Why Can't They Let Go?

[Geezer]

When my doubts reached the point I had to deal with them I turned to history to find the answers I was seeking. I eventually became active on a progressive Christian (liberal) support board. I was referred to Dr. Marcus Borg and the library of books  he has written.

 

I read just about everything he has written and his perspective proved to be a vital piece of the puzzle in my de-conversion process. Borg is a liberal theologian and his perspective of the bible is allegorical and metaphorical. In other words he teaches that the bible is not literally true or historically accurate, but he continues to identify with the Christian faith, although from a very liberal POV.

 

While I was active on the Ex Church of Christ support site I encountered another poster who had graduated from a Church of Christ University and also from Harvard’s Divinity Grad School. He also acknowledged the bible is not true in any literal, historic, or factual sense, but he also identified himself as a liberal Christian.

 

After a lengthy study of religion and Christianity, from the historical critical perspective, I find myself mystified how anyone could remain Christian or even religious for that matter. History conclusive demonstrates it was all manmade.  Knowing that, how could anyone continue being part of the charade?

 

Borg and the person who graduated from Harvard both indicate they can relate to the symbolism and a liturgical form of worship because it supposedly has more meaning and is more spiritual. But, if it isn’t based on truth, what difference does it make how spiritual it is?  Once I’d confirmed my suspicions that it was all manmade nonsense it no longer had any meaning to me. And I remain mystified how any educated person, one who knows the truth, can find meaning in any of it much less continue to identify with any form of the Christian faith?  I really don’t understand that.

 

[florduh]

The only guess I can make is that many, perhaps most people need to have something extra in their life. They need a touch of magic or meaning. Mere life isn't profound or fulfilling enough for them. Perhaps this is due to their nature or their nurture, maybe a bit of both. Those of us who lack that need are in the minority and are cast in the role of outsider. Meh, 'tis what 'tis.

[RipVanWinkle]

I can't account for their continued belief in Xtianity either, except for those whose livelihoods depended upon Xtianity when they realized that it was not true in the literal sense. At that point in their lives the choices they would have to make would become hard. They had to either sacrifice their profession or their honor. I suspect at least some of the "liberal" Xtians chose the latter.  bill

[Adrianime]

It's true because they want it to be true. 

 

Even if the foundation of Christianity (the bible) is obviously man-made, god must still exist.  God must still exist because I want/need god to exist.  Life without god isn't the life I'm living. I've experienced god in my heart, even if it was because of a story in a book that I don't fully believe in....I know what I feel, and that is love for god.  If god didn't exist, what is it I'm feeling?  If god didn't exist how could life have meaning?  God exists.

 

I agree with what florduh said.

[HymenaeusAlexander]

I too am mystified why anyone would remain involved in even the most benign forms of Christianity for any other reason than the social aspects or perhaps nostalgia. I would guess that it's more difficult for people who've been raised in a more liberal church to let go since they just can't see the harm in it. I would guess some of them probably look at people that leave the faith from fundamentalist traditions the way social drinkers look at recovering alcoholics who become teetotalers.

 

Admittedly,I flirted with the idea of liberal Christianity shortly after my deconversion. I have two kids and the sense of community and support that was going to be lost weighed in on that. It's a lot easier to find liberal churches in our area than UU churches. My wife nixed that idea rather quickly once she came over to the dark side with me. She thought participation in a liberal church would be too much of a liability and not enough of an asset. I think she's probably right in that assessment, both as respects our family individually and liberal Christianity's role in society in general.

[stryper]

[LifeCycle]

I concluded it was all BS and I'm not that smart.  This leads me to believe many more conclude it's BS but enjoy the other asptects of Christianity enough to stay in the fold.  The social stuff (activities, support, relationships etc...) is a pretty good glue... Especially if that's all you have.

[LifeCycle]

I think one of the worst scenarios to be placed into is a very successful pastor's role who realizes it's all a bunch of lies.  He has a wife and kids and they all live a very enjoyable life.  What is he to do?  That's an internal battle I'd never want to face.

[stryper]

I think one of the worst scenarios to be placed into is a very successful pastor's role who realizes it's all a bunch of lies.  He has a wife and kids and they all live a very enjoyable life.  What is he to do?  That's an internal battle I'd never want to face.

 

There's help for them too.

 

http://www.clergyproject.org/

[Adrianime]

I think one of the worst scenarios to be placed into is a very successful pastor's role who realizes it's all a bunch of lies.  He has a wife and kids and they all live a very enjoyable life.  What is he to do?  That's an internal battle I'd never want to face.

 

Check out TheClergyProject.org

 

EDIT:  Oops looks like stryper beat me to that.

[LifeCycle]

 

I think one of the worst scenarios to be placed into is a very successful pastor's role who realizes it's all a bunch of lies.  He has a wife and kids and they all live a very enjoyable life.  What is he to do?  That's an internal battle I'd never want to face.

 

There's help for them too.

 

http://www.clergyproject.org/

Unholy shit!  That's awesome! 

[wanderinstar]

One of my closest friends is a liberal christian. She sees the bible as humans writing of their experiences with god, which to her explains all the contradictions and errors. Still she believes in the concept of sin and salvation through Jesus' death and resurrection but doesn't believe in a literal hell. One day when I was explaining how I came to believe christianity was false I mentioned the passages in the OT that described god commanding or allowing genocide and rape and she exclaimed, "you must be mistaken I have just read those books in the OT and surely would have noticed something as horrible as that!" Since she was brought up christian, needs the comfort of faith in god and enjoys the community I think she is tricking herself into believing.  I would not want to influence her to deconvert as I imagine she would be devastated so I didn't have the heart to find and read the passages to her. Despite my rejection of Christ and the bible she is still convinced I am a christian as I have not lost my morals, cause if I had really deconverted I would be a bitter, hateful, thieving monster. *sigh*

 

I told her if that god exists he would have to drag me kicking and screaming into heaven 'cause going back to him would be like going back to an abusive lover. 

[PithHelmet7]

I know on some boards it's a mortal sin to cross-post, but anyway ... I've just been discussing this question on another thread and was referred to this one also, so I'll take the liberty of asking it on this thread also.

 

 

This question of "Why do you remain a Christian?" has been very important to me lately. My wondering about this has been one reason that has kept me from abandoning my faith completely. For me, the issue is rather narrowly focused: why do people who have already given up even near-inerrancy continue to believe? Why the inerrantists believe doesn't concern me, because I can see they're wrong. But the fact that intelligent, thinking people who understand the problems of the Bible and Christian theology still believe in the basic Christian faith makes me want to be sure that I'm not missing something important.

 

I've asked a few of these people, some friends and some well-known Christians on the non-fundamentalist side, why they still believe, and I haven't gotten any convincing answers. The two main ones (besides silence) are (a) internal assurance and ( we don't start with the Bible, but we start with Christ (we're impressed by his life, we believe in the resurrection, we fall in love with him because he loves us ...). The internal assurance argument counts for nothing for me, since everyone has that to some degree. There is also the leap-of-faith option which might be true but is not really amenable to logical discussion.

 

The argument that we believe because we know or have known Christ may have more merit and seems to have a more solid heritage. I know that Christian Smith, in "Making the Bible Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture," wrestles with how Christians should relate to the Bible given the problems with the way Evangelicalism handles it. He does not claim to have an answer, but believes that we have to start with a Christ-centered reading. Apparently this was a big emphasis of Karl Barth as well, but I don't know his writing directly.

 

As promising as this might be for those trying to hold on to faith (and I'm only slowly drifting away from that position), it still begs the question of how we can know enough about Jesus to base all of Christianity on that foundation. The apologists have tried, but unsuccessfully. At best, for the sake of argument, one might say that they have shown that there is a 50-50 chance that the Gospel events are true in basic outline. They have shown, at best, that one might be able to believe the historical events without being irrational, but not that the historicity is compelling.

 

So back to the question, if there is anyone here who can offer an answer: why, once you recognize a fundamental problem of the historicity of the Bible, did/do you continue to believe?

 

And in replying to some answers to my question by members here,

 

 

Ficino, yes, almost correct about the Bible being the only source. We do also have the origin of Christianity, which is often brought out as an argument that there has to be something substantive behind it, and the testimony of Paul, which while still technically "Bible" is generally thought to be basically authentic. Paul doesn't say much about the historical Jesus, though, and his arguments are based on personal revelation and rather unusual (to us) argumentation from the Hebrew scriptures.

 

Citsonga and Hymenaeus, thanks for your detailed comments. I agree with what you say. I may not have explained well in my first post, but I don't see as persuasive any of the grounds of belief I bring up, I'm just stating them as the rather unsatisfactory kinds of answers I've received so far. Hymenaeus, you're right that I don't see liberal Christianity as an option; it seems the worst of both worlds from the angle of truth-seeking, though I'm sure there are lots of benefits, too. Thanks for the link to Geezer's thread, too.

I certainly understand the subjective reasons for continuing to be a Christian in some sense. In fact, I've told a few people half-jokingly that I'm not only a failed Christian but a failed atheist, because I don't know that I can or want to undergo such a radical shift in identity at this stage in life. I've also suggested to some friends that it might not be a good idea to start a deep exploration of the roots of one's faith past a certain age. If there is some transcendent value of truth, maybe we have to say, "go for it." If our brains/psyche are evolutionarily adapted to find a model of the world, find a community, and stick with that, then is it still necessarily the case that finding truth is in the best interest of the individual's mental health?

[kolaida]

Well, I didn't graduate from Harvard or do extensive studying like this guy. I was always taught that we couldn't FULLY understand everything written.  That if there was anything we found wrong with the Bible or evidence, it was probably Satan or the natural sin in humans (caused by Satan but also free choice.....) leading us away from Christ. Maybe some of them still believe that? I know I did for a good four years or so when I started having just some doubts, but nothing too major made me really reconsider my position. Or at least, nothing I thought was major at the time. Now I see that seriously reconsidering my beliefs would have improved the outcome of my life thus far.  But I was always taught to not test the Lord. 

 

But I also didn't do extensive studying like Borg. It does make me wonder why some can't let go.

[LifeCycle]

Well, I didn't graduate from Harvard or do extensive studying like this guy. I was always taught that we couldn't FULLY understand everything written.  That if there was anything we found wrong with the Bible or evidence, it was probably Satan or the natural sin in humans (caused by Satan but also free choice.....) leading us away from Christ. Maybe some of them still believe that? I know I did for a good four years or so when I started having just some doubts, but nothing too major made me really reconsider my position. Or at least, nothing I thought was major at the time. Now I see that seriously reconsidering my beliefs would have improved the outcome of my life thus far.  But I was always taught to not test the Lord. 

 

But I also didn't do extensive studying like Borg. It does make me wonder why some can't let go.

Typical Christian thinking... That we're at fault for seeing fault in the Lawds Word.  It's infallible thus if it appears to contradict or not make any sense, it's us that's the problem.

 

It's amazing how Christianity can tear a person apart.  Their vision of their own self-worth can be cut down to pretty much, zero.  God takes all the credit and when we fuck up, we take all the credit...  Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat.   It's so sad.