Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Recurring fears


Kat34

Recommended Posts

On 10/9/2018 at 1:45 AM, Kat34 said:

...

I just don’t know how to find peace because ultimately, however unjust and awful we think hell sounds, we cannot know for certain what the truth is about what happens when we die. I just want to be free of this fear.

 

“I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”

 

Frank Herbert - Dune

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

 

“I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”

 

Frank Herbert - Dune

 

I memorized that a long time ago. I used to say it every day.

 

To Kat: Many of us go through this fear. It may seem impossible right now that you'll get through it and come out on the other end, but you will. If i got there, you will get there. There will come a day when you think hell is so fucking absurd that you'll wonder how it ever terrorized you. And I get so much of this digs in in childhood, but you really can heal and move past this fear.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/9/2018 at 4:45 AM, Kat34 said:

 

I’ve read through the other threads on fear of hell and I empathise with a comment someone made about it almost being hardwired into our brains in childhood. I just don’t know how to find peace because ultimately, however unjust and awful we think hell sounds, we cannot know for certain what the truth is about what happens when we die. I just want to be free of this fear.

 

 

You're right, we can't know. If it's any consolation,whatever anybody may think of the veracity of these experiences, in thousands of different cases, people who have had near death experiences and "meet God", come back and say God is nothing like the conventional religions and there is no judgement, anger, punishment. Only love. I don't think you have anything to fear though I realize that doesn't stop you being afraid. But it will pass. Something that helped me besides that Dune thing was looking into a LOT of different ideas and theories and realizing how extremely unlikely that a laughably absurd book from 2k years ago somehow contained "the one true truth".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, florduh said:

For now I would recommend not attempting to disprove every assertion made by Christians, apologists and their Bible. It is their burden to provide evidence, not yours.

I get your point but for me looking at the other side of the argument (the case for disbelief) is pretty new and dissecting the claims of apologists is also not something I’d have done before so I’m trying to train my brain to think critically about the differing claims I encounter and the evidence that individuals purport to be offering... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
7 minutes ago, Kat34 said:

I get your point but for me looking at the other side of the argument (the case for disbelief) is pretty new and dissecting the claims of apologists is also not something I’d have done before so I’m trying to train my brain to think critically about the differing claims I encounter and the evidence that individuals purport to be offering... 

The entire case for disbelief rests on the fact that the extraordinary claims of Christians don't come to us with any evidence so why should anyone believe them? Perhaps since you can still get triggered by religion you could learn logic and critical thinking skills in some other area. Just trying to keep you happy and sane!

 

In my experience, apologetic arguments serve to bolster the faith of Christians and our carefully crafted rebuttals are the mirror image. In practice, I don't waste time arguing with the religious because they don't recognize facts and logic; in fact their entire world is built upon denial of same. Faith will trump anything we can come up with. Their goal is to use emotional manipulation, including fear, rather than logic and demonstrable facts. Nobody answers the altar call because it's the logical thing to do.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/15/2018 at 3:41 PM, Kat34 said:

I’m actually embarrassed to give the specifics but here goes 🤣 in short, I asked god before I went to sleep to let me know if he was there (as I have many times before) and then the church bells in our village rang at random times throughout the night (I was up feeding the baby). I have no idea why this would have happened as obviously they wouldn’t have people ringing bells in the middle of the night but it definitely did and so I thought is this finally a sign or am I just being ridiculous because of my current state of mind etc. I do sometimes think all this is making me a bit crazy 😆

You're going through a normal phase, so I wouldn't worry. Winell writes about the stages people go through when leaving religion in her book, and by my estimate I'd say you're in the confused stage, and no wonder, because it's a massive change. I recognize some of the thoughts and fears, and irrational thinking, like 'god is being subtle'. It's just your religious training/indoctrination in action, it won't disappear overnight, and the best way to tone that voice down and eventually shut it up is just keep reading, keep learning, keep developing critical thinking skills, and one day you'll look back and laugh at what an utter pile of crap you believed. Here is what Winell says on the confusion stage:

Screen Shot 2018-10-16 at 11.31.51 PM.png

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, florduh said:

The entire case for disbelief rests on the fact that the extraordinary claims of Christians don't come to us with any evidence so why should anyone believe them? Perhaps since you can still get triggered by religion you could learn logic and critical thinking skills in some other area. Just trying to keep you happy and sane!

 

In my experience, apologetic arguments serve to bolster the faith of Christians and our carefully crafted rebuttals are the mirror image. In practice, I don't waste time arguing with the religious because they don't recognize facts and logic; in fact their entire world is built upon denial of same. Faith will trump anything we can come up with. Their goal is to use emotional manipulation, including fear, rather than logic and demonstrable facts. Nobody answers the altar call because it's the logical thing to do.

I think I’m still at the stage where I don’t feel certainty. As Josh referenced, I kind of swing between the positions. I know that there are many Christians who say they believe what they do based on evidence. My experience of Christians may be different from lots of the people here; not all but the majority I’ve known have been reasonable and rational people, not hugely conservative, who accept there are differences in interpretation of the bible in particular areas but agree on the central theme ie the Resurrection. And they believe they have evidence to support their belief.

 

So the fact there are people who have presented evidence for the truth of Christianity and people who have presented evidence against it causes me to think it’s reasonable to explore and try to critically evaluate both sides, because the consequences are potentially so significant. The difficulty is knowing how far to take this before feeling like a decision can be reached! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
3 hours ago, Kat34 said:

I think I’m still at the stage where I don’t feel certainty. As Josh referenced, I kind of swing between the positions. I know that there are many Christians who say they believe what they do based on evidence. My experience of Christians may be different from lots of the people here; not all but the majority I’ve known have been reasonable and rational people, not hugely conservative, who accept there are differences in interpretation of the bible in particular areas but agree on the central theme ie the Resurrection. And they believe they have evidence to support their belief.

 

So the fact there are people who have presented evidence for the truth of Christianity and people who have presented evidence against it causes me to think it’s reasonable to explore and try to critically evaluate both sides, because the consequences are potentially so significant. The difficulty is knowing how far to take this before feeling like a decision can be reached! 

 

Certainty is elusive.  That’s why I call myself an agnostic atheist.  And don’t feel like you have to make a decision.  For many of us, it was more a growing realization.  I can’t point to a moment when I crossed the line from faith to unbelief.  At some point I just knew I was no longer a Christian.  So give yourself a break.  Keep reading and your mind will sort things out even without you realizing it’s happening.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, ThereAndBackAgain said:

 

Certainty is elusive.  That’s why I call myself an agnostic atheist.  And don’t feel like you have to make a decision.  For many of us, it was more a growing realization.  I can’t point to a moment when I crossed the line from faith to unbelief.  At some point I just knew I was no longer a Christian.  So give yourself a break.  Keep reading and your mind will sort things out even without you realizing it’s happening.  

Thank you. I’ve been listening to Bart Ehrman this morning which has been an interesting perspective to compare with the Robert Price Jesus myth perspective. I absolutely agree that certainty can’t be possible. I just kind of feel like I’m not sure which way I’ll end up leaning yet... but you’re right that I don’t need to know that yet. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Another thing to keep in mind: you don’t have to make a binary choice between being a Christian and being an atheist.  It’s OK to be somewhere in between!  Are you familiar with the ‘Dawkins Scale’?  It’s a good way to think about belief and unbelief.  We have all moved around on this scale in the course of our lives. There are VERY few people in the 1 or 7 zones.  Number 4 would be people who haven’t given god-belief much thought or just don’t care that much.  Otherwise it is probably a transition state for people moving in one direction or the other.  You may be a 4 right now.  I guess I want to say to you is that it’s OK to be a 2 or a 3 while rejecting Christian dogma.  It’s OK to be a 5 or a 6 and never call yourself an atheist.  I think most of us here, wherever we would place ourselves on the scale, or even if we don’t like the scale, would say that letting go of Christian theology has ultimately been a huge relief.  No more tying ourselves in knots trying to make scripture fully consistent with how the world works. No more trying to justify or conform to moral codes that don’t fit with our consciences.  

 

I hope this helps!

 

  1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
  2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
  3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
  4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
  5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
  6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
  7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, that’s a really helpful scale. I wasn’t familiar with it. I was reading another thread on here and somebody had commented that their experiences had almost make them wonder if predestination was true. Well that would explain god’s silence and why Christianity hasn’t been attractive to me and in that case there’s nothing I can do about any of it!! I mean it would be wholly unfair but hey all part of the mystery of God 🙄

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kat34 said:

Thank you, that’s a really helpful scale. I wasn’t familiar with it. I was reading another thread on here and somebody had commented that their experiences had almost make them wonder if predestination was true. Well that would explain god’s silence and why Christianity hasn’t been attractive to me and in that case there’s nothing I can do about any of it!! I mean it would be wholly unfair but hey all part of the mystery of God 🙄

 

 

I wouldn't worry about that if I were you. Predestination and a good God are incompatible. If predestination is true, then God cannot be loving and good, and therefore he's the not the God of the bible (who Christians claim is loving and good). 

 

Plus, for that particular Christian doctrine to be true requires the whole religion to be true, and there are many good reasons to think that it's all bullshit. 

 

Try to stop torturing yourself with the "what-ifs". All you can do is follow the evidence. If Christianity is true there should be an abundance of evidence. If it's not, we should be able to find holes in its doctrines and in its holy book. Focus on that and maybe someday the what-ifs will vanish.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Kat34 said:

I think I’m still at the stage where I don’t feel certainty. As Josh referenced, I kind of swing between the positions. I know that there are many Christians who say they believe what they do based on evidence. My experience of Christians may be different from lots of the people here; not all but the majority I’ve known have been reasonable and rational people, not hugely conservative, who accept there are differences in interpretation of the bible in particular areas but agree on the central theme ie the Resurrection. And they believe they have evidence to support their belief.

 

So the fact there are people who have presented evidence for the truth of Christianity and people who have presented evidence against it causes me to think it’s reasonable to explore and try to critically evaluate both sides, because the consequences are potentially so significant. The difficulty is knowing how far to take this before feeling like a decision can be reached! 

Yes, the fact that you're thinking about consequences means that ultimately, it still has a grip over you, the fear of hell, and the "truth" of god's existence. It is difficult to get rid of this without educating yourself on biblical history, the evolution of the hell idea etc. Until you're able to look at these objectively, they hold a lot of power.

 

Would you be able to worship a creator who is ultimately evil? Because that's what the christian god is. If your child committed a wrong, would you tell them that you can't forgive it, you first actually have to recreate yourself, and then hang yourself up on a cross to die, so that with the shedding of blood, your child's wrong can be forgiven? How easy and straightforward would it be to just forgive the child, and why can't you do that? You're obviously not such a "loving" specimen for all this convoluted, complicated, illogical thinking, that the (disgusting, abhorrent) shedding of blood somehow forgives sins. Lets not even talk about the fact that without believing in this shedding of blood, people will suffer eternal torture and damnation. Or that your child's 'sin' is then somehow inherited by every living person that will be born after them.

Ultimately, christianity rests on this premise. Does every other piece of evidence have to be picked apart when you look at this premise? You either believe in evil, or you don't. But christians have been so brainwashed into the concept that their god is love, that they are incapable of looking at this issue in a realistic manner. From a young age, what should naturally be abhorrent to the majority of children, the nailing of a human being to a cross and the shedding of blood, is normalized, and then it's worshiped. Ultimately, they are desensitized to how disgusting this all is.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Yes, the fact that you're thinking about consequences means that ultimately, it still has a grip over you, the fear of hell, and the "truth" of god's existence. It is difficult to get rid of this without educating yourself on biblical history, the evolution of the hell idea etc. Until you're able to look at these objectively, they hold a lot of power.

 

Would you be able to worship a creator who is ultimately evil? Because that's what the christian god is. If your child committed a wrong, would you tell them that you can't forgive it, you first actually have to recreate yourself, and then hang yourself up on a cross to die, so that with the shedding of blood, your child's wrong can be forgiven? How easy and straightforward would it be to just forgive the child, and why can't you do that? You're obviously not such a "loving" specimen for all this convoluted, complicated, illogical thinking, that the (disgusting, abhorrent) shedding of blood somehow forgives sins. Lets not even talk about the fact that without believing in this shedding of blood, people will suffer eternal torture and damnation. Or that your child's 'sin' is then somehow inherited by every living person that will be born after them.

Ultimately, christianity rests on this premise. Does every other piece of evidence have to be picked apart when you look at this premise? You either believe in evil, or you don't. But christians have been so brainwashed into the concept that their god is love, that they are incapable of looking at this issue in a realistic manner. From a young age, what should naturally be abhorrent to the majority of children, the nailing of a human being to a cross and the shedding of blood, is normalized, and then it's worshiped. Ultimately, they are desensitized to how disgusting this all is.

I don’t disagree, there are a number of aspects of Christianity I find extremely problematic. My concern is that that doesn’t mean it isn’t true and maybe I just have a really imperfect understanding of such things and that’s why they seem so objectionable. 

I’ve been trying to educate myself on biblical history and not getting anywhere because I can’t find consensus... without being an expert how does anyone know who to listen to?!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
On 10/17/2018 at 3:47 PM, Kat34 said:

I’ve been trying to educate myself on biblical history and not getting anywhere because I can’t find consensus... without being an expert how does anyone know who to listen to?!!

 

I've paid attention to both arguments. The Case for Christ, The Case Against the case for Christ, for instance. I thought the case of christ was god awful, because it's so biased towards firming up the belief system. The arguments from the believer side have so much more to loose than the opposing arguments. And that's obvious and up front. The apologists arguing for the belief system may go liberal, but no matter how liberal they are still based on trying to shore up a preconceived system of belief that has everything to loose by being found wrong. 

 

The academic arguments have biases also, but not to this extent. There's some motivation to save face and not be wrong, but it's ultimately not that big a deal if something turns out to be demonstrably wrong. Adjustments will be made accordingly and scholarship will move on. There may be a big messy fight, but eventually it will sort out under the weight of evidences and whatever comes along and forces change. The believer positions are not like this. They depend on denying things that would potentially change everything. They have to make up more and more apologetic's to at least make it seem as if they're still in the ball park, when often times they aren't. 

 

Genesis is not literal. It's symbolic, but not symbolic for how the world actually came to be. Academics will be split between fundamentalists who have to believe it's literal regardless, liberal theologians who admit it isn't literal but try and hold ground with a symbolic significance, and agnostic and non believer academics who don't try to put any more to it than a case study of world creation myths. 

 

The first two have more to loose by letting it go than the secular oriented third party (Ehrman, Carrier, Price, etc.). And their motivations, arguments, and direction will tend to break down to that. The Case for Christ is a desperate attempt to shore up the faith. All of WLC's arguments are the same. It's obvious and the bias and motivation are very transparent. They are to me, if they are not to you, why so? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Kat34 said:

I don’t disagree, there are a number of aspects of Christianity I find extremely problematic. My concern is that that doesn’t mean it isn’t true and maybe I just have a really imperfect understanding of such things and that’s why they seem so objectionable. 

I’ve been trying to educate myself on biblical history and not getting anywhere because I can’t find consensus... without being an expert how does anyone know who to listen to?!!

As Josh already mentioned, I would look for people who are less prone to bias in their arguments and have nothing to lose with picking the issues apart and examining them from every angle.  And this can't be said of the Christian side. 

I suppose I didnt feel the need to examine everything, and as I already had a degree in history and have some experience with primary sources, it wasn't a far jump at all to realize the Bible is just another such source reflecting the views and opinions of those who wrote it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a degree in history too, just very little knowledge of this time and place. I have an appreciation for historical methods and realise that ultimately historians have to deal in probabilities based on the evidence.

 

I read the Strobel books as a teenager, when I did believe, and even then I could see how hugely biased they were! I’ve not revisited them since for that reason.

 

An example of something I find tricky: Ehrman claims that there are lots of variations in the 5000+ copies of the NT that exist. Another scholar (can’t remember who but think it was a secular one?) said that he overstates his case here. I have no idea who is correct! 

 

Price, I know, argues that it’s unlikely Jesus actually existed. This seems to be a minority view amongst scholars on both sides and is something he’ll never be able to conclusively argue for, so I’m happy accepting that Jesus did exist. What I don’t know is how far to trust Price on other matters - for example when he critiques Boyd and Eddy, who I have read in the past. 

 

I’m not sure I buy the idea that people like Ehrman and Price don’t also have a lot to lose by being wrong. They are known for having renounced their faith and have subsequently built careers around showing why the bible is not the word of god. I think it’s entirely plausible that they might, even inadvertently, overstate their cases or write as if something is true when actually it’s just a hunch or a personal theory. 

 

@TruthSeeker - that’s interesting that you didn’t feel the need to examine everything. It suggests you were far more sure than I was that Christianity is false. Was this mainly based on your own moral objections to its teachings? I certainly have these, I guess I just struggle to trust that they are evidence it isn’t true. I still have an underlying fear of a god who I maybe misunderstand because of my own imperfect sense of morality or whatever. But yes, if god were real I’d hope he would help me with my fears and struggles, and have certainly asked him to a number of times over the years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Kat34 said:

@TruthSeeker - that’s interesting that you didn’t feel the need to examine everything. It suggests you were far more sure than I was that Christianity is false. Was this mainly based on your own moral objections to its teachings? I certainly have these, I guess I just struggle to trust that they are evidence it isn’t true. I still have an underlying fear of a god who I maybe misunderstand because of my own imperfect sense of morality or whatever. But yes, if god were real I’d hope he would help me with my fears and struggles, and have certainly asked him to a number of times over the years. 

Yes. I take a strong moral stance against worshipping evil, and the teachings of christianity. When I started considering the nature of the Christian god, and comparing it to my previous understanding of him, I didn't even hesitate over which position I was going to take. Another thing that I have strong opinions about are patriarchal ideals, and the way in which religion perpetuates these. While I was in the church I struggled with these. Why is god a man? Why are women subjected to such mistreatment in the bible? Why do religions follow the utterly misogynistic teachings of Paul? In my own church, I saw the subjugation of women in a very concrete way. So when I started reading all these critiques about the bible etc, I suppose I could say, that my own motivations in escaping such a controlling system helped me along. I was desperate to get out of the church because I was utterly miserable there, I felt like I was being stifled, and that I certainly wasn't living up to my potential. I was also a fundamentalist. I think the ex fundamentalists are more likely to take a strong anti-religious stance when they leave, simply because it's partially a reaction to all the harm religion has caused them. Maybe this attitude softens over time - I suppose I will find out. But I am utterly turned off by the misogyny inherent in this 'holy' text - it's the last thing I'm going to consider seriously as some guiding force over my life. If god indeed was guiding the hand of those 'holy' men who wrote the bible, as I was taught, (why were there no women writers?) then he's one misogynistic prick that I'll have nothing to do with. Why would you worship a being that appears to get his jollies out of playing with the fate of people?

Anyway, I think it was a combination of factors, my motivation, my educating myself, and my giving it time. I was certainly not sure in the beginning even though I read an excellent critique of my own religious sect that really shook things up for me. It took me about half a year before I was able to say 'look, this isn't working, face the music, this stuff isn't real.' At that point I read Dawkins God Delusion, and my mind had shifted enough that I had no trouble digesting what he was saying and agreeing with it. What really helped as well was comparing my beliefs to all those other people I thought were crazy - Mormons, JW's, and other denominations, and realizing that nobody had an exclusive truth, and I was just as brainwashed as them.

We all have an innate sense of morality. What you should start doing is stop considering it imperfect, and let yourself explore this aspect of yourself. You'll find it, and start trusting it, once you start listening to it. It's ok for you to make decisions based on your inner morality, including leaving christianity. I admit, I just can't understand those Christians who are able to see that their god is indeed quite awful when you get down to it, but yet they don't have the guts to really stand on their own principles and morality in regards to the issue.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the source of morality, it comes from we humans being social creatures. Even the Bible says "a cord of 3 is not easily broken." Humans thrive because we live together in societies, and societies have to have rules... thus, moral codes. The fact that what is "good" seems innate is the result of evolution. Those humans that were better socialized thrived, and those less inclined to be social didn't reproduce as well. We still have sociopaths, but they're in the minority. It's good to enjoy your new baby! And while those evil people won't suffer for eternity, at least they're dead now.

 

Regarding Hell, then, notice that there's no eternal life in the Old Testament, and no eternal punishment. Only Enoch and Elijah were said to have been taken to heaven. Everyone else "went to be with their ancestors" in what seems analogous to the Greek "Hades" (the underworld). And that isn't even universal... Ecclesiastes simply says that we return to dust.

 

The Jews seem to have picked up the idea of eternal reward and punishment from the Persians (who practiced Zoroastrianism). Between the testaments, it became a very common belief, though you will note that the Sadducees didn't believe in life after death. They didn't believe in it because it was unscriptural! So while a destiny of either Heaven or Hell seems a given in the New Testament, it was a new belief for the Jews at the time and Christianity just picked it up and ran with it. One of the things that make it so easy for me to disbelieve the Bible is the fact that it evolves a lot from the Genesis to Revelation. As a fundamentalist Christian I was taught that if there's even one error or inconsistency, then you can just throw the whole thing out. But I was taught to impose the NT onto the OT, and when you do that it appears to be consistent... you're defining away the change! (IE "this OT passage can't mean what it seems to say because it wouldn't fit with the NT.") To make a long story short, "Hell" shows up way past the middle of the Bible. It was invented. It's a belief that evolved. It's entirely made up -- not revealed by a god.

  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ex fundamentalists seen this before?! Got it from a link from this article, which blames a literalist interpretation of the bible on bringing about a crisis in faith. https://postbarthian.com/2018/03/14/david-bentley-hart-paul-denied-historicity-old-testament-1-corinthians-10-11/

This was a result of me doing lots of reading up (favourable and otherwise) on David Bentley Hart, a critic of the “new atheists”. 

83F972F2-53EA-43BE-B4E9-E1CA498328EA.jpeg

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is where I’m at as of today:

 

So far the only reasons I have to believe in god are what I’ve been told by adults, what it says in the bible (which I’ve been told by others is the word of god) and what I’ve read by Christian authors. Personally I’ve found god to be silent so I can’t even argue from my own experience. 

 

The world around me and my own sense of right and wrong could point to the existence of a creator god but I don’t know that. My morality actually causes me to find some biblical teachings and what some Christian authors have said to be true of god abhorrent and in conflict with my own understanding of love and right behaviour.

 

Highly educated experts cast doubt on the claim that the bible can be the word of god. Equally educated people have tried to show otherwise. As a lay person it’s impossible for me to be able to form a decisive conclusion but the disagreement and lack of clarity seems a real obstacle. If god wanted us to be in no doubt that this is his word, surely that could have been achieved. 

 

Perhaps the reason I struggle so much is that I am not chosen by god and therefore can’t know him. Perhaps god has hardened my heart. If so then there’s nothing I can do about this. Some Christians justify this form of predestination by saying all of us deserve hell so the fact god chooses to redeem anyone is an act of grace. I can’t understand then why any of the damned would have been created in the first place; in fact there are very many things linked to this theme that I can’t understand. 

 

Or perhaps it is because of my own sinful nature that I can’t want to embrace Christianity (evidence aside) and that I struggle with so many of its teachings. But I can’t help my nature and I can’t help the mind that I have and the way that it works. I’ve asked god to help me with this but I still cannot find Christianity attractive or acceptable on the whole. My only motive for following it would be fear - the hallmark of an unhealthy relationship. 

 

Or maybe it’s because they aren’t conscionable things to believe (how do others manage it? Why aren’t they deeply distressed by them?)

 

It’s hard to think that, if it’s true that one day this world will cease to exist and that there’s no god, all of human history and achievements won’t count for anything, there’ll be no future generations to enjoy them. But it’s harder to think that there’s a god that would create beings that end up suffering forever. 

 

The current lack of evidence outside what I’ve been taught by influential adults doesn’t mean I have an intransigent belief that there’s no god. If he clearly revealed himself to us then obviously I would believe, although if it was the Christian god then the aforementioned difficulties would remain unless they were answered in a way that made sense to me and brought me peace. 

 

If there is an omniscient god then he knows what my struggles are and I’ll have to hope that he understands. I still have fears that this could all be true and fears about god (because I can’t see him as loving as described in the bible), about the end of the world, about my every thought, word and deed being known and judged and about hell. I fear not only for myself but for my children, my husband, my brothers, my friends, my family, for humanity in general. The conditioning in childhood has run very deep and has massively complicated this whole question for me as I’ve found it impossible to separate it from my subsequent search. I hope that one day either I’ll have an epiphany or these fears will resolve - for good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kat34 said:

This is where I’m at as of today:

 

So far the only reasons I have to believe in god are what I’ve been told by adults, what it says in the bible (which I’ve been told by others is the word of god) and what I’ve read by Christian authors. Personally I’ve found god to be silent so I can’t even argue from my own experience. 

 

The world around me and my own sense of right and wrong could point to the existence of a creator god but I don’t know that. My morality actually causes me to find some biblical teachings and what some Christian authors have said to be true of god abhorrent and in conflict with my own understanding of love and right behaviour.

 

Highly educated experts cast doubt on the claim that the bible can be the word of god. Equally educated people have tried to show otherwise. As a lay person it’s impossible for me to be able to form a decisive conclusion but the disagreement and lack of clarity seems a real obstacle. If god wanted us to be in no doubt that this is his word, surely that could have been achieved. 

 

Perhaps the reason I struggle so much is that I am not chosen by god and therefore can’t know him. Perhaps god has hardened my heart. If so then there’s nothing I can do about this. Some Christians justify this form of predestination by saying all of us deserve hell so the fact god chooses to redeem anyone is an act of grace. I can’t understand then why any of the damned would have been created in the first place; in fact there are very many things linked to this theme that I can’t understand. 

 

Or perhaps it is because of my own sinful nature that I can’t want to embrace Christianity (evidence aside) and that I struggle with so many of its teachings. But I can’t help my nature and I can’t help the mind that I have and the way that it works. I’ve asked god to help me with this but I still cannot find Christianity attractive or acceptable on the whole. My only motive for following it would be fear - the hallmark of an unhealthy relationship. 

 

Or maybe it’s because they aren’t conscionable things to believe (how do others manage it? Why aren’t they deeply distressed by them?)

 

It’s hard to think that, if it’s true that one day this world will cease to exist and that there’s no god, all of human history and achievements won’t count for anything, there’ll be no future generations to enjoy them. But it’s harder to think that there’s a god that would create beings that end up suffering forever. 

 

The current lack of evidence outside what I’ve been taught by influential adults doesn’t mean I have an intransigent belief that there’s no god. If he clearly revealed himself to us then obviously I would believe, although if it was the Christian god then the aforementioned difficulties would remain unless they were answered in a way that made sense to me and brought me peace. 

 

If there is an omniscient god then he knows what my struggles are and I’ll have to hope that he understands. I still have fears that this could all be true and fears about god (because I can’t see him as loving as described in the bible), about the end of the world, about my every thought, word and deed being known and judged and about hell. I fear not only for myself but for my children, my husband, my brothers, my friends, my family, for humanity in general. The conditioning in childhood has run very deep and has massively complicated this whole question for me as I’ve found it impossible to separate it from my subsequent search. I hope that one day either I’ll have an epiphany or these fears will resolve - for good.

Kat, how long has it been before you started questioning/doubting? Give yourself time, be kind to yourself. Don't try to bargain or plead or ask god to reveal himself in mundane things etc...that will only ensure that your mind will keep on reading into things, not such a healthy habit. I would have some trust in yourself to be able to figure out truth as you know it, with time.

The whole sin fallen, all of us deserve hell idea is such a crock. Here's a bit on the history regarding Jewish vs Christian beliefs and the garden of eden story:

https://thetorah.com/the-immortal-myth-of-adam-and-eve/

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
On 10/18/2018 at 3:02 AM, Kat34 said:

I’m not sure I buy the idea that people like Ehrman and Price don’t also have a lot to lose by being wrong.

 

That's not exactly the idea you were given, though. What does a lot to lose mean? As much or equal to the believers? More to lose than the believers? Where might you be going with this statement?   

 

On 10/17/2018 at 11:19 PM, Joshpantera said:

The academic arguments have biases also, but not to this extent. There's some motivation to save face and not be wrong, but it's ultimately not that big a deal if something turns out to be demonstrably wrong. Adjustments will be made accordingly and scholarship will move on. There may be a big messy fight, but eventually it will sort out under the weight of evidences and whatever comes along and forces change. The believer positions are not like this. They depend on denying things that would potentially change everything. They have to make up more and more apologetic's to at least make it seem as if they're still in the ball park, when often times they aren't. 

 

On 10/17/2018 at 11:19 PM, Joshpantera said:

Genesis is not literal. It's symbolic, but not symbolic for how the world actually came to be. Academics will be split between fundamentalists who have to believe it's literal regardless, liberal theologians who admit it isn't literal but try and hold ground with a symbolic significance, and agnostic and non believer academics who don't try to put any more to it than a case study of world creation myths. 

 

The first two have more to loose by letting it go than the secular oriented third party (Ehrman, Carrier, Price, etc.). And their motivations, arguments, and direction will tend to break down to that. The Case for Christ is a desperate attempt to shore up the faith. All of WLC's arguments are the same. It's obvious and the bias and motivation are very transparent

 

The idea above is that the secular academics have far less to lose by being wrong, in comparison to what the believers have to lose by being wrong. 

 

The whole religion fails if the believer apologists are wrong about god, or the truth of the bible. Your mind wants to treat this as if the playing field is a lot more level than it actually is. As if these are two theories on equal footing that easily go either way. One theory being the god theory and the other being the not god theory. The problem with that line of reasoning is that the not god theory greatly outweighs the god theory. It's wrong right out of the gate in Genesis. It doesn't get any better as it proceeds. It doesn't describe the real world, surrounding universe, nor it's actual history, based on what evidence we have available. 

 

The balances are greatly tipped against theistic belief. But that's hard for believers to face down. They'll try and come up with ways of pretending that it's an equal balance just as likely either way, which it really isn't. Richard Dawkins puts himself as a strong #6 for these reasons. The balance is tipped strongly in that direction. But he doesn't put himself as a #7 because it over shoots the mark, or over states the argument as it were. That's being pretty objective about it, don't you think? 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kat, you're just gonna have to give yourself time, as @TruthSeeker0 said. Please, please don't let your fear stand in the way of your progress. Acknowledge it, but don't let it stop you. Here's an exercise you can try. Make a list of all the problems you have found with the bible and Christianity in general. Anytime that fear creeps up on you, pull out that list and use it to beat your fear over the head. But even if it doesn't work, keep moving forward anyway. Keep reading. Keep studying. The more you see that the whole thing is a load of shit, the less you will be scared by empty threats. Look, I'm in the same boat as you. I see Christians talking with such confidence about the hell that awaits unbelievers, and I quake in my boots a little. But like I said, they're empty threats. They can't prove it. And the book they rely on to prove it has more holes than swiss cheese. Acknowledge the fear and acknowledge why you're feeling this way, and then try to push forwards anyway, despite the fear. Good luck! 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Stargazer95 said:

Kat, you're just gonna have to give yourself time, as @TruthSeeker0 said. Please, please don't let your fear stand in the way of your progress. Acknowledge it, but don't let it stop you. Here's an exercise you can try. Make a list of all the problems you have found with the bible and Christianity in general. Anytime that fear creeps up on you, pull out that list and use it to beat your fear over the head. But even if it doesn't work, keep moving forward anyway. Keep reading. Keep studying. The more you see that the whole thing is a load of shit, the less you will be scared by empty threats. Look, I'm in the same boat as you. I see Christians talking with such confidence about the hell that awaits unbelievers, and I quake in my boots a little. But like I said, they're empty threats. They can't prove it. And the book they rely on to prove it has more holes than swiss cheese. Acknowledge the fear and acknowledge why you're feeling this way, and then try to push forwards anyway, despite the fear. Good luck! 

This is why I think Marlene Winells book is so helpful because she discusses the psychological control mechanisms with the fear. When you understand how it operates you're more objective and can recognize it when it's happening with you. For example I had thoughts similar to Kat's, but when they occurred I knew to acknowledge that they were just part of the process of my brain using the same old manipulative patterns, therefore I paid no attention to them and gave them no validity. Eventually they disappeared. Her book really helped normalize all the feelings and stages one goes through with deconversion for me, so I was less prone to panic or confusion. The exercises she presents are also really helpful. I highly recommend it to people who are going through this and feel confused/disoriented or are struggling with the feelings. And if you're in therapy that book will assist your therapist as well. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.