalist, that would be confusing to me because if this is to be interpreted literally, all believers are without sin. I then said that is confusing me because aren't we all born depraved and with sin? And doesn't fundamentalism state we are all sinners and can never achieve a totally sinless life even as believers?

 

She was stumped, and was trying to find cross references to this. She found a couple that were vague and did not answer my question. I listened politely and then went back to my original question...she got very quiet and said it was a good question and terminated the discussion. Nothing was said for quite some time, and it seemed to strike a nerve.

She was not upset with me, but seemed introspective about what I said and asked.

It surprised me that she didn't come to the defense of the verse with more intensity.

 

When I was a believer, I took this passage to be referring to a deliberate continuance in a lifestyle of sin, not just to little mistakes that everyone makes. In fact, some translations (especially the Amplified Bible) render it in a way that makes that understanding plausible.

 

Of course, now that I realize that there are inconsistencies in the Bible, I am no longer convinced that that's the meaning, but back then I had to fit it in with other passages that said that nobody was sinless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the questioning approach because if you approach people with the purpose of trying to win them over, it makes them want to put up their defenses and be skeptical of what you say. But simply asking questions relaxes the conversation and the other person no longer feels like they're on the defensive and can answer more honesty and I've found this to be an effective way of debating with anyone on any subject, whether Christian or otherwise. If I'm not mistaken, Socrates also took this approach that he didn't believe in winning debates but wanted to have his views be challenged by others and debating was a cooperative action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My attitude toward this has really affected my approach. After initially reading Ehrman, I was gung ho and really wanted to confront them with my data. After bringing up some of Ehrman's points, they were met with such disinterest that I realized (as some here predicted and had experienced) it was a no win situation for me. They don't care about reality...period.

I am not going to put much effort in this beyond just pointing out the confusion raised in the scriptures we read. I have better things to do with my time, and will let this study die a slow death and just be lax in my involvement. The entertainment factor will be what will drive me now, not the desire to change minds.

 

I will keep you updated..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that bringing up "confusion" within the scriptures is a better approach for that type of Bible study anyway.

 

A possible problem with bringing up Ehrman's points is that a lot of them deal with issues external to the actual words of the text- historical timeline problems, possible additions, translation issues. And Christians in a devotional study, as you've seen, don't care about those things, partly out of laziness, but also because they believe that god preserved the Bible to come down to them the way it is, and any changes were things god allowed. They have to believe that.

 

IMO, the real mind-changer for a Christian (or at least something that can raise serious questions) is being forced to read and explain the words from an outsiders perspective and not in the little cliches they had always been taught. As you asked your wife- what does it mean that those born of god cannot sin? Or what does it mean that everyone who loves is born of god? And if you can find some genuineness in wanting to understand (versus causing a confrontation or being the smart guy who can point out the contradictions), that will be even better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I impishly ask them to show me wehre it says the law is still in effect. They go through spasms trying to find it...LOL....

 

Don't they ever bring up Matthew 5:18 ("Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled")?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I impishly ask them to show me wehre it says the law is still in effect. They go through spasms trying to find it...LOL....

 

Don't they ever bring up Matthew 5:18 ("Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled")?

 

Oh yes...but I simply take them to Luke Chapter 26. I show them that the New Testament begins at the cross, Matthew was still technically OT. I also show them Romans 5:16. For those "IN CHRIST". I can go around and around with them and watch them have a mental fit.

...which, of course, presents a contradiction with the claim that "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law" until "heaven and earth pass." ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I impishly ask them to show me wehre it says the law is still in effect. They go through spasms trying to find it...LOL....

 

Don't they ever bring up Matthew 5:18 ("Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled")?

 

Oh yes...but I simply take them to Luke Chapter 26. I show them that the New Testament begins at the cross, Matthew was still technically OT. I also show them Romans 5:16. For those "IN CHRIST". I can go around and around with them and watch them have a mental fit.

...which, of course, presents a contradiction with the claim that "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law" until "heaven and earth pass." ;)

Oh, come on. A good apologist can wiggle around this! Take one wiggle: "The law has not passed. It still exists. It has, however, been supplanted, replaced, modified, etc."

 

There are probably a thousand ways to wiggle out of this, and I haven't even tried looking up the "official apologetic" for this.

 

None of that changes what we know, and if words truly have the meaning they appear to have, then the bible is totally screwed up, but an apologist can make black into white, or white into black, and they don't even have to think about why they are doing it.

 

When you start with a proposition, and the opposite is true, you don't just acknowledge the truth, you start twisting and dodging. "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Oh, come on. A good apologist can wiggle around this! Take one wiggle: "The law has not passed. It still exists. It has, however, been supplanted, replaced, modified, etc."

 

There are probably a thousand ways to wiggle out of this, and I haven't even tried looking up the "official apologetic" for this.

 

 

I've asked the Christians in Sunday school at my parents' church once about this contradiction when they were studying about the Judaziers. All they did was just ignore my question and quoted Paul, thinking if they could quote Paul enough times, it'll make the contradiction go away, so I'm not sure if there is an official apologetic answer. I haven't heard anything other than blatant ignoring in any case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've asked the Christians in Sunday school at my parents' church once about this contradiction when they were studying about the Judaziers. All they did was just ignore my question and quoted Paul, thinking if they could quote Paul enough times, it'll make the contradiction go away, so I'm not sure if there is an official apologetic answer. I haven't heard anything other than blatant ignoring in any case.

Below is one example from one apologist about how to wiggle out from under Matt 5:17-18.

 

One Commentator writes, "Exactly what did Christ here signify by 'the law'? We answer, unhesitatingly, The whole Jewish Law, which was threefold: ceremonial, judicial, and moral. The ceremonial described rules and ordinances to be observed in the worship of God; the judicial described ordinances for the government of the Jewish commonwealth, and the punishment of offenders: the former was for the Jews only; the latter primarily for them, yet concerned all people in all times so far as it tended to establish the moral Law. The moral Law is contained in the Ten Commandments."

 

He goes on to say, "The ceremonial law has not been destroyed by Christ, but the substance now fills the place of its shadows. Nor has the judicial law been destroyed: though it has been abrogated unto us so far as it was peculiar to the Jews, yet, as it agrees with the requirements of civic justice and mercy, and as it serves to establish the precepts of the moral law, it is perpetual--herein we may see the blasphemous impiety of the popes of Rome, who in the canons have dared to dispense with some of the laws of consanguinity in Leviticus 18. While the moral law remains for ever as a rule of obedience to every child of God, as we have shown so often in these pages."

 

Tricky, aren't they? The details of what was meant and how this apology are incorrect can be found in the following link:

http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/eschatology/law_fulfill.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, come on. A good apologist can wiggle around this! Take one wiggle: "The law has not passed. It still exists. It has, however, been supplanted, replaced, modified, etc."

 

There are probably a thousand ways to wiggle out of this, and I haven't even tried looking up the "official apologetic" for this.

 

None of that changes what we know, and if words truly have the meaning they appear to have, then the bible is totally screwed up, but an apologist can make black into white, or white into black, and they don't even have to think about why they are doing it.

 

When you start with a proposition, and the opposite is true, you don't just acknowledge the truth, you start twisting and dodging. "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

 

Full agreement here. In fact, it's kinda easy for them to wiggle out of this one since Jesus is also quoted as saying that he came to fulfill the law. Of course, even with that it's still problematic, but they can make it sound workable to those who want to believe it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In which 10 commandments is the moral law contained?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Update:

 

Been awhile and I apologize. Lots of work issues and family stuff has taken a lot of my time.

 

Without going into too much detail, I have missed most of the bible studies up until last sunday. We discussed 1 John 4:1-6. The discussion centered around the word "spirit"; spirit of the world and the spirit of christ. I listened, and was amazed to hear that some in the group(my wife included) thought we were born with a conscience (albeit without christ) and were able to make decisions regarding right and wrong. I was dumbstruck! If I had a dime every time I was told I could not make a moral (right or wrong) decision without being born again with a biblical basis for my decision, I would be a millionaire.

I jumped in saying this was confusing to me, as according to the bible and their church dogma, we were born evil and depraved. Two of the real hardliners, agreed. For the next hour, the two sides politely found biblical references to shore up their view.

I could tell my wife was agitated as she had stated something (she said we were born with a conscience)and in our private "discussions" said we were born without the ability to be moral, and until we accepted christ we had no moral compass to help us to distinguish between right or wrong.

My recognition of the double standard (I did not say anything outside of the study) seemed to make her even more emotionally distant than before.

It has been a difficult 6 weeks. Since I have refused to go to church, her anxiety (IMHO) has slowly risen to a very uncomfortable level for her. People have been asking about me, etc...she probably is embarrassed. The holidays are coming up and she wants to present a united front for christmas worship. I certainly would go to christmas service with her, just as a tradition...I like christmas carols and the cultural aspects of the holiday.

I also think what has really made her emotionally distant is she is and has been resentful of me having more spiritual influence on our children. They are suspicious of her church, and are very aware of their motives and dogma. My wife blames me for this, and holds me responsible for their eternal damnation.

I have been reading volumes on the psychology of fundamentalism, personality types, its affects on relationships, and how they compensate to maintain their world view.

I am not optimistic on our future. At best, we will be two people living in the same home, but leading separate lives. Her self esteem, how she totally defines herself is ultimately wrapped up in her church/fundamentalism. If that goes, I am convinced she will have a meltdown. She has all but said that to me.

Where that leaves me is on the outside, of the "world". And the more I try to have her see my point of view (not accept it, but just understand it) the more she buries herself into her religion to protect her sanity...I fully believe that now.

The fine line I walk now is trying to maintain my self respect by being who I really am, and not causing too much cognitive dissonance in my wife so she can maintain her sanity.

 

This is nuts...

 

Centauro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear ya. My other half is Catholic, and lately, it is becoming a major problem. He wants to be in charge, to be the head of the household, to be the leader, and I can't live like that. He tells me he wants our daughters raised in the Church, and I keep telling him no. When they get old enough, they can make their own decisions, but I don't want them thinking the best way for them to fulfill their lives is to become wives and mothers.

 

I've realized I'm too fucking tired to keep this up, and I don't want to give up any more of my life for something I no longer feel for someone I no longer feel it for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Update:

I am not optimistic on our future. At best, we will be two people living in the same home, but leading separate lives. Her self esteem, how she totally defines herself is ultimately wrapped up in her church/fundamentalism. If that goes, I am convinced she will have a meltdown. She has all but said that to me.

Where that leaves me is on the outside, of the "world". And the more I try to have her see my point of view (not accept it, but just understand it) the more she buries herself into her religion to protect her sanity...I fully believe that now.

The fine line I walk now is trying to maintain my self respect by being who I really am, and not causing too much cognitive dissonance in my wife so she can maintain her sanity.

 

This is nuts...

 

Centauro

I hate to say it, but I think I'd be really backpedelling, fake with all my heart and "soul", and...

 

Oh, god that sounds awful.

 

Well, maybe I'd try. I guess I'm lucky I never faced that exact problem. Instead, I faced a wife with mental disease who seemed to hurt me every time I turned around, but I knew she couldn't help it, so I forged ahead and said I'd do "whatever was necessary" to stay together. Even sacrificing my own integrity.

 

Fortunately, my efforts persuaded her to get treatment and things turned around.

 

Know any good therapists for Christianity?

 

I really feel for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Update:

 

 

I have been reading volumes on the psychology of fundamentalism, personality types, its affects on relationships, and how they compensate to maintain their world view.

 

 

This is nuts...

 

Centauro

 

Hey Centauro,

 

Could you share what sources you are reading in regards to the psychology of fundamentalism, personality types..., I'd love to get some good resources to try and figure out my mother a little more. Thanks. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that for Robert Price's book, this link may work better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that for Robert Price's book, this link may work better.

 

 

Thanks guys. Can't wait to dig into 'em.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bolianbob,

 

Amazon has some great books on the psychology of christian fundamentalism also.

Some general searches on google, ie. 1. family dynamics and christian fundametalism (CF), 2. psychosis and CF, 3. isolation and CF., 4. pathology and CF....you get the idea.

 

I wish some of this information was available to me 17 years ago when my wife became "born again". It would have saved me years of anger, debate, and frustration when dealing with the compensatory mechanisms they use to keep fear/anxiety at bay. I don't think if I had access to this information it would have changed how my wife reacts to me as a non believer, but it certainly would have changed my responses to the ludicrous and idiotic things she would say.

 

Some random thoughts on what I have learned:

 

Ambiguity is very stressful to fundies. Not only is th bible literal, they tend to process most information in a literal sense. Sarcasm is lost on them. My wife HATES sarcastic humor...even the most benign and non judgmental kinds. She was not like that before her conversion. She had an extreme personality change. I have heard people describe conversion as a psychological and social lobotomy. That is an extreme description, but not too far from the truth.

 

Rational thought is nonexistent with regards to discussing spiritual differences with them. The more you make your point the more they will retreat to their "safe place" = church, fundy friends, more bible reading, etc.

 

Isolation from non believers is essential to maintain their faith. Satan is everywhere ready to challenge their faith. This is war to them, and it is an "us vs them" world.

 

Decisions are made externally, projecting responsibility outside oneself. Submission to an outer authority, ie bible, pastor and the CF group. Individuality/independence is thought to be egotistical. If you don't submit, you are "prideful".

 

Original thought is discouraged, even seen as demonic.

 

 

Good luck with your searches and readings....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bolianbob,

 

 

 

Isolation from non believers is essential to maintain their faith. Satan is everywhere ready to challenge their faith. This is war to them, and it is an "us vs them" world.

 

Decisions are made externally, projecting responsibility outside oneself. Submission to an outer authority, ie bible, pastor and the CF group. Individuality/independence is thought to be egotistical. If you don't submit, you are "prideful".

 

Original thought is discouraged, even seen as demonic.

 

 

Good luck with your searches and readings....

Sounds a lot like a cult.

 

It walks like a cult, talks like a cult and isolates like a cult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bolianbob,

 

 

Ambiguity is very stressful to fundies. Not only is th bible literal, they tend to process most information in a literal sense. Sarcasm is lost on them. My wife HATES sarcastic humor...even the most benign and non judgmental kinds. She was not like that before her conversion. She had an extreme personality change. I have heard people describe conversion as a psychological and social lobotomy. That is an extreme description, but not too far from the truth.

 

Rational thought is nonexistent with regards to discussing spiritual differences with them. The more you make your point the more they will retreat to their "safe place" = church, fundy friends, more bible reading, etc.

 

Decisions are made externally, projecting responsibility outside oneself. Submission to an outer authority, ie bible, pastor and the CF group. Individuality/independence is thought to be egotistical. If you don't submit, you are "prideful".

 

Original thought is discouraged, even seen as demonic.

 

 

 

The above, but especially that first paragraph describes my mother to a "T." About the only difference for her is that she can't find a church she's happy in, and she is willing to hang out with non-believers and form some sort of relationship with them. For her, however, it's really kinda weird because of her divorce from my abusive father - since she managed to justify her divorce bibically (using a lot of OT stuff), but no church will back divorce, she feels put on the spot and like an outsider wherever she goes. But she clings to that fundy crap with all her heart and soul, basically creating her own definition of it, pretending the stuff she doesn't want to hear/read is trumped by the stuff she does like. Makes me sad, really , because prior to her finding religion, from what I understand she was a strong, happy, outgoing, and forward thinking woman. Yet almost none of those would describe her as I've known her. Some of her pre-conversion accomplishments prove to me that the above is true. Sad what religion does to some people - of course, they never see it that way, they've convinced themselves that they are so much better off.

 

No, you're not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hrdwarrior....that is truly sad. What is very frightening to me is that under the right circumstances, ANYBODY could have a born again experience and enter the "fold". It has nothing to do with intelligence, income or education....I firmly believe that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We discussed 1 John 4:1-6. The discussion centered around the word "spirit"; spirit of the world and the spirit of christ. I listened, and was amazed to hear that some in the group(my wife included) thought we were born with a conscience (albeit without christ) and were able to make decisions regarding right and wrong. I was dumbstruck! If I had a dime every time I was told I could not make a moral (right or wrong) decision without being born again with a biblical basis for my decision, I would be a millionaire.

I jumped in saying this was confusing to me, as according to the bible and their church dogma, we were born evil and depraved. Two of the real hardliners, agreed. For the next hour, the two sides politely found biblical references to shore up their view.

I could tell my wife was agitated as she had stated something (she said we were born with a conscience)and in our private "discussions" said we were born without the ability to be moral, and until we accepted christ we had no moral compass to help us to distinguish between right or wrong.

My recognition of the double standard (I did not say anything outside of the study) seemed to make her even more emotionally distant than before.

 

Excellent point. Hopefully you've gotten some of them to thing about their contradictory views on the matter.

 

Also, recalling this previous comment:

 

She also found a footnote in her bible that agreed with what I said regarding different christian sects. She didn't like what she read, I could tell.

 

Perhaps little things like these will eventually break the shell and open her eyes. Perhaps she's already wondering if you may be right, even though she's apparently not acknowledging the possibility. After all, we ex-christians know quite well how difficult it can be to begin questioning a long-held worldview. The mental confusion and frustration can be hell.

 

At the very least, I wouldn't be surprised if, in the back of her mind, she's wondering if there may be a smidgen of a possibility that what she believes isn't 100% accurate.

 

And the more I try to have her see my point of view (not accept it, but just understand it) the more she buries herself into her religion to protect her sanity...I fully believe that now.

 

That does suck, man. But maybe, just maybe there's still some hope. Time will tell....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.