silentknight Posted July 31, 2012 Author Share Posted July 31, 2012 You're welcome. And I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gandolph Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 i suggest going to your public library and getting Marlene Winell's book Leaving the Fold, reading it, and doing the exercises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silentknight Posted August 1, 2012 Author Share Posted August 1, 2012 Just got the weekly "e-news" from the pastor of the church. He sends it out every wednesday. Luckily, no mention of my heathenism or requests to pray for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Dude, that would be hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silentknight Posted August 2, 2012 Author Share Posted August 2, 2012 Got a response from my mother in law last night. Seems she ignored the bit about the bible itself being untrustworthy, and just focused on the details of "why does god allow there to be evil": "Thank you for your honesty. I have been trying to decide how to respond. I believe many of your conclusions come from a misunderstanding of the decretive will of God vs. the preceptive will of God, free will vs. predestination, and anthropomorphisms in the scriptures (all very difficult concepts). I think that if I attempt to address the specifics, I will likely just aggravate you and possibly create more difficulties. I certainly do not agree with you, and I am praying that God would give you wisdom and the faith to believe the Bible to be His inspired Word. Please share your email with Charlie and discuss your beliefs with him, as I am confident he is far better equipped with the knowledge and resources to be able to help you with this overwhelming situation." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raoul Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Got a response from my mother in law last night. Seems she ignored the bit about the bible itself being untrustworthy, and just focused on the details of "why does god allow there to be evil": "Thank you for your honesty. I have been trying to decide how to respond. I believe many of your conclusions come from a misunderstanding of the decretive will of God vs. the preceptive will of God, free will vs. predestination, and anthropomorphisms in the scriptures (all very difficult concepts). I think that if I attempt to address the specifics, I will likely just aggravate you and possibly create more difficulties. I certainly do not agree with you, and I am praying that God would give you wisdom and the faith to believe the Bible to be His inspired Word. Please share your email with Charlie and discuss your beliefs with him, as I am confident he is far better equipped with the knowledge and resources to be able to help you with this overwhelming situation." Not to denigrade your mother-in-law however, xtians including their clergy seem to be cut from the same cookie cutter when responding to the things folks like you, me, and others have written. The infamous 'misunderstanding' strawman as in you're confused but she isn't because she understands the biblical complexities better than the confused person you are. But that flies in the face of just the opposite they all hawk - the bible's message is simple to grasp and those who don't are without excuse. Which is it? Is it simple or is it complex? LOL And then the infamous 'I'll pray for you'. The translation to that is 'I have NO ideal of how to respond since your arguments have flown right over my head so I'll just pray' to the jaysus in the sky and hope... But, in her defense, at least she responded while we're still waiting for the 'pastor' to do so. LOL And her response was a heck of a lot better than what I got years ago when we got a letter from the clergy whose church we fled months before. It seems he got a direct word from Santa saying everyone should come back to his church just for one day for a day of 'reconciliation' since he, along with the other pulpit pimps got together, prayed, and realized their churches were under 'satanic' attack. I wrote back beginning with 'Dear Mr. (not Rev. or Pastor just to piss him off from the start)' I continued: 'We just received your latest 'new membership recruitment' letter (since it was obvious that's all this was about - obviously people were fleeing the church in droves so the letter cometh forthwardith)' I went on to explain with 3 or 4 facts as to why we left in the first place. The most critical one was that they fucked around with the daycare center my wife had worked in. The center was the ONLY place anything spiritual was being done and more importantly, it brought in revenue far exceeding what their paltry Sunday donations were. But the clergy decided to interfere with the women running the center with new dress codes, teaching material (showing the blood atonement crap to 3 year olds, et.al.). My wife, along with 1 or 2 other teachers, had no choice but to quit rather than submit to old testament garbage. I voiced this along with other things in the letter and sent it off. I got back a response shortly later which began with 'I was surprised at the bitterness and anger' your letter was filled with. It went on to say he'd pray for me, blah blah.. I had to reach for the vomit bucket while reading the rest of his useless crap. So I guess I'm saying with far too many words - been there, done it.. LOL 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silentknight Posted August 2, 2012 Author Share Posted August 2, 2012 The way christians seem to think about that bible is "it's simple, just have faith.... but if you MUST think about it, then it's very complex and difficult. You can't possibly understand it on your own... you need a theologian to study it and explain it to you in simple words. Then you just accept that and go on being a happy christian and never doubt again." The main problem I have with any apologist's reasoning is that they by necessity can't provide any proof. They make up a bit of philosophy that plugs a major hole in the arguments against them, but can't point to any facts about their argument. It's just a convenient rationalization based using stuff they made up in the first place as proof. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raoul Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 The way christians seem to think about that bible is "it's simple, just have faith.... but if you MUST think about it, then it's very complex and difficult. You can't possibly understand it on your own... you need a theologian to study it and explain it to you in simple words. That in itself is kinda hilarious if you've studied the nt as some of us have because:1. I think it's in the gospel of John where Jesus supposedly told the crowds to not call anyone 'teacher' (meaning the scribes and pharisees) but that they have one teacher from above (a god) 2. Anywhere from 90-95 percent of the populace were ILLITERATE (couldn't read one letter of anything) 3. So, logically speaking, one would've thought that he would have told them just the opposite, ie: go to the teachers of the law to learn about the law since the teachers knew how to read the Torah, and other works.. Now, bringing that to our times - if he told illiterate people not to depend on literate people for theological knowledge, how more applicable is it now when over 90 percent of the populace (world wide) can read for themselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silentknight Posted August 2, 2012 Author Share Posted August 2, 2012 I don't want to get into a long debate with her, but I felt this needed a reply. So this is what I sent: I think you're missing the point of my letter. I do understand the concept of God's absolute power, and him giving us free will to break his laws. The main point, rather, is that there are too many things in the Bible directly ordered by God (according to the authors) which doesn't make sense for who we say God is. Would a god of love order the massacre of women and children? Or it it more likely a man ordered this and then attributed it to God? Would God be so concerned with Hygiene that he dedicated books to it in his holy scriptures, or is it more likely a priest decided it was good to make laws about this and then attribute it to God? When one looks at the Bible as the word of God it doesn't hold water. But if one looks at the Bible as the words of an ancient people who were trying their best to explain their world without the aid of today's science, and impose what they considered moral rules to govern their populace it makes perfect sense. If God exists, I don't believe the majority of the Bible would please him. If we entirely base our worship on the Bible then it can't be valid either. I believe God would be happier with the pursuit of truth in a rational manner, not blindly accepting tradition without proof. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Well said. The Bible makes a fuckload more sense when you consider that it's just humankind's appeal to authority the whole way through. And it's damn convenient how it's simple until you question it--and then it's really complicated and requires divine aid AND theologically-trained counselors to detangle. Do we want childlike followers, or do we want highly-trained analytical followers? Obviously their answer is they want childlike ones, because children don't question adults very often. But when someone like me (who is quite childlike in a lot of ways) goes "wait just a minute--it says prayers will always be answered the way I want, but they almost never are unless it was in the cards anyway!" -- then it all falls apart and suddenly I'm just confused and don't get it. And I have too much integrity and dignity to just go along with something that seems wrong to me in the wild hope that it'll seem right eventually. If it was the ultimate truth, then it would seem so regardless of how "childlike" I was. So, fine. If their crazy deity wants to send me to hell forever for that, then I'll march into the flames with a smile on my lips. I'd rather be a thinking adult than a muddled child. PS: Raoul, you're a lot more fun now that your eyes have opened fully That letter was a hoot to hear about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadrunner Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 thats got to be annoying. a letter basically saying "I don't agree with you. I can't defend my own stance but call so and so because he can." thats the whole misconception about it to me. I thought that there were people out there with answers to the logical fallicies are the arent any. its just apologetic parlor tricks and circular logic. I like your letter short and sweet yet it will probably fall onto deaf ears Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 RR, if there were solid proof of ANY of it, we'd already know about it. It'd be part of every Sunday School class and part of every witnessing expedition. Hitch would have set his mouth in a thin line and said "Well, there is that." But there isn't. Not of any of it. The best they're going to do is to logic themselves into a deity, because nothing else works. I'm trying to get my sweet husband onto this forum because he's got the most amazing insights on God being little more than control freaks seizing onto borrowed authority. I wish I could do it justice in his stead. That's what all that "I'll pray for you" horseshit is all about, I think--the person saying it knows quite well that s/he has nothing left, but points at the big imaginary daddy who can kick your daddy's ass and threatens you with him. Except there's no daddy there. If you look closely, you quickly see that it's just a shadow that looks kind of big and person-like, like a tree casting a shadow late at night. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadrunner Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 ......That's what all that "I'll pray for you" horseshit is all about, I think--the person saying it knows quite well that s/he has nothing ... its a platitude when you have thrown everything but the kitchen sink. but you were touching on the whole concept of the religious mindset. there is definitely an arrogance in asserting that not only do you know that there is a god, but you know his mind, past, present,and future plans. You are in favor with him, and its your DUTY to make sure that you share this information with as many people as possible and the world live by the rules he has set. yeah that pretty arrogant. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Ha! Like Christians are the douchebag hall monitors of the world! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silentknight Posted August 3, 2012 Author Share Posted August 3, 2012 The pastor finally responded: Matt, It sounds like you have come under the influence (either directly or indirectly) of some of the most vocal opponents of the Christian faith in recent years--Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Bart Ehrman, Richard Dawkins, et.al. The issues that you (and they) raise are not something new. The Church has had to answer such skeptics throughout its history. The step which you are taking is very serious and I would encourage you to take a step back and do some reconsideration. I would love to talk with you but since you do not want to do that, I would recommend several works which should be very accessible and would help you to make some sense of your issues such as: Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis Evil and the Justice of God by N. T. Wright The Reason For God by Timothy Keller Is God a Moral Monster? By Paul Copan In the mean time, I will be praying for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silentknight Posted August 3, 2012 Author Share Posted August 3, 2012 So, the church has had answers to these questions throughout history? Then why can't I find any that actually make sense? Have any of you read the books he mentions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raoul Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 The pastor finally responded: Matt, It sounds like you have come under the influence (either directly or indirectly) of some of the most vocal opponents of the Christian faith in recent years--Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Bart Ehrman, Richard Dawkins, et.al. The issues that you (and they) raise are not something new. The Church has had to answer such skeptics throughout its history. The step which you are taking is very serious and I would encourage you to take a step back and do some reconsideration. I would love to talk with you but since you do not want to do that, I would recommend several works which should be very accessible and would help you to make some sense of your issues such as: Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis Evil and the Justice of God by N. T. Wright The Reason For God by Timothy Keller Is God a Moral Monster? By Paul Copan In the mean time, I will be praying for you. Just what I figured. Interesting that he put Bart Ehrman on the list. It seems like the xtian apologist by the name of Craig or something, who was eviscerated by Erhman during a debate, has whined loud enough for the xtian establishment to take notice. Also interesting that he assumed you studied the persons he names. Presumption is the gravest of sins the clergy commit all of the time. What really ticks me off is the way he actually lies regarding Ehrman - he puts him in the same class as the other people when Ehrman stands alone in what he has done to show how the bible is not inerrant or God breathed as they like to say. Bart used to be a fundamentalist xtian who studied the ancient languages in order to appreciate the bible better than he had done as a youth. He discovered mistakes, additions, and deletions in various ancient manuscripts which led him to his agnostic views today. His whole point was simply that the bible might be inspired in places but no different than any other great literary work. The way this clergy person brushes him off like a bug shows the intellectual dishonesty xtians truly possess. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator TrueFreedom Posted August 3, 2012 Moderator Share Posted August 3, 2012 So, the church has had answers to these questions throughout history? Then why can't I find any that actually make sense? Have any of you read the books he mentions? I've practically memorized Mere Christianity. The arguments presented only work for believers who begin with popular Christian assumptions. I've read some N.T. Wright and Paul Copan. You can find some papers and rebuttals at infidels.org: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/copan.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silentknight Posted August 3, 2012 Author Share Posted August 3, 2012 Just what I figured. Interesting that he put Bart Ehrman on the list. It seems like the xtian apologist by the name of Craig or something, who was eviscerated by Erhman during a debate, has whined loud enough for the xtian establishment to take notice. Also interesting that he assumed you studied the persons he names. Presumption is the gravest of sins the clergy commit all of the time. Yes, I find it quite interesting that he assumes that I was brought down by some "Ne'er do wells". In fact, most of the conclusions in my letter were reached independently without reading any "atheist" writings, because I was of the mindset that I should reach my decision in a neutral way. I didn't want my decision to be based on someone's passions, but rather cold hard facts. That's one reason that the things I listed in my letter were actual bible verses that are horrendous. I didn't use any circular reasoning, or link to the eloquent prose of a well spoken athiest. I looked at scripture, and what I saw couldn't be right. It wasn't until after my decision was made that I started studying other secular people, and saw that they not only agreed with me, but could give me even more reasons. And I also saw that all apologists always rely on some assumption that can't be proven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raoul Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Just what I figured. Interesting that he put Bart Ehrman on the list. It seems like the xtian apologist by the name of Craig or something, who was eviscerated by Erhman during a debate, has whined loud enough for the xtian establishment to take notice. Also interesting that he assumed you studied the persons he names. Presumption is the gravest of sins the clergy commit all of the time. Yes, I find it quite interesting that he assumes that I was brought down by some "Ne'er do wells". In fact, most of the conclusions in my letter were reached independently without reading any "atheist" writings, because I was of the mindset that I should reach my decision in a neutral way. I didn't want my decision to be based on someone's passions, but rather cold hard facts. That's one reason that the things I listed in my letter were actual bible verses that are horrendous. I didn't use any circular reasoning, or link to the eloquent prose of a well spoken athiest. I looked at scripture, and what I saw couldn't be right. It wasn't until after my decision was made that I started studying other secular people, and saw that they not only agreed with me, but could give me even more reasons. And I also saw that all apologists always rely on some assumption that can't be proven. Yes, I remember what you'd written to him and it actually came to mind while I was reading his alleged response to you. It's as if he didn't really read what you wrote or if he did he couldn't comprehend what you were saying. Frustrating to say the least because 2 people talking to each other on 2 different spheres of reality. I actually wrote to Ehrman via email after I studied 2 of his books which I'm re-reading again now. I told him I felt like I was reborn again but this time back into reality after reading what he'd wrote. I also thanked him for taking the time to do the incredible research he'd done to get to the conclusions he'd made. He wrote me back thanking me and wishing me luck on my 'new' journey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 What a condescending douchebag. He didn't make you read that tripe *before* you fell out of faith, did he? But now that you've reasoned yourself out of it, now suddenly you have to read shit to make him happy. I've read "Mere Christianity" and yes, it makes some glaring assumptions about the divine that Lewis didn't bother to prove. None of those books offers any proof at all of Yahweh/Jesus. They just try to argue themselves into a deity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator TrueFreedom Posted August 3, 2012 Moderator Share Posted August 3, 2012 Oh, and regarding agnostic and atheist authors, I've read something from all of them. It's a mixed bag. I guess pastors are pretty concerned about their influence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silentknight Posted August 3, 2012 Author Share Posted August 3, 2012 My wife told me he also wrote to her. He told her was saddened and for a time, angered by my revelation. He told her they are going to keep it quiet for now and hope that the reading he sent me does its job. Now I will be dealing with being plotted against for a time, I guess, but I must play along with this charade of reading what he suggests lest it be thought that I'm closed minded and as hypocrytical as most christians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator TrueFreedom Posted August 3, 2012 Moderator Share Posted August 3, 2012 Let us know if you need help with any of the arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silentknight Posted August 3, 2012 Author Share Posted August 3, 2012 Ugh... I've just started "Is God a Moral Monster?" and already it starts with subtle but annoying insults to "neo-atheism". This is going to be rough. 5% through and its been nothing but a diatribe about how atheists are misguided and haven't fully researched the Bible quotes they reference. Maybe he'll start defending those accusations soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts