kruszer Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I haven't gotten around to writing out my ex-timony yet, but I will volunteer that for me, the demise of my faith took place largely in the intellectual realm, following a disappointing life experience in the realm of actual Christians and a disappointing relationship "with God". As I read scholarly objections to the faith, including in particular Bart Ehrman, I began to see that the absolutes of the faith and inerrancy of the Bible weren't necessarily so, after all. I carefully did my research so as to not fall under the trap of bias confirmation. I was wiling to be wrong, but a large part of me wanted to find Christianity to be true. After all, I'd already invested 30 years of my life into making choices in light of Christianity being true. I resonated with Ehrman who like me identified with leaving his faith "kicking and screaming". Bart was an evangelical and a pastor schooled in three of the leading Bible schools. He set out to learn the ancient scriptures in order to better understand the texts he was teaching and preaching. His wife is still an active believer and he certainly had many valid reasons to not tear away from his long-time church culture. That said, since coming out to my former church peers, well meaning Christians have encouraged me to ignore Ehrman's findings, and have referred me back to Christian scholars like Dan Wallace and James White) who contradict the works of Ehrman. It has not escaped my notice that these other scholars remain believers, determine to remain in their chosen faith and confirm their bias of the Christian writings. Bart came out of our camp with a critical mind and that's what makes me more apt to take him seriously (whereas I've largely ignored the works of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris so far). But all of this back and forth on the evidence thrown at us from both Christian scholars and defenders of the faith and secular scholars who provide counter evidence to the reliability of the gospel texts raises a very interesting question in me: Assuming God is real, is he not asking more of the current generation of would-be converts than of previous generations prior to availability of such contention of knowledge? The Christian God has left us with a book that you have to admit *at least looks like* it's been tinkered with and altered over the years, by scribes, by memory gaps in oral tradition, and by the decisions and whim of those who had the social power and formed the canon. The book on which the instructions for our salvation supposedly hangs doesn't immediately shout "error-free and unaltered straight from the mouth of God!" You have to accept that initial premise on faith. So if we want to be saved, we have to not only trust in Jesus, but also have to first find a way to trust in the book that speaks of Jesus. And still before we can do that, we have to be able to know which Biblical scholar is telling the truth about the historicity and apparent textual inconsistencies, since both camps assert different things about the trustworthiness of the stories in the text pertaining to Jesus' deity and resurrection. So I have to first be able to place my faith in James White or Dan Wallace, to be able to put my faith in the historicity of the Bible, to be able to put my faith in Jesus? That's a flippin large amount of faith to ask of someone who wasn't lucky enough to be born with a gullible brain that accepts at face value what a pastoral figure or parent teaches them! And so, Christian, your God first made me with a brain and a critical mind that couldn't sit still with "...for the Bible tells me so", and then after I've done my best to study and conclude an answer that makes the most sense to me with the totality of evidence I've amassed, he will toss me into hellfire for all eternity if I pick the answer wrong? Sheesh! At least the dissenters of Jesus day supposedly got to see a miracle or two before they chose to disbelieve! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 For me surpisingly, and I find I am slightly rare in this aspect. It was hitchens and the likes of him, that deconverted me once (I consider it my trial run so to speak, since I reconverted later). But it was a brief foray into anthropology that really destroyed my faith and made me have to rebuild my views on the world. It seems in the past 6 months or so, I have really felt emotionally and I guess intellectual I have come into my own as far as my views. When I hear people spout apologetic like, who would die for a lie, or why would the testimony of women be listened too, i end up thinking again on how incredibly human the bible is, and how the mindsets of these 1st century Christians ain't much different then any other supposedly fake religions. Realizing that I couldn't have it both ways on that point, opened the door for me. They wanted what we all wanted. Forgiven and freedom and maybe some semblance of a purification. And a shamanistic character like Jesus, gave it too them. They would have done anything to believe. There are like my uncle, who once tried to tell me, that there was something in the mud that Jesus used to cure the blind man. They would say or convince themselves for anything, as long as it ended up being true. In many ways, apologists are no difference then the apostles paul or peter. They were willing to convince themselves of anything, as long as that conclusion that they would be going to heaven and be okay with god, be true. Take all of this, for what it may be worth, nothing at all, but its what I think at any rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thought2Much Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Kruszer, your post reminds me of how I was arguing with a Christian on another site once, and he told me that I had a "superficial" understanding of Christianity. He was fond of telling me exactly why the verses that I had problems with didn't mean what I thought they meant (even the ones that were rather clear and unambiguous), and would make references to lots of lofty Biblical scholars. So, in order to really understand enough about Christianity to be a good Christian, I have to not only have read the Bible, but every fucking criticism of it and interpretation of it that has been written over the last sixteen hundred years, in order to have more than a "superficial" understanding of it? Well, fuck that. EDIT TO ADD: So, if God wanted to tell us something in his special "love letter to the world" (GAG!), why didn't he just fucking say that, instead of whatever wound up being written? Why do I need some goddamn Biblical scholar to tell me the "true" meaning of what the Bible actually says over a thousand years later? If God didn't really mean, "Whatever you ask in my name, it shall be done," then maybe, just maybe, the dipshit shouldn't have included it in his piece of shit book! Sorry. For some weird reason this subject sets me off and makes me all sweary. I don't know why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Positivist Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Assuming God is real, is he not asking more of the current generation of would-be converts than of previous generations prior to availability of such contention of knowledge? ~~~~ And so...God first made me with a brain and a critical mind that couldn't sit still with "...for the Bible tells me so", and then after I've done my best to study and conclude an answer that makes the most sense to me with the totality of evidence I've amassed, he will toss me into hellfire for all eternity if I pick the answer wrong? This really resonated with me kruszer. It would have been easier to believe when there was less evidence of alternatives. It's virtually impossible to believe that God made the world in six days when stronger evidence exists against that. If God is real, why did he let us think beyond the level of a dog? And why did he sprinkle those damn fossils on mountains anyway and make the world seem so old? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Positivist Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 So, in order to really understand enough about Christianity to be a good Christian, I have to not only have read the Bible, but every fucking criticism of it and interpretation of it that has been written over the last sixteen hundred years, in order to have more than a "superficial" understanding of it? Well, fuck that. ~|~|~|~ Sorry. For some weird reason this subject sets me off and makes me all sweary. I don't know why. Trapped, this bugged the hell out of me too. I'm by nature analytical and my brain is like "the Princess and the Pea" so when something doesn't fit, I really do have to sort it out or it festers. I found it just so damn frustrating that to understand the TruthTM, I needed to not only read the manual (the Bible! ) but a whole fucking library (just the RightTM books from it, of course) about the manual. I find this intellectually overwhelming. The possibilities are simply endless and I would have to devote my entire life to uncovering the truth so I know exactly what to believe (to avoid hellfire). I just think God could have done a better job than what ended up in the Bible. I think even I could have done a better job. It makes me sweary too! Nice to hear from you, Trapped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kruszer Posted February 27, 2012 Author Share Posted February 27, 2012 So, in order to really understand enough about Christianity to be a good Christian, I have to not only have read the Bible, but every fucking criticism of it and interpretation of it that has been written over the last sixteen hundred years, in order to have more than a "superficial" understanding of it? Well, fuck that. ~|~|~|~ Sorry. For some weird reason this subject sets me off and makes me all sweary. I don't know why. Trapped, this bugged the hell out of me too. I'm by nature analytical and my brain is like "the Princess and the Pea" so when something doesn't fit, I really do have to sort it out or it festers. I found it just so damn frustrating that to understand the TruthTM, I needed to not only read the manual (the Bible! ) but a whole fucking library (just the RightTM books from it, of course) about the manual. I find this intellectually overwhelming. The possibilities are simply endless and I would have to devote my entire life to uncovering the truth so I know exactly what to believe (to avoid hellfire). I just think God could have done a better job than what ended up in the Bible. I think even I could have done a better job. It makes me sweary too! Nice to hear from you, Trapped. Both of you have it. Precisely my point. If you're God and your message needs to last 2000 years - as it is critical to the salvation of all mankind, why the hell would you supposedly perform the miracle of speaking your original words through holy men you used as your pen, only to not follow up with the miracle of preserving your words so we'd actually get your message loud and clear without any doubt or ambiguity? I mean come, on God - it's not like you're not omniscient and could see this coming! You knew we'd eventually have science and critical thinkers who could travel the world and collect documentation about the ancient world you appeared in and that your book would have to be better than it is to escape critical eyes. Did you really think you could just show up 2000 years ago prior to the age of print and expect your message to survive unfettered? And it's not like you couldn't see which doctrinal questions would pose the most confusion. Why couldn't you make it so clear (gold tablets in the sky, perhaps? what's with letters to the early church that are irrelevant to our culture anyway?) that all generations would know you were real and what the fuck you wanted from us? Come on! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephie Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Methinks gods problem is an insecurity issue. I mean he wants us to take him at his word even though it's full of inconsistencies and what not. To quote my mom, "You are too smart for your own good." The funny thing is...all it takes is some time to really think and pay attention to what is being read not some arbitrary level of intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I think if the word faith is defined to mean belief in the face of contrary evidence then the word implies stupidity. But this is not the meaning I generally use with the word. I believe in a few things which cannot be proven. These are foundational ideas that I build on to see what might be implied by believing in them. These ideas comprise what little faith I have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 If you were god and knew the inclinations of people to push their own agenda and try to control other people, would you trust those people to write down your will and commands for all time in a bible? No, you would not. As god, would you trust someone to verbally pass your word on to other people? Hell no! What is written down in the bible is corrupted bullshit created by man. The church is corrupted bullshit created by man.Trust your own instincts, ideas and strategies. Ignore the bible and ignore xian culture. If you want to call your own instincts and ideas, 'god', fine. If not, that's good too. :-) Be unique! Be original! haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Kruszer, your post reminds me of how I was arguing with a Christian on another site once, and he told me that I had a "superficial" understanding of Christianity. He was fond of telling me exactly why the verses that I had problems with didn't mean what I thought they meant (even the ones that were rather clear and unambiguous), and would make references to lots of lofty Biblical scholars. So, in order to really understand enough about Christianity to be a good Christian, I have to not only have read the Bible, but every fucking criticism of it and interpretation of it that has been written over the last sixteen hundred years, in order to have more than a "superficial" understanding of it? Well, fuck that. EDIT TO ADD: So, if God wanted to tell us something in his special "love letter to the world" (GAG!), why didn't he just fucking say that, instead of whatever wound up being written? Why do I need some goddamn Biblical scholar to tell me the "true" meaning of what the Bible actually says over a thousand years later? If God didn't really mean, "Whatever you ask in my name, it shall be done," then maybe, just maybe, the dipshit shouldn't have included it in his piece of shit book! Sorry. For some weird reason this subject sets me off and makes me all sweary. I don't know why. Well, try to get a group of bibilical scholars to agree on what a scripture means and you will have your answer why Bible 2.0 has not been released yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Methinks gods problem is an insecurity issue. I mean he wants us to take him at his word even though it's full of inconsistencies and what not. To quote my mom, "You are too smart for your own good." The funny thing is...all it takes is some time to really think and pay attention to what is being read not some arbitrary level of intelligence. One problem is 21st century people trying to apply bronze age bible baloney to their 21st century living. Instead of updating the baloney into new 21st century cultural baloney, they just continue regurgitating ancient baloney. And we know that even though baloney is full of preservatives it won't really stay fresh for 2000 years. :-) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts