Half-Rant, Half-Serious Question

[BAS]

Hello All

 

My name is Brian. May all be well with you!

 

I have been facing many negative emotions for months from Reformed Christianity. On one hand, I strongly disagree and dislike the idea that I am supposed to just believe and trust, without sufficient evidence, whatever that might be. I strongly disagree and dislike that it is rational and practical to be expected to follow many, many difficult rules, however somewhat reasonable, morally, without prior assurance that, after I make them, when I die, I will be okay.

 

For example, I strongly disagree and dislike that I would have to preach the Gospel, when I do not have sufficient evidence, whatever that might be, that it is true and that, when I die, I am okay. Lately, I have been thinking that it is reasonable for me not to become a missionary in Saudi Arabia, get persecuted, be imprisoned, and face beheading. This is but an extreme example.

 

For a simpler example, I strongly disagree and dislike that I would have to tithe my income, without sufficient evidence beforehand, whatever that might be, to a church. To me, that seems like a foolish waste of money.

 

As yet another example, I strongly dislike and disagree that I may have to leave my current job, a warehouse for expensive clothes and beauty products, without sufficient evidence beforehand, whatever that might be. If I left my job, it would make some major areas of my life difficult and unpleasant, and it would be a shame to find out later that I could have stayed, which would waste my time.

 

Am I being bad, evil, unreasonable, stupid, stubborn, or dishonest if I refuse to believe without sufficient evidence, whatever that might be, beforehand? Am I being bad, evil, unreasonable, stupid, stubborn, or dishonest if I refuse to make difficult, unpleasant changes without sufficient evidence, whatever that might be, beforehand?

 

Lately, I have been hoping, praying, wishing, asking, and even begging that the God of Reformed Christianity would grant me a conversion experience like that of the Prophet Isaiah or Saul or Tarsus. In this experience, I would know, beyond feelings or blind faith, that, no matter how much I suffered inconvenience or difficulty in this life, whether it be as extreme as facing beheading in Saudi Arabia or as simple as preaching the Gospel, tithing, or changing jobs, I would be okay in the end.

 

I think it is very reasonable and practical for me to have or want this experience first, and then make difficult, inconvenient, unpleasant life changes afterwards, not to mention the Burden of Proof, which, to the best of my understanding, means that I should have sufficient evidence or proof, whatever they might be, first, and believe second.

 

I thank you for your time and effort. Please let me know politely if I am crazy for thinking like this.

 

Best Wishes,

Brian

 

 

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, BAS said:

Hello All

 

My name is Brian. May all be well with you!

 

I have been facing many negative emotions for months from Reformed Christianity. On one hand, I strongly disagree and dislike the idea that I am supposed to just believe and trust, without sufficient evidence, whatever that might be. I strongly disagree and dislike that it is rational and practical to be expected to follow many, many difficult rules, however somewhat reasonable, morally, without prior assurance that, after I make them, when I die, I will be okay.

 

For example, I strongly disagree and dislike that I would have to preach the Gospel, when I do not have sufficient evidence, whatever that might be, that it is true and that, when I die, I am okay. Lately, I have been thinking that it is reasonable for me not to become a missionary in Saudi Arabia, get persecuted, be imprisoned, and face beheading. This is but an extreme example.

 

For a simpler example, I strongly disagree and dislike that I would have to tithe my income, without sufficient evidence beforehand, whatever that might be, to a church. To me, that seems like a foolish waste of money.

 

As yet another example, I strongly dislike and disagree that I may have to leave my current job, a warehouse for expensive clothes and beauty products, without sufficient evidence beforehand, whatever that might be. If I left my job, it would make some major areas of my life difficult and unpleasant, and it would be a shame to find out later that I could have stayed, which would waste my time.

 

Am I being bad, evil, unreasonable, stupid, stubborn, or dishonest if I refuse to believe without sufficient evidence, whatever that might be, beforehand? Am I being bad, evil, unreasonable, stupid, stubborn, or dishonest if I refuse to make difficult, unpleasant changes without sufficient evidence, whatever that might be, beforehand?

 

Lately, I have been hoping, praying, wishing, asking, and even begging that the God of Reformed Christianity would grant me a conversion experience like that of the Prophet Isaiah or Saul or Tarsus. In this experience, I would know, beyond feelings or blind faith, that, no matter how much I suffered inconvenience or difficulty in this life, whether it be as extreme as facing beheading in Saudi Arabia or as simple as preaching the Gospel, tithing, or changing jobs, I would be okay in the end.

 

I think it is very reasonable and practical for me to have or want this experience first, and then make difficult, inconvenient, unpleasant life changes afterwards, not to mention the Burden of Proof, which, to the best of my understanding, means that I should have sufficient evidence or proof, whatever they might be, first, and believe second.

 

I thank you for your time and effort. Please let me know politely if I am crazy for thinking like this.

 

Best Wishes,

Brian

 

 

 

Howdy BAS,  Welcome to !X-Ch. on your very first posting.  That's the part of religion that makes It "stupid."  There is no objective evidence to support it -- only subjective claims. The books of Genesis and Revelation of the Bible are prefect examples of stupidity that can be disproved.

 

Anyway, , hope you decide to chat with us on a regular basis.  Cheers,  pantheory

[BAS]

Hello pantheory!

 

Thanks for the warm welcome! And thanks for your timely reply, amidst your life and busyness!

 

I agree that believing before sufficient evidence is stupid (ie, irrational).

 

I admit that I want to believe you that there  is no objective evidence, only subjective claims.

 

May you explain to me, somewhere, how, rationally (ie, with deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning) and beyond feelings (eg, emotions, prejudice, bias, wishful thinking, motivated reasoning, etc) that the books of Genesis and Revelation are examples of stupidity that can be disproved, whether to an absolute certainty or beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

With that said, I admit that, as far as I can tell, the burden of proof is not on you or me to disprove it.

 

Thanks in advance while looking forward to your reply,

Brian

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Welcome!  Yep, all the "evidence" is contained in myths written by humans, and declared by humans to be the word of 

god.  And if you dig deep enough you will find many of the stories and basic concepts in the bible to be re-telling of even older myths. The study of ancient religions, and history that layed the foundation for many bible stories is fascinating.  

[◊ Weezer ◊]

12 hours ago, BAS said:

 

that the books of Genesis and Revelation are examples of stupidity that can be disproved, whether to an absolute certainty or beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

I recently discovered Sumerian writings about creation that are much older than Genesis.  VERY INTERESTING!  It says god caused the flood because humans were making so much noise that god could not sleep.  And the story of "Eden"  and Adam and Eve is much larger and different than what is in the bible. 

 

 And I said for years that Revelations was written by someone who was hallucinating.  That did not go over very well with the Sunday school teacher. That was decades ago.  I've been out of the fold for over 30 years and keep finding things that tell me I made the right decision to leave.  

 

Look through the Testimonials forum.  Some interesting stories there.

[pantheory]

On 4/19/2023 at 9:04 AM, BAS said:

Hello pantheory!

 

Thanks for the warm welcome! And thanks for your timely reply, amidst your life and busyness!

 

I agree that believing before sufficient evidence is stupid (ie, irrational).

 

I admit that I want to believe you that there  is no objective evidence, only subjective claims.

 

May you explain to me, somewhere, how, rationally (ie, with deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning) and beyond feelings (eg, emotions, prejudice, bias, wishful thinking, motivated reasoning, etc) that the books of Genesis and Revelation are examples of stupidity that can be disproved, whether to an absolute certainty or beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

With that said, I admit that, as far as I can tell, the burden of proof is not on you or me to disprove it.

 

Thanks in advance while looking forward to your reply,

Brian

 

Howdy again Brian,(BAS),

 

(your quote BAS)

"May you explain to me, somewhere, how, rationally (ie, with deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning) and beyond feelings (eg, emotions, prejudice, bias, wishful thinking, motivated reasoning, etc) that the books of Genesis and Revelation are examples of stupidity that can be disproved, whether to an absolute certainty or beyond a reasonable doubt?"

 

To answer your question BAS, The book of Genesis is supposedly the history of both the world and of mankind. It is totally contradicted by mountains of objective evidence in the fields of geology, historical geology, archeology, paleontology, anthropology, biology, comparative anatomy, etc. It takes very little deductive reasoning to understand how stupid the Book of Genesis is based upon this evidence and knowledge. Of course to have this knowledge and understanding some extensive reading and studying is needed so that the reader will understand the stupidity of this book rather than taking an expert's opinion, which is never the best rout to true understanding IMO. It was easier for me because  I was a math-science major in college so that my related education was extensive. But I became an atheist before these studies based upon my amateur understanding of these sciences.

 

Many of the scientists in these fields would probably agree that the crux of our incite into oure origins today began with the theory of Natural Selection by Darwin in 1859 (The Origin of the Species). At the same time Gregor Mendel wrote his theory on the basis of genetics, but Mendel's hands-on research and theory was not well-read or understood until four decades later, where Darwin's theory became a "instant" headliner in science and popular culture discussions. Mendel sent a copy of his work to Darwin but it was in German and Darwin never acknowledged this work.

 

The Book of Revelation is a book of prophecy like a fortune teller.  It reads just like a two thousand year old science fiction book or script of a horror movie, rated PG. The reading of it is laughable based upon the knowledge of science IMO. And I'm sure you can realize that there could be no objective evidence for any of the things described in this book, any more than a ridiculous Zombie movie.

 

It seems to me that you could describe yourself as an agnostic, one who does not know as yet since you are still considering/ studying the evidence?

 

Cheers again Brian