dask Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 I appreciate that very much. And actually reading the teachings in the new testament I can see why people would think they are going to hell if they are remarried. I don't see anywhere in the new testament where a woman who divorced cause of domestic violance, is allowed to remarry, and if she does remarry I can see why she would think she would be going to hell, after reading the new testament herself. And for some reason remarried christians and remarried pastors seem hipocritical to me. I don't have anything against a reasonable remarriage, this is why I find it difficult to promote the bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 I'm having trouble with this too, did you ever find out a new way to cope with life? If so how and what was the change? Lots of things are different. I've had to learn to rely on myself. Nobody is up in the sky watching out for me or planing my whole life. So I have to do those things for myself. I've used the words "winism" and "loseism" too keep myself motivated. Winism is simply being willing to do whatever is necessary to keep my life going. Loseism is not being willing to do something necessary. Yeah, I know it is silly but I was raised to completely depend on my imaginary friend so I need a crutch. I miss a lot of the lies that I was promised - heaven, the perfect afterlife. Now I try to focus on my children and building a legacy through them. It's not as grand as paradise but it is real. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reprobate Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 It took over 15 years from having to leave the pentecostal church in an act of self preservation to saying that I am an atheist. In the pente church I was in it seemed that everyone was hearing from god, getting prayers answered, and getting "touched" by god but me. I was convinced I was worthless and god wanted nothing to do with me. I was depressed and mentally beat the shit out of myself. I also saw plenty of hypocrisy, paranoia, selfishness, and anger among christians. The bible did not comfort me, it condemned me. There were some good times in their as well, but it always seemed to be really good or really bad. Sometimes on the same day. You were always chasing that emotional high. In that world god/church is everything. I spent some time after that at a more moderate church as well. It was there, is about what I can say about it. I had friends, but think now about how insecure everyone was, including myself. I think a lot now how these were really decent people, but just were not reaching their potential. These were people that I hung out with for years and I realize now it seems I hardly know them. There were also some not so good people in that church. I still prayed on occasion but not nearly as intensely as before. I eventually moved for a job opportunity. I tried to go to a "welcoming church" once. I could not get out of there fast enough after the service was over. If someone had talked to me, I may have run for the door. I couldn't do church anymore. I was also more fed-up with a lot of christians for the reasons I mentioned above. I did not want to be a part of it anymore. I still thought I believed in god. A few years later I got laid-off and realized that I needed to act and make a new path. I prayed a little, but I made the decisions and did the work. It took effort, but I did end up on my feet and in a better place. When I started my new career in a new place I really didn't give my personal beliefs much thought. I saw christians talking to each other on line and thought about how messed up they seemed. I thought to myself, "that was me". I saw how they talked to others. One day I stumbled into the George Carlin "Religion is Bullshit" video on youtube. It was the final straw that made me say to myself, " I am an atheist". I don't know exactly where on that journey that I stopped believing. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyGone Posted January 22, 2016 Author Share Posted January 22, 2016 If there is nobody riding to the rescue - if there is no God, or if he is indifferent to us (amounts to the same thing) then this world is all we have and all we'll get. So the world we get is the one we make, both by action and by inaction. This is why I think integrity is still so important, either with or without a god. If there is no trust in society, it is difficult to work together, it is difficult to produce outcomes that benefit us all, it is difficult to plan or work for a future. We see this in politics with the demonization of anyone who disagrees with us. We even see it in climate change. Most of the people reading this are probably too young to remember, but in the 1970s, we were all doomed by a coming ice age. Time magazine even called the evidence "convincing". The ice pack was increasing, warm weather animals were moving south, etc. Then in the 1980s we were all doomed by acid rain. We needed to change our lifestyles, give up fossil fuels, or there would be no trees or vegetation left. It was like a perfect apocalyptic religion - sacrifice now or you will be condemned at some unspecified point in the future. It all turned out to be empty. We don't control everything in our lives - none of us can prevent a drunk driver from hitting us (although we can minimize the time we spend on the roads when drunk drivers are most likely to be out) but the world we live in is the one we make, both individually and collectively. Although I no longer believe that the Bible is God's word, as I posted earlier, the people who wrote it weren't stupid. We want to create a system of moral values or life rules based on something scientific. But wisdom gained over centuries of human experience isn't worthless just because it can't be mathematically proven. When Paul wrote in the Bible that we should be slow to anger and quick to forgive, that was good advice even if it wasn't inspired by God. People who are quick to become angry are not people who make good decisions overall. And people who never forgive never get past the misery of bitterness. I guess the question we should all ask ourselves is whether we are managing the parts of our lives that we do control, and whether we are increasing or decreasing the amount of deception, bitterness, resentment, anger, kindness, truth, productivity and help in the world. Which of those things do our choices add to? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 One day I stumbled into the George Carlin "Religion is Bullshit" video on youtube. It was the final straw that made me say to myself, " I am an atheist". That is my favorite comedy routine ever! We even see it in climate change. Most of the people reading this are probably too young to remember, but in the 1970s, we were all doomed by a coming ice age. Time magazine even called the evidence "convincing". The ice pack was increasing, warm weather animals were moving south, etc. https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm Then in the 1980s we were all doomed by acid rain. We needed to change our lifestyles, give up fossil fuels, or there would be no trees or vegetation left. It was like a perfect apocalyptic religion - sacrifice now or you will be condemned at some unspecified point in the future. It all turned out to be empty. http://discovermagazine.com/2009/mar/13-whatever-happened-to-acid-rain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geezer Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 My wife & I were members of the Church of Christ for 27 years. They are Bible literalists & that is how we ended up being part of that group. My wife was born into the Southern Baptist Denomination. I was not a member of any religion until I met my wife. I was baptized a couple of months after we were married. Eventually I bought into the whole package. I believed the Bible was the inerrant inspired word of God, so 12 years later when we agreed to a Bible study with a Church of Christ preacher, & he showed scripture by scripture where the Baptist did not follow scripture but the Church of Christ did we decided we had to make a change in our Church affiliation. I wanted to follow God's will so we were re-baptized, but this time into the one true Church of Christ, because our other baptisms were't scriptural & that meant we were't saved. The Bible only allows one exception for divorce & that's for infidelity. The offending party can never remarry or have e sex again & if they do they will be condemned to hell, as another poster noted. I eventually learned the Church of Christ doesn't actually follow every scripture literally because that simply isn't possible, but they do sincerely try to follow scripture as literally as possible. I've said all of that to make this point. If the Bible was true then it obviously would have to be interpreted literally. Logically that is the only way to interpret the supposed literal words of God. A literal interpretation obviously produces some troubling results, some of which are illegal in most countries, but the alternative is cherry picking scripture following only the scripture that people choose. I eventually figured out a literal interpretation of scripture requires a perfect Bible. That realization led me to years of study & research to see if the Bible is the perfect word of God. My study convinced me the Bible isn't even true much less perfect. When I realized the Bible isn't true I realized Christianity is built on lies & misrepresentations. My faith disappeared. If the Bible isn't true then God probable doesn't exist, so what would be the purpose of prayer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyGone Posted January 23, 2016 Author Share Posted January 23, 2016 "If the Bible was true then it would have to be interpreted literally". Well, partly. An example I used in my book is this: Psalm 50 says that God owns the cattle on the thousand hills. If we take that literally, then some other deity (named Kyle?) owns the cattle on the rest of the hills. Obviously this was a figure of speech that was meant to poetically say that God owns it all. Jesus used symbolism and figures of speech (in one case, the Bible even points out a verse later that it was a figure of speech). The Bible contains a lot of different kinds of literature, not all of it is intended to be literal even by the original writers. This is not to defend the Bible as truth, but if we're going to disbelieve it, let's do it for the right reasons. If we say every word in the Bible is literally true, we are using the same straw man argument that is sometimes used in the church to defend bad evidences for God. The Bible is full of figures of speech, hyperbole, and symbolism. As I said in the book, use of those doesn't make the writers of the Bible dishonest any more than saying you are hungry enough to eat a horse makes you a liar. You can legitimately believe that the Bible is not factual, but if it was factual, it wouldn't necessarily mean everything in it is literal. There are Christians who believe that everything in the Bible is not only true, but literally true, no exceptions. But they are a tiny, tiny minority, and ill-informed at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geezer Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 GG, one of the major differences between so called Liberal & Conservative/Fundamentalist forms of Christianity is how they interpret scripture, as I'm certain you are aware. The conservative forms tend to be literalist while the liberal forms do not. In my younger days my only exposure to Chriatianity was the conservative & the fundamentalist extremist versions. I was indoctrinated to believe every word in the Bible was true & that God personally put every word there. I had to work through that before I could even think about critically analyzing the Bible. As you know fundies generally don't even recognize liberal Chriatians as being real Christians. Fundy Xians are a very different thinking group of folks & they don't compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyGone Posted January 23, 2016 Author Share Posted January 23, 2016 Geezer: I understand the argument. But my ordination was/is in a fundamentalist denomination. I think everyone would agree that the Assemblies of God is a fundamentalist Pentecostal denomination. I took a few classes from their distance program (Berean University) and their textbook, generated in-house, for the OT survey course describes the different kinds of literature in the Bible. So even though most AG preachers would maintain that every word in the Bible is inspired by God, they (or at least the denomination) recognize that not every word is therefore literal. The church I left was, of course, in my own denomination, which is fundamentalist, but I don't think you would find many pastors (if any) who don't recognize that the Bible contains symbolism, hyperbole, and poetic/literary language. I know there are a few people out there who claim that the Bible is a textbook with every word and even the order of the words inspired, ordained, directed, and protected by God. But I think they are a tiny minority. I would also propose that those who do believe that way tend to be the ones who find a lot of hidden meanings in plain text and lean toward the cultish side of the bell curve. Every religion, movement, belief system, philosophy, and political persuasion has adherents who are extreme. One of my kids took a course in college that was taught by a rabid vegan. She not only based the entire course on writings by vegans, she thought that everyone should be required, by law, to be vegan. She wasn't just satisfied to be vegan, she wanted the police and federal government to make it mandatory for everyone. There are slices of the animal rights and environmentalists movements who think it is acceptable to burn houses, destroy property, burn cars, and in a few cases, even kill people who disagree with their beliefs. Some of them have even carried out such actions. All those are as "fundamentalist" as you can get, just at the opposite end of the spectrum. But you can't claim that every vegan is a tyrant or every environmentalist is a murderer or anarchist. Same thing with churches. Understand that I'm not defending the truth of the Bible. I'm just trying to counter the tendency to paint with a brush that is too broad. There are some very good churches with very dedicated, devout, and good Christians. There are even fundamentalist churches like that. Their beliefs are, in the opinion of everyone on this forum, incorrect. But there are only a few of them that are really nutty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geezer Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I enjoy reading your thoughts GG, and I agree with pretty much everything you've posted. Unfortunately I was indoctrinated by one of the really, really, far out nutty versions of Christianity. I am truly embarrassed now that it took me so long to figure out just how crazy they were. The Church of Christ I was part of focused on the NT because that is where salvation is found. The OT was history but had no relevance for salvation so it wasn't viewed as being all that important. The NT was where truth was found so symbolism & metaphor just wasn't part of the teaching or thinking. Baptism certainly wasn't viewed as symbolic. Salvation only attached when the person was dunked & completely covered by water as per Acts 2: 38 & the words I baptize you for the remission of your sins had to be said, or the person wouldn't be saved. Is that nutty enough for ya? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Geezer: I understand the argument. But my ordination was/is in a fundamentalist denomination. I think everyone would agree that the Assemblies of God is a fundamentalist Pentecostal denomination. I took a few classes from their distance program (Berean University) and their textbook, generated in-house, for the OT survey course describes the different kinds of literature in the Bible. So even though most AG preachers would maintain that every word in the Bible is inspired by God, they (or at least the denomination) recognize that not every word is therefore literal. The church I left was, of course, in my own denomination, which is fundamentalist, but I don't think you would find many pastors (if any) who don't recognize that the Bible contains symbolism, hyperbole, and poetic/literary language. This I agree with. I was a literalist myself, but I recognized that there were idioms and such in the Bible. I didn't buy into any of the liberal stances that interpreted Bible stories as allegorical, but that alone doesn't mean that none of the phrases could have non-literal meanings (such as the cattle on a thousand hills example mentioned earlier). I know there are a few people out there who claim that the Bible is a textbook with every word and even the order of the words inspired, ordained, directed, and protected by God. But I think they are a tiny minority. I would also propose that those who do believe that way tend to be the ones who find a lot of hidden meanings in plain text and lean toward the cultish side of the bell curve. This part I disagree with. I think there are more who believe in a 100% word-for-word inspiration of the Bible than you seem to think, and they're not just the ones who try to find hidden codes in the text. Granted, these days that number may be shrinking from what it once was, but in my experience, a lot of Christians do take the Bible as the exact and perfect "Word of God." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyGone Posted January 23, 2016 Author Share Posted January 23, 2016 Geezer: I sympathize. And I would imagine that people from the nuttier church backgrounds are probably overrepresented on this forum because those churches drive people out due to the contrast between reasonable and unreasonable. Here's an example I used not too long back with a friend. I was referring to pastors who are abusive (anger/control issues) not nutty teaching, but the principle still applies. It's like a guy who is abusive to women. He dates a lot of women, but the relationships only last until the women figure him out. Who does he end up marrying? The woman who doesn't recognize the red flags and will take the abuse. Now, I don't mean to minimize abuse of women for the sake of example; I've counseled women who were abusive relationships and it is very difficult for women to leave such relationships for financial, emotional, child concerns, and other reasons. The typical abused woman tries to leave something like seven times before she's successful. So, please, no flames about how heartlessly casual my analogy is. But as an analogy, it fits the nutty church process. People who are mature and well-adjusted (yes, there are Christians like that) figure it out pretty quickly. The ones who stay are the ones who either can't recognize what is happening (because it's often subtle) or get emotionally tied in and find it difficult to leave out of fear or some other emotion. So the church is left with those who will drink the kool-aid, at least for a while. Some mature, rational people figure it out quickly and never connect to the church. Some take longer but eventually do leave. And that's not a reflection on their intelligence or anything, there are a lot of reasons people stay in abusive marital relationships or dysfunctional churches, ranging from "I was raised in it" to "I thought they were so friendly. At first.". People sometimes ask why abused women don't just leave, but it isn't usually that easy. Abusive or just nutty churches are the same; friends are there, you are told that if you leave, you are on the fast track to hell, you found acceptance there and can't believe it wasn't real, whatever. Lots of reasons. But the analogy still holds. At least, I think it does. I actually wrote another e-book on Amazon, before I gave up on God and wrote "Divorcing God". The first book was titled "Slow Poison" and I wrote it under a different pseudonym (Ben There. I liked the pun.). That book is about how to tell if you are in a toxic church. Feel free to disagree with any of this. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geezer Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 We stayed as long as we did due to the friendships we'd developed. We knew if we left the church our social structure would be destroyed & that is what happened. I think your post was spot on. The church of Christ in this area now that are stable or growing are taking members from the old time conservative congregations that will never change. The "liberal" c of c's are not growing by evangelizing the "lost" they are just taking members away from other congregations. The Church of Christ nationwide is in serious decline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyGone Posted January 23, 2016 Author Share Posted January 23, 2016 Geezer: Yes, transfer growth is a problem for about every denomination in the U.S. Obviously if a denomination grows mostly or exclusively by transfers from other churches, the denomination as a whole isn't growing much. Or at least, the sum of the denominations isn't (some of that transfer growth will come from other denominations. But it's still a zero-sum game). I think every denominational magazine has done at least one article on this; they seem to be everywhere. It's actually a negative-sum game because people like those on this forum are the "leaks" that make the ending total less than the starting total. Because we don't leave a church to somewhere else, we leave a church to quit going. And, full disclosure, I still go to church because my wife wants to. I don't tell anyone I was a pastor at our last church, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geezer Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Geezer: Yes, transfer growth is a problem for about every denomination in the U.S. Obviously if a denomination grows mostly or exclusively by transfers from other churches, the denomination as a whole isn't growing much. Or at least, the sum of the denominations isn't (some of that transfer growth will come from other denominations. But it's still a zero-sum game). I think every denominational magazine has done at least one article on this; they seem to be everywhere. It's actually a negative-sum game because people like those on this forum are the "leaks" that make the ending total less than the starting total. Because we don't leave a church to somewhere else, we leave a church to quit going. And, full disclosure, I still go to church because my wife wants to. I don't tell anyone I was a pastor at our last church, though. My wife won't let go either. She recently placed membership with a large Methodist church near us. I agreed to go with her as long as she didn't attend a fundy church. I've found the Methodist to be pretty benign. I think my wife needed to rebuild her social structure more than she needed Jesus & this church has lots of social functions for our age group. I've learned how to look like I'm paying attention when I'm not, by placing my mind somewhere else when I'm there. It's kind of like a mental on & off switch I've created. I've learned how to think about other stuff during SS & the sermon & smile while I'm doing it. So far it seems to be working & my wife is happy. Win win as far as I'm concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dask Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 I was raised in a fundamental church, let's say we take a liberal approach, where we don't take every passage as truth, then can we expect heaven, angels, satan, demons, hell, afterlife, miracles, prayer, any to be true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geezer Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 I was raised in a fundamental church, let's say we take a liberal approach, where we don't take every passage as truth, then can we expect heaven, angels, satan, demons, hell, afterlife, miracles, prayer, any to be true? I was raised in a fundamental church, let's say we take a liberal approach, where we don't take every passage as truth, then can we expect heaven, angels, satan, demons, hell, afterlife, miracles, prayer, any to be true?No & that's the point. If the Bible isn't true, or you get to pick & choose what is, or might be, true then none of it really matters. It's either true or it isn't. I don't see any middle ground or wiggle room. Liberal versions of Christianity strike me as pointless. They make good social clubs but that's all I see they're accomplishing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dask Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 Here are 3 people who have made hundreds of videos over the last 5 years at least, and here is one example when people try to apply the bible literatelly. After reading the bible I can see why they are saying these things if they beleive the bible to be true. https://youtu.be/6QQSVA3aAYI https://youtu.be/0u4FNkPldOM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dask Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 I'll be posting 3 more videos tonight. It's of people making some extreme life choices, that are in most people's eyes, counterproductive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dask Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 https://youtu.be/9wykwG3cNMo https://youtu.be/9wykwG3cNMo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dask Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 After reading the bible I see why they are taking these actions, if they beleive and are trying to follow the bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dask Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 And this is the reason I can't consider myself a christian anymore. If you were to ask these people what sin is, and who is going to hell. The response would be, well I'm sure you all get the point I'm trying to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyGone Posted January 24, 2016 Author Share Posted January 24, 2016 What's interesting about the homeless preacher is that, while he's genuinely trying to help, he seems awfully casual about his wife leaving him. While most Christians would say that if your wife leaves because she hates you being a Christian, you aren't at fault, they would also say that if your view of ministry drives your wife away, you are doing something wrong. Of course, there isn't much detail about that. But his casual dismissal of it seems problematic to me. For all my defense in previous posts of reasonable, rational Christians, it is also true that people pick and choose which Bible passages to follow. Nobody can do everything, but sometimes the priorities get all twisted up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dask Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 Well for the homeless preacher we got this. Everyone who has left houses, brothers, sisters, father, mother, children, or farms to follow me will get much more than they left. And they will have eternal life. Many people who are first now will be last in the future. And many who are last now will be first in the future. Matthew 19:29-30 ERV http://bible.com/406/mat.19.29-30.ERV And then we also have this Everyone should take care of all their own people. Most important, they should take care of their own family. If they do not do that, then they do not accept what we believe. They are worse than someone who does not even believe in God. 1 Timothy 5:8 ERV http://bible.com/406/1ti.5.8.ERV Confusing. Are these people being lead by God? Is the question I asked myself a while ago. If I could be a rational christian I would, but I don't see how it's possible to be a rational christian after reading and studying the bible. Granted I have met a lot of intelligent and smart christians. But are they being lead by God? However I still having trouble losing christianity, and reading the bible while studying, crushed my beleif in christianity, to the point where it seems there is no return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyGone Posted January 24, 2016 Author Share Posted January 24, 2016 Choosing to be homeless seems to me to be counterproductive; you are deliberately taking what is earned by the working to subsidize a lifestyle that you don't really have to live. That said, you have to admit that the willingness to sacrifice for what he sees as a noble and spiritual outcome is laudable. Even if he's doing it for the wrong reasons, he's willing to give up a lot for what he thinks is important. I'm thinking it's like the volunteer rescuers we have in Colorado who look for people (such as hikers) lost in the mountains. They don't get paid, they have to take time off work and sometimes they have to search in the middle of the night. But it's important to them (and, of course, to the people they rescue). It isn't "rational", but I can't say it's inappropriate or wrong or even a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts