Out Of The Extreme

[StickWitch]

I sent this post in as a testimonial thing, as well. I hope that's okay.

 

Hi, I'm new to this forum, my name's Rachael, I'm eighteen (though I feel it worthy of note as commentary on my personality that I haven't been living at home for over a year), and here is my testimony.

 

One of my earliest memories is me, my sister and my parents sitting around the dinner table, my Dad asking me to explain what the hypo-static union was. It was, of course, the theological term used to describe how Jesus is both God and man at once. We were taught constantly from birth about verses, the theology of the Bible and its arguments. It was a part of our life, growing up.

 

My dad is Matt Slick, and he is the author of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, or www.carm.org.

I no longer live at home, but this organization is the sole income of the rest of my family. My father's been on TV, debated Dan Barker, and his site (not necessarily him himself) is pretty much the personification of rationality in Christianity.

 

I was taught all the arguments of atheists and evolutionists and taught their flaws and how to rebuff them; I was taught how to think logically and critically, how to explain away every perceived problem in the Bible. By the time I was seventeen I'd memorized well over a thousand verses.

 

I never 'felt' God, though. While I was pretty brainwashed into believing that he did, MUST exist, I never emotionally connected with him or felt his presence.

 

After I moved out I got engaged and had sex with my fiance. I was overwhelmed with incredible feelings of guilt and shame, despite the fact that mentally I thought it was okay. What was wrong with sex if I was to marry the guy? Why did the Bible decry it so if it harmed no one, was done rationally and carefully of my own choice, and depended only on a tiny little legal slip to become moral?

 

Why did morality depend on the signing of a document?

 

That was the first part. The second was that, away from home, I began to see how judgmental and seclusive Christians really were. Christians were a club, and nonChristians were outside of that club. Only Christians were given real respect and trust, and I began to despise that. And while I know it is unfair to judge a religion based on the people within it, the trend here seemed too widespread and ingrained to be a product of *only* the personal egos of the participants.

 

And lastly, I could not resolve the differences between the Old Testament god and the New Testament god. They seemed to follow different rules of morality - punishments for one action would come and go. Laws seemed strict, arbitrary, the kind produced by flawed tribes instead of an all-knowing, absolute being.

I came to the conclusion that the Bible, while of certain historical merit, particularly in some books, was likely inaccurate and flawed, and I thus could not trust it.

 

I still believe there is some sort of absolute mind, though. Based on my studies of logic and physics, I cannot see how existence is capable without it.

 

So now I'm flailing, lost in the dark, having let go of something solid but untrue and searching for something true-r. Atheism cannot be the truth, but neither can any other religion I've studied.

 

But nevertheless, my life has been so much better since abandoning Christianity. My guilt has been shed, I no longer feel that nagging shame of not having read my Bible or gone through the routine of praying to brick walls. I feel loose. Free. And while I still have a great deal of respect for rational Christianity, I must say being free of it has never felt better.

 

I *would* like to point out, though, that having been raised with a very rational sort of Christianity - one that never ever gave 'just have faith' as a response for any question no matter how hard, I do have a distaste for nonChristians who misrepresent or interpret what the deeper doctrines of Christianity actually teach. Christianity does have flaws, yes, but from what I've found they're not usually what people tend to accuse it of. The same goes for Christians who ridicule the nonChristian side without truly understanding the reasoning behind its position. As a result of this I tend to defend Christianity just as much as I attack it.

 

So, I suppose that is it. It's good to meet you all, and I look forward to some stimulating conversations here on the forums.

[Overcame Faith]

Hi, Rachael. Welcome to ExC.

 

I enjoyed your testimony very much. You sound like a very intelligent person and I applaud that, especially your desire for rationality and logic. The one thing about rationality and logic, no one ever has those concepts at a 100% perfect level. We must strive for our entire lives after such. But the search for truth is one of the noblest pursuits anyone can engage in.

 

I watched a little of the debate between your father and Dan Barker on youtube. The title of the debate was, "Can a Person be Good without God." When I find time, I will watch the remainder of it.

 

Again, welcome.

[Margee]

Stickwitch - this is so exciting - having you on board!

 

Thank you so much for sharing your experience. I am really looking forward to reading your posts!

 

Welcome to the forum where people actually ask questions and actually look for truthful answers! Glad to have you!

 

P.s. I am going to watch that debate!

[cobrakai]

You wrote: "I do have a distaste for nonChristians who misrepresent or interpret what the deeper doctrines of Christianity actually teach."

 

 

I hope none of this seems like I am attacking you. I would genuinely like to know your thoughts. What exactly do you think nonChristians misrepresent or interpret when it comes to the deeper doctrines of Christianity? What are these "deeper doctrines" of Christianity? I was recently on The Dark Bible website (http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/DarkBibleContents.htm) so I figured I would pull some quotes from the section on how the bible teaches the inferiority of women. Here are two examples:

 

"Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go." (Judges 19:24-25)

Comment

 

Judges 19 describe a father who offers his virgin daughter to a drunken mob. When the father says "unto this man do not so vile a thing," he makes clear that sexual abuse should never befall a man (meaning him), yet a woman, even his own flesh and blood, or a concubine belonging to a perfect stranger, can receive punishment from men to do what they wish. This attitude against women still persists to this day and we have the Bible, in large part, to thank for this attitude against women.

 

Verse 25 describes the hours long gang rape of the poor concubine. The Bible gives not one hint of passion or concern for the raped girl. Considering that many people believe that every word in the Bible comes from God, it should not surprise anyone why people still use these verses to justify such atrocities.

 

AND THE OTHER:

 

"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)

Comment

 

Another case where the Bible makes it quite clear that women live for man and must submit to them.

 

 

So what is so rational about these verses? How would your training have defended these verses? I don't see how a so called "rational" Christianity can exist. The doctrine is what it is. It doesn't matter how many different sects of Christianity try to sugar coat things or come up with their own meanings just to try and gel with common sense and the modern world. Also I don't think atheists or atheism ever claim to know the truth or be the truth. Atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheists don't believe because there is reason not to believe; there is no proof. I guess people could debate all day about what "truth" is. I do know this though; whether this christian god exists or not is not subjective. He either does or he doesn't and I've seen no proof for his existence.

[StickWitch]

The explanation given by most Christians would be somewhere along the lines of the "Old Testament is discredited due to such and such" or "the culture was different and this and this..." But I haven't found any of the explanations to be sufficient. So yes, I'd agree with you. That would certainly be a portion of the Bible that has no good explanation for it, at least none that I'veh eard.

 

And what I mean by nonChristians "who misrepresent or interpret," I mean nonChristians who don't thoroughly know what Christianity teaches, or attack portions of Christianity which do have legitimate rebuttals. I don't believe Christianity is true, but I would much rather see people who attack it to be attacking it knowledgeably and intelligently, as I believe you did well in that post.

[JadedAtheist]

Thanks for sharing. It's amazing to see someone come out of that environment as a non believer. Though I guess they did equip you with the tools necessary to break you from the bonds of Christianity.

[cobrakai]

The explanation given by most Christians would be somewhere along the lines of the "Old Testament is discredited due to such and such" or "the culture was different and this and this..." But I haven't found any of the explanations to be sufficient. So yes, I'd agree with you. That would certainly be a portion of the Bible that has no good explanation for it, at least none that I'veh eard.

 

And what I mean by nonChristians "who misrepresent or interpret," I mean nonChristians who don't thoroughly know what Christianity teaches, or attack portions of Christianity which do have legitimate rebuttals. I don't believe Christianity is true, but I would much rather see people who attack it to be attacking it knowledgeably and intelligently, as I believe you did well in that post.

 

Thanks. And welcome to the site by the way. You are so lucky to have found such a great place at 18 yrs old. It is awesome that you are questioning things. I was a Christian from 18-28. It'd be nice to have those ten years back with the peace of mind I have now at 30. Peace of mind and mental freedom is salvation.

[BrotherJosh]

Welcome to Ex-C Stickwitch, I really enjoyed your post. I am inspired that you have reached so many of these conclusions already at the age of eighteen. Don't become downtrodden by those who would say your non-belief is due to your age because if you were older they'd chalk it up to a mid-life crisis, older yet and you'd be "senile". Good luck in your voyage, you obviously have a good start!

[MrsRobinson]

Welcome to the site! I always talk to the universe and am grateful for things, I just dont pray to God anymore because I still havnt made up my mind if I think he doesnt exist, or he does and hes a liar, or hes not the god of the bible but one we havnt heard of and never will. I wouldnt venture to other religions though because I dont think they have a God either. A bit confusing but, all I know is the bible lied to me constantly so I gave up that belief Im taking it day by day. Id really like to kick the humans lying ass who wrote it.

[Yalta]

Since you're the daughter of one of the biggest names in Christianity, and yet you ended up no longer believing in it, that's pretty amazing. Technically, you could be the face of an ex-Christian movement and give it a lot of credibility. "I used to believe in this stuff, and look who my dad is! And yet, I grew out of it!"

 

From seeing your website, it looks like you'd rather live a normal life, and if that's the case, I could hardly blame you. I hope your parents haven't disowned you. I don't presume to know them; it's just that some people here have horror stories of how they've been treated by the Christians in their own families, while other people have family members who were able to learn to agree to disagree.

[oddbird1963]

Thank you for sharing a portion of your story with us.

 

I hope you find the people at this site both supportive and entertaining.

[StickWitch]

Thanks guys for the welcome and support - and, looking through the forums, I must say I'm impressed by how a lot of you treat Christians. From the other side I always expected hostility, and there really isn't any more than what comes from the Christians themselves.

 

And I don't know if my Dad knows I'm not a Christian, or even if I'm getting married or where I'm living - from what I hear my family doesn't talk about me much - though he'll probably find this thread sooner or later. Surprise, dad.

I haven't talked to my Dad in over a year, save for one brief meeting in which I told him I didn't want to see him again. *I* left *him,* as my opinions about his personal virtue are quite low.

I'm close with the rest of my family, and I visit them on occasion when my Dad's gone (though I live 300 miles away). They don't approve of my decision to leave Christianity, but they're not shunning me, either. Things would be very different if I still lived under their roof, though, so thank goodness I don't.

[Yalta]

His personal virtue? It's interesting just how many people are seen as heroes to many, but their own personal lives don't measure up to their public image.

 

What's he like personally? Do you feel that he's a hypocrite, or using his own version of Christianity to obtain personal ends, or is he mean, or what?

[StickWitch]

I'm hesitant to decry him personally, as CARM sort of depends on his reputation, and CARM is what supports the rest of my family. But to put it vaguely... I vehemently disagree with his standards of personal virtue.

[Guest I Love Dog]

Atheism cannot be the truth, but neither can any other religion I've studied.

 

 

Welcome to Ex C! I'm sure that you have a lot to offer all members here.

 

Interesting that you say "Atheism cannot be the truth". Atheism is not dogma or doctrine or a religion or an answer to or for anything, it's simply the lack of belief in a god or gods. The definition doesn't even say that there is no god or gods. Atheists just don't believe there is one or more gods, based on all available evidence.

 

We are all born atheists and would stay that way if we weren't influenced by others and told about gods!

[Guest I Love Dog]

I don't see how a so called "rational" Christianity can exist. The doctrine is what it is.

 

lol! A Christian on another site asked atheists to prove that Christianity is irrational. It wasn't difficult!

[Dagan]

Welcome here!

 

I think I know what you mean by this: "having been raised with a very rational sort of Christianity - one that never ever gave 'just have faith' as a response for any question no matter how hard, I do have a distaste for nonChristians who misrepresent or interpret what the deeper doctrines of Christianity actually teach. Christianity does have flaws, yes, but from what I've found they're not usually what people tend to accuse it of."

 

The flaws are deeper and more subtle and more like tiny hard-to-see cracks in a diamond that render it worthless as a whole.

 

I look forward to seeing you around the forums!

[Phanta]

Hello, Rachael. It was nice to meet you in chat.

 

Be well.

 

Phanta

[Phanta]

You wrote: "I do have a distaste for nonChristians who misrepresent or interpret what the deeper doctrines of Christianity actually teach."

 

 

I hope none of this seems like I am attacking you. I would genuinely like to know your thoughts. What exactly do you think nonChristians misrepresent or interpret when it comes to the deeper doctrines of Christianity? What are these "deeper doctrines" of Christianity? I was recently on The Dark Bible website (http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/DarkBibleContents.htm) so I figured I would pull some quotes from the section on how the bible teaches the inferiority of women. Here are two examples:

 

"Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go." (Judges 19:24-25)

Comment

 

Judges 19 describe a father who offers his virgin daughter to a drunken mob. When the father says "unto this man do not so vile a thing," he makes clear that sexual abuse should never befall a man (meaning him), yet a woman, even his own flesh and blood, or a concubine belonging to a perfect stranger, can receive punishment from men to do what they wish. This attitude against women still persists to this day and we have the Bible, in large part, to thank for this attitude against women.

 

Verse 25 describes the hours long gang rape of the poor concubine. The Bible gives not one hint of passion or concern for the raped girl. Considering that many people believe that every word in the Bible comes from God, it should not surprise anyone why people still use these verses to justify such atrocities.

 

This was a pretty horrible verse that I had never seen before, so I read the whole passage and the following chapters. They're pretty important.

 

After the concubine is ravished by the men, which is clearly called "abuse" in the quoted verses, she dies from her injuries. The Levite cuts his now-dead concubine into pieces and sends them all over Israel to alert them to the evil that was done. This starts a war between the Isaelites and the Benjaminites because the Benjaminies refuse to release the guilty for judgement for their wrongdoings, preferring to fight about it. The war gets pretty nasty, and the Israelites end up burning all of the Benjaminites "towns, people, cattle" and stating, "Now the men of Israel had taken an oath at Mizpah: 'None of us will give his daughter in marriage to a Benjaminite.'"

 

So, the violence against the concubine was not ok with "God" or the Israelites. I don't have any training in Bible defense, btw. Just reading what's written plain. The Dark Bible is a pretty solid example, there, of "nonChristians who misrepresent or interpret what the deeper doctrines of Christianity actually teach." Or in this case, Judaism.

 

Phanta

[Guest Valk0010]

If you don't see atheism as true, thats fine. As a matter of fact a label is not really required, the answer could just be god. And whatever we are doing we are just trying to grasp that unknown or god as some people like to call it. Not everything needs to have a label, or already have been invented.

 

And as a point of just purely opinion, I would say the only type of rational christianity is the type that takes Jesus as a philosopher and leaves the supernatural stuff behind. However at the purely ethical and philosophical level I would have a disagreement with the value of it all, but that is just me.

 

I look forward to hearing from you.

[Franciscan Monkey]

That's great that you got out! I was involved in Christian apologetics for years, and CARM as well as Tekton Ministries were two of the sites I used frequently in defending the faith. They were also two of the Chrsitian sites that were the most influential in my deconverting, as the arguments made were insufficient when taken from an objective point of view. So I guess your Dad had a hand in my deconversion! Thank him for me!

 

Respectfully,

Franciscan Monkey

[StickWitch]

Phanta,

Good job for actually going back to read the verses, something i didn't bother to do in this case.

[Yalta]

Heh, I just checked out CARM.org and their article on whether or not atheists can have morals. It actually starts out pretty good, but soon devolves into the idea that atheists work based on their what works best for them (i.e. murder will get you thrown in jail) and join the majority in determining right and wrong - i.e. if a decree were to be made to kill all Christians, and there was no penalty for doing so, atheists would do so. What idiocy. It starts out saying atheists are moral, ethical people, but hints that these ethics are not really ethics at all, without outright saying so.

 

Article is here: http://carm.org/can-atheists-be-ethical

[Overcame Faith]

Heh, I just checked out CARM.org and their article on whether or not atheists can have morals. It actually starts out pretty good, but soon devolves into the idea that atheists work based on their what works best for them (i.e. murder will get you thrown in jail) and join the majority in determining right and wrong - i.e. if a decree were to be made to kill all Christians, and there was no penalty for doing so, atheists would do so. What idiocy. It starts out saying atheists are moral, ethical people, but hints that these ethics are not really ethics at all, without outright saying so.

 

Article is here: http://carm.org/can-atheists-be-ethical

 

Interesting article. However, there does seem to be something of a contradiction contained within it.

 

This:

 

Atheists are people who, whether they like it or not, have the law of God written on their hearts (Rom. 2:15).

 

Versus this:

 

Atheists' morals are not absolute.

 

Then I guess the "...law of God written on [our] hearts" is not absolute.

[Guest I Love Dog]

 

Atheists are people who, whether they like it or not, have the law of God written on their hearts (Rom. 2:15).

 

I've looked at a number of bible translations for this and saw not one reference to atheists in Romans 2:15.

 

I see Romans 2:14 as saying:

 

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves".

 

Gentiles being anyone who isn't Jewish but of a different nation.

 

followed by 2:15 :

 

"Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another".

 

Nothing about atheists at all. Christians doing their own interpretations again to suit their own ends to trash atheists. Pathetic.

 

I've never actually seen the word "atheist" in the bible, that I'm aware of. "Unbelievers", yes, but that generally refers to someone who doesn't believe in the god of the bible.

 

Pls correct me if I'm wrong.