Recurring fears

[Kat34]

3 hours ago, Stargazer95 said:

My dad and I actually came to a lot of the same conclusions on things, and had many theological/biblical discussions (agreeable ones) when I was still a believer. He was also very supportive of my evidential approach to the faith, which my mum and brother didn't really get. So that was nice. We haven't really talked about my change in beliefs yet, but he'll probably take it better than my mum, who was all like, "That's from the devil" and "That's straight from the pit of hell" when I hinted that I didn't believe anymore and wasn't sure the bible was true. 

That’s good that your dad was open to discussion about different ways of seeing things. It’s frightening how fixed people can be. I wonder if they realise how unappealing they can make their faith seem. 

[TruthSeeker0]

6 hours ago, Stargazer95 said:

They might even say that God's God so he can take whatever life he chooses to take. Of course, none of these reasons are good enough for the slaughter of innocents, but the Christians will try it anyway. 

 

 

But that's just the thing, this explanation is good enough for some people, (the fundamentalists likely more so than the others) and don't you dare question god's motives, or anything he might do. And as well, anything you do in his name, since you're his chosen people, is fine.

These attitudes I would argue are why humane and compassionate and altruistic ideals dont flourish in fundamentalism.

[Stargazer95]

49 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

But that's just the thing, this explanation is good enough for some people, (the fundamentalists likely more so than the others) and don't you dare question god's motives, or anything he might do. And as well, anything you do in his name, since you're his chosen people, is fine.

These attitudes I would argue are why humane and compassionate and altruistic ideals dont flourish in fundamentalism.

 

Good point. What I meant, though, is that they're not good enough in general. They're not good enough for me, or you, or anyone else who can see straight through them. But of course they're good enough for the people citing them. After all, all of the "reasons" I have heard have come from people who no doubt genuinely believed them and believed they were good reasons for defending God's behaviour. If they didn't believe them, they wouldn't use them at all. 

 

And yes, fundamentalism definitely does a good job of squashing people's inner compassion and empathy. It turns otherwise good people into people who believe God can murder children or send billions to hell for eternity, and still think this God is worthy of worship. It makes people completely blindsided to the horrors of their own beliefs. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

On 10/22/2018 at 3:38 AM, Kat34 said:

@wadori

 

@Weezer I don’t know why a teaching about original sin would be needed, surely it’s enough to talk about universal sin and that all of us fall short (it’s easy to see that all of us do wrong 

 

A lot of what religion comes up with is not logical and doesnt make sense to an educated, sane petson.  To me it boils down to control through fear.  And to keep the fear going, and control the masses, you have to convince them they are too stupid to even LEARN how to guide themselves.  They need "God" (who the powerful leaders created) and his (self appointed) enlightened represenatives to guide them.  The whole thing is an elaborate scheme, and to keep it going the "clergy" down through the ages have denied education to the masses.  Even today liberal education is discouraged by many groups.  My own brother, who is an extreme example, blames my undergraduate education from a christian college for my going astray.  

[◊ Weezer ◊]

On 10/22/2018 at 3:38 AM, Kat34 said:

@wadori 

 

@Weezer Why do you think it is, given the principle of survival of the fittest, that most people care about protecting the weak?

 

Hmmmm!  Good question.  Never thought of it like that.  My first thought is that through the moral evolution of mankind, someone decided, "hey, that could be me."  "Maybe we should start looking out for each other."

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

On 10/22/2018 at 3:38 AM, Kat34 said:

@wadori 

 

@Weezer .. how do people from different Christian traditions explain god sanctioning or committing the violence that’s described? 

 

That was a huge question for me from early on.  It was never answered to my satisfaction. In the group I grew up in the final answer was that we can't always understand the mind of God.  My group avoided teachings from the old testament.  This is explained in my testimonial.

[TruthSeeker0]

13 minutes ago, Weezer said:

 

Hmmmm!  Good question.  Never thought of it like that.  My first thought is that through the moral evolution of mankind, someone decided, "hey, that could be me."  "Maybe we should start looking out for each other."

 

 

I think that's optimistic thinking. I think us humans are only able to think this way when the conditions are ideal: when our own basic needs are being met, and we are free in the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. If they aren't, we're more likely to compete with others and become divided. Even when these needs are being met and we have a relatively large amount of autonomy, we are easily fooled by those who would divide and conquer and have us demonize other people. So, I think it's being really optimistic to say most people are interested in protecting the weak. So far, even as a world community, we don't have such a great record in preventing genocide, UN or not.

[Kat34]

I have a couple of questions... I’ve watched a few Bart Ehrman videos and note that he attributes his loss of faith not to his scholarly findings but to the problem of suffering. As a few people here mentioned that debunking the bible as god’s word was critical for them, do you believe Ehrman’s work actually does this? Is there a different author who does so more convincingly? 

 

Secondly, Dan Barker. Quite a few amazon reviews (from believers, questioners and atheists alike) state that he seems to have exchanged one form of militantism for another and that his knowledge of the bible isn’t particularly strong, with lots of simplistic contradictions drawn that Christians from a non evangelical ilk are already well aware of or lots of things pulled from context in order to take a cheap shot. A few Christians said they would’ve become atheists too if their Christianity was the same kind as his.  Any thoughts from anyone who has read Barker? How does he compare with Loftus for example? I don’t know if it’s worth me reading or not. It is striking how so many deconverts are from extreme Christian backgrounds and it’s making me wonder if I’m ignoring some middle ground. 

[Kat34]

13 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

I think that's optimistic thinking. I think us humans are only able to think this way when the conditions are ideal: when our own basic needs are being met, and we are free in the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. If they aren't, we're more likely to compete with others and become divided. 

Really interesting point, thank you. Though of course there are exceptions to this. Some people did speak out against the Holocaust for example, even though it cost them their freedom or lives. On a very different scale, there is quite a big reaction here in the UK against austerity and the impact our government has had on the poor and vulnerable. 

[TruthSeeker0]

2 minutes ago, Kat34 said:

I have a couple of questions... I’ve watched a few Bart Ehrman videos and note that he attributes his loss of faith not to his scholarly findings but to the problem of suffering. As a few people here mentioned that debunking the bible as god’s word was critical for them, do you believe Ehrman’s work actually does this? Is there a different author who does so more convincingly? 

 

Secondly, Dan Barker. Quite a few amazon reviews (from believers, questioners and atheists alike) state that he seems to have exchanged one form of militantism for another and that his knowledge of the bible isn’t particularly strong, with lots of simplistic contradictions drawn that Christians from a non evangelical ilk are already well aware of or lots of things pulled from context in order to take a cheap shot. A few Christians said they would’ve become atheists too if their Christianity was the same kind as his.  Any thoughts from anyone who has read Barker? How does he compare with Loftus for example? I don’t know if it’s worth me reading or not. It is striking how so many deconverts are from extreme Christian backgrounds and it’s making me wonder if I’m ignoring some middle ground. 

I don't think in most cases that people deconvert purely based on scholarly findings...I think they reject the main and central tenets in Christianity such as original sin, and find other areas problematic, such as the issue of suffering, as Ehrman did, or the problem with free will, or what one must fool oneself into believing regarding the nature of the christian god, if one believes. I believe someone quoted Dan Barker's summary regarding why he left Christianity earlier in this thread?

So, the question arises, does one have to have a particularly strong knowledge of the bible to reject Christianity, or does one have to weigh all the scholarly findings? No.

[TruthSeeker0]

6 minutes ago, Kat34 said:

Really interesting point, thank you. Though of course there are exceptions to this. Some people did speak out against the Holocaust for example, even though it cost them their freedom or lives. On a very different scale, there is quite a big reaction here in the UK against austerity and the impact our government has had on the poor and vulnerable. 

Yes, and in other countries, even implementing universal basic health care has some people utterly paranoid, because that would mean that their country is "socialist." Hence, my comment on people being easily duped and divided. I just can't help wondering, what are the conditions, that so many people are set against pitching in so that everyone would be better off, most notably the weak and vulnerable?

[Kat34]

30 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

I don't think in most cases that people deconvert purely based on scholarly findings...I think they reject the main and central tenets in Christianity such as original sin, and find other areas problematic, such as the issue of suffering, as Ehrman did, or the problem with free will, or what one must fool oneself into believing regarding the nature of the christian god, if one believes. I believe someone quoted Dan Barker's summary regarding why he left Christianity earlier in this thread?

So, the question arises, does one have to have a particularly strong knowledge of the bible to reject Christianity, or does one have to weigh all the scholarly findings? No.

@TruthSeeker0, thank you. The reason I asked about Ehrman was that a couple of people early in the thread addressed my fear of hell by saying the key for them was debunking the bible, and then that took care of the fears of the things talked about within it. I have a strong objection to the things you mention, but currently my thinking is okay I know I can’t get on board with those doctrines, but does that mean the whole thing is untrue? This is where I can see why it would be helpful to feel confident that the bible isn’t god’s word. 

[sdelsolray]

44 minutes ago, Kat34 said:

I have a couple of questions... I’ve watched a few Bart Ehrman videos and note that he attributes his loss of faith not to his scholarly findings but to the problem of suffering. As a few people here mentioned that debunking the bible as god’s word was critical for them, do you believe Ehrman’s work actually does this? Is there a different author who does so more convincingly? 

 

Secondly, Dan Barker. Quite a few amazon reviews (from believers, questioners and atheists alike) state that he seems to have exchanged one form of militantism for another and that his knowledge of the bible isn’t particularly strong, with lots of simplistic contradictions drawn that Christians from a non evangelical ilk are already well aware of or lots of things pulled from context in order to take a cheap shot. A few Christians said they would’ve become atheists too if their Christianity was the same kind as his.  Any thoughts from anyone who has read Barker? How does he compare with Loftus for example? I don’t know if it’s worth me reading or not. It is striking how so many deconverts are from extreme Christian backgrounds and it’s making me wonder if I’m ignoring some middle ground. 

 

I do not think one author is better than another, or necessarily more complete.  I see them as providing different perspectives and/or covering different topics and, fortunately, these authors are usually quick to point out their limitations and direction with plain honesty.  Not much smoke and mirrors from this group.

 

You may need to read (sometimes more than once) over 100 books to explore, to your satisfaction, the questions you raise.  That many, and more, are certainly out there.

[TruthSeeker0]

1 hour ago, Kat34 said:

@TruthSeeker0, thank you. The reason I asked about Ehrman was that a couple of people early in the thread addressed my fear of hell by saying the key for them was debunking the bible, and then that took care of the fears of the things talked about within it. I have a strong objection to the things you mention, but currently my thinking is okay I know I can’t get on board with those doctrines, but does that mean the whole thing is untrue? This is where I can see why it would be helpful to feel confident that the bible isn’t god’s word. 

Yes, in that case, I suggest doing your best to read up on how the bible was compiled, by whom, how it really reflected the time and culture it was written in etc.

Ultimately, I don't really happen to care if it's gods word, or true or not (although honestly, thats an impossible belief for me). If it's gods word, I want nothing to do with it, because it's evil regardless. I'd rather go to hell and burn with everyone else here. At least I'll have the satisfaction that I stood by my own principles and morals, and by the true definition of love. But seriously, at the end of the day I just don't believe such evil exists, the creation of the judeo-christian god was only one of hundreds, but the religion grew largely by force and conquest.

 

Ultimately, it comes down to banishing fear. And what helps there is learning and understanding how you were conditioned to fear (through brainwashing), and how that fear controlled you. When you understand how all that works, you become immune to people's attempts to manipulate you that way. And I'd say, you become immune to the god delusion as well.

[Joshpantera]

2 hours ago, Kat34 said:

Secondly, Dan Barker. Quite a few amazon reviews (from believers, questioners and atheists alike) state that he seems to have exchanged one form of militantism for another and that his knowledge of the bible isn’t particularly strong, with lots of simplistic contradictions drawn that Christians from a non evangelical ilk are already well aware of or lots of things pulled from context in order to take a cheap shot.

 

What is an example of this? Someone once tried using Dan Barker as an example of gnostic atheism, and then failed. Because Barker doesn't actually think he knows that no gods exist. You have to look at these claims closely and case by case if you're interested in an objective analysis. But Barker is the classic fundie turned atheist type, and zealous for atheism. You may find that off putting. 

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

1 hour ago, Kat34 said:

@TruthSeeker0,  I know I can’t get on board with those doctrines, but does that mean the whole thing is untrue? This is where I can see why it would be helpful to feel confident that the bible isn’t god’s word. 

 

The bible contains some truths, so it is not all true, or all untrue.  The question is, where did it come from.

I went through a period of believing that perhaps part of the Bible was God's word, and part was not.  Then I studied the history of god(s) and decided he doesnt exist, at least in any form I know about.

The decision I came to is that there were some wise writings  (truth) that made it into the bible, and some trash.  All of it from the minds of humans. To me that is the most logical explanation.

[Kat34]

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

 

What is an example of this? Someone once tried using Dan Barker as an example of gnostic atheism, and then failed. Because Barker doesn't actually think he knows that no gods exist. You have to look at these claims closely and case by case if you're interested in an objective analysis. But Barker is the classic fundie turned atheist type, and zealous for atheism. You may find that off putting. 

 

 

@Joshpantera here’s an example, may have to send one photo at a time... unfortunately I don’t know enough to know how fair these comments are (though Josh Macdowell isn’t great right?! I don’t know, my phone knew to autocorrect his name ) and it only really gives a couple of concrete examples but seems to be a criticism of his lack of rigour etc. 

[Kat34]

Ah I’m not allowed to upload any more... I think there’s a limit to how much can be uploaded across all my posts? 

Here is the link instead. There are far more reviews for “Godless” but this is one such example for “Losing faith in faith”.

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/review/1877733075/RH3C61S5QZB8Y/ref=cm_cr_dp_mb_rvw_2?ie=UTF8&cursor=2

[Joshpantera]

Kat, you're caught in the middle of a lot of confusion. This poster doesn't seem to understand that the bible Barker is rejecting, IS the bible. The bibles timeline (through the Patriarchs to Jesus) gives the 6,000 year old earth. That's where the young earth idea comes from. The christians who think they have some sophisticated theology that elevates them above the fundies, do not. What I normally prefer to do is address both young earth creationists and old earth creations at the same time so no one thinks they're immune to the points being made. If you look back at how I treated Genesis and creation you'll see that. Maybe Barker doesn't always cover each area as he goes along. But the point being, it fails both ways, in a lot of ways. And doesn't justify itself through a liberal lens as you continue reading. 

 

A friend of mine has taken the liberal lens about as far as it can go, all the way to atheism in fact. He's not just a liberal agnostic christian, sophisticated in theology, he goes by "christian atheist." Doesn't believe god is literal. Nor Jesus. Readily accepts the arguments of Jesus mythicism. Still a cultural christian, though. Reads the bible like someone would read Plato. Finds meaning in the aspects that are taken from the pagan religions. Knowing they are taken from the pagan religions. That's the end result of taking liberal cultural christianity to an extreme end. You end up christian and atheist. The bible not literal at all. The creation not literal. The Patriarchs not literal. Heaven and Hell not literal. God, Jesus the Devil and Angels not literal.....

 

The in between is just a lot of cherry picking and choosing one thing to take literal, another not to take literally. 

 

You're taking hell literally, for instance, as would one of these fundies in the US and yet you seem to keep going on to us as if you're liberal. That's picking and choosing. What's your methodology for determining which parts of the bible are literal and which are not? Have you thought much about that? Why would hell be literally true, for instance, but the earth not around 6,000 years old? 

[Kat34]

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

Kat, you're caught in the middle of a lot of confusion. This poster doesn't seem to understand that the bible Barker is rejecting, IS the bible. The bibles timeline (through the Patriarchs to Jesus) gives the 6,000 year old earth. That's where the young earth idea comes from. The christians who think they have some sophisticated theology that elevates them above the fundies, do not. What I normally prefer to do is address both young earth creationists and old earth creations at the same time so no one thinks they're immune to the points being made. If you look back at how I treated Genesis and creation you'll see that. Maybe Barker doesn't always cover each area as he goes along. But the point being, it fails both ways, in a lot of ways. And doesn't justify itself through a liberal lens as you continue reading. 

 

A friend of mine has taken the liberal lens about as far as it can go, all the way to atheism in fact. He's not just a liberal agnostic christian, sophisticated in theology, he goes by "christian atheist." Doesn't believe god is literal. Nor Jesus. Readily accepts the arguments of Jesus mythicism. Still a cultural christian, though. Reads the bible like someone would read Plato. Finds meaning in the aspects that are taken from the pagan religions. Knowing they are taken from the pagan religions. That's the end result of taking liberal cultural christianity to an extreme end. You end up christian and atheist. The bible not literal at all. The creation not literal. The Patriarchs not literal. Heaven and Hell not literal. God, Jesus the Devil and Angels not literal.....

 

The in between is just a lot of cherry picking and choosing one thing to take literal, another not to take literally. 

 

You're taking hell literally, for instance, as would one of these fundies in the US and yet you seem to keep going on to us as if you're liberal. That's picking and choosing. What's your methodology for determining which parts of the bible are literal and which are not? Have you thought much about that? Why would hell be literally true, for instance, but the earth not around 6,000 years old? 

You’re absolutely right Josh, I have wondered that same question myself. I was brought up to take it pretty much literally but the Christians I am acquainted with now (other than my mum who is probably a little less conservative than she was but is still largely so) are not largely new earthers and wouldn’t take everything literally. They do though believe in the literal truth of the resurrection, the trinity, heaven and hell etc - what they’d see as fundamentals of the faith. I’m not entirely sure where the distinctions are drawn or if the word liberal is the correct one for me to use, I mean it in the sense of more liberal than fundamentalists. 

[Joshpantera]

2 hours ago, Kat34 said:

You’re absolutely right Josh, I have wondered that same question myself. I was brought up to take it pretty much literally but the Christians I am acquainted with now (other than my mum who is probably a little less conservative than she was but is still largely so) are not largely new earthers and wouldn’t take everything literally. They do though believe in the literal truth of the resurrection, the trinity, heaven and hell etc - what they’d see as fundamentals of the faith. I’m not entirely sure where the distinctions are drawn or if the word liberal is the correct one for me to use, I mean it in the sense of more liberal than fundamentalists. 

 

That's a very confused position to take - the picking and choosing. And it's popular too, I get that. The bottom line is that trying to justify these picking and choosing beliefs seems pretty untenable in my experience. There's good reason not to think that the resurrection, the trinity and heaven and hell are anything other than pagan mythological concepts that were brought in to christianity. They will fight tooth and nail not to accept that. But having weighed it out for myself, I side with scholarship over personal religious bias. And I see holding on to a few choice things (which are pagan mythological ideas at that) as nothing more than an effort to try and remain part of the group, even if a watered down part of that group. 

 

That can be a stage too, along a journey of eventually letting it all go. 

[Kat34]

26 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

That's a very confused position to take - the picking and choosing. And it's popular too, I get that. The bottom line is that trying to justify these picking and choosing beliefs seems pretty untenable in my experience. There's good reason not to think that the resurrection, the trinity and heaven and hell are anything other than pagan mythological concepts that were brought in to christianity. They will fight tooth and nail not to accept that. But having weighed it out for myself, I side with scholarship over personal religious bias. And I see holding on to a few choice things (which are pagan mythological ideas at that) as nothing more than an effort to try and remain part of the group, even if a watered down part of that group. 

 

That can be a stage too, along a journey of eventually letting it all go. 

When you talk about trying to remain part of the group, if you mean the Christians I’m referring to then they are in themselves a very large group and their core beliefs are critical to that. They’d see anyone who believes in the resurrection, trinity etc and accepts Jesus as their personal saviour as “saved”, whatever denomination they might be from. I feel like that’s a pretty majority Christian position in this country. 

 

If you meant me, I’m not part of any Christian group and haven’t been since my teenage years. I want nothing more than for it not to be true. 

[Joshpantera]

4 hours ago, Kat34 said:

 

 

If you meant me, I’m not part of any Christian group and haven’t been since my teenage years. I want nothing more than for it not to be true. 

 

Then why the non stop second guessing? 

 

It isn't true according to it's own claims. The end. Game over. Your wish has been granted for a long time already. 

[Kat34]

55 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Then why the non stop second guessing? 

 

It isn't true according to it's own claims. The end. Game over. Your wish has been granted for a long time already. 

Deeply ingrained teaching I guess... these fears resurface every couple of years. It’s only in the last few years that I’ve been exposed to the possibility that Christianity might actually be false and I just can’t shake the fear that it’s true. I’m easily triggered by things like knowing that there are very intelligent people who believe this stuff wholeheartedly or that there are atheists who become Christians etc. Like I said last week I think, I find it almost impossible to separate my own thoughts from the pre conditioning. 

[Joshpantera]

40 minutes ago, Kat34 said:

I’m easily triggered by things like knowing that there are very intelligent people who believe this stuff wholeheartedly or that there are atheists who become Christians etc. Like I said last week I think, I find it almost impossible to separate my own thoughts from the pre conditioning. 

 

This is something that shouldn't bother you at all if you understood the content well. Basically everything we've discussed so far. Somebody believing it, who ever they may be, doesn't make something true. It doesn't even make it possible. It doesn't make it anything. It is what it is, on it's own accord. 

 

And what can be demonstrated is that it's an epic fail in a variety of categories that all point to the same conclusion - the claims are fallacious and untenable.