thunderbolt Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 I wrote to one of my best friends and his wife about my deconversion, and he wanted to know some of my reason as to why I did it. I tried to keep it to bullet points and told him that there is not much purpose in discussing my reasons, as I realize he will have to defend his “faith.” He believes the Bible is inerrant, and my main points to him were god’s ineptness and silence, his immoral character in the bible and that he is inert. This was his response: Thanks for taking the time to send the lengthy response. We appreciate your friendship and what’s more we respect your decisions in life. After all – who can really prove God’s existence and eternal life and hell and heaven and such concepts conclusively? Our “faith” however is vested in the teachings of Jesus Christ. We also accept that the teachings as documented as being Christ’s could be questioned. Every second person and organisation has their own interpretation, building organisations and churches and philosophies around that. Nevertheless the alternative for us is much scarier than relying on what we believe is a lifestyle teaching that is consistent and of good values. From a young age we realized the folly of setting our own moral values and standards and calling that “God” when really it was just us creating our own virtual god and submitting to that image we ourselves created. Even scarier is that we are then also able to change the standards as we go on in life to suit ourselves! That is as good as having no standards at all! It seems therefore important to us, in the final analysis, that the standards and moral values we should be prepared to uphold and perpetuate should be vested in teachings outside of ourselves (outside of our control). Standards that is not changeable by the whims of men and the emotions and fashions and intellect of the day. This then in turn asks the question of which of such independent standards are available and which are ones we are prepared to choose for ourselves? Do we choose Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Buddha, Einstein, Joseph Smith or whoever or whatever or nothing at all? After all it is each individual’s choice and each of us will bear the consequences of the choice we make whether the choice is consciously or unconsciously made. We have chosen the teachings of Jesus Christ and we commit to the standards we can find as being from Him. We reject opinionated people who create organisations for their own gain whether that being financial gain or popularity or control over the free God given spirit of every person. We do our best to weed out teaching which are claimed to be from Christ and which are not. We question the bible comments after the accent of Christ as we conclude that all men from Paul and Peter down the way through to us can be biased and deceived. So our efforts and struggle is to grow in spiritual discernment in evaluating “what is of Christ and what is not”. Christ being the central person, subject, issue and Life we choose as the Standard we live by. We remain submissive to what we can determine as accurately as possible as being from Him. This issue ultimately is a personal choice of every person. We read in the book of Joshua that the Jews of that day already faced the same issues as we are today. Joshua said to the people – “And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that [were] on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. How can man even think they can judge God? In your comments you refer to God being shown as immoral inert and silent. I suggest that man cannot judge the real God. Man can only judge the god that he thinks is God. How can an ant judge a man without being aware of how man thinks and what bigger issues man might be aware of that the ant cannot even imagine? Dear xxx, we do seem to go on and on, so please forgive us. We just do not want you guys to be making decisions as a result of other peoples and power’s and opinions. We really believe that we should have standards that guide us and which are outside our own realm of influence. We have chosen Jesus Christ as such a standard for ourselves with the possible inaccuracies as recorded by men. We see “Christianity” as a collective bag of man’s organisational creativity and error, and if you need to de-convert from that then great! Just reconsider which standards you will choose to live by. Hope to see you guys soon! Even give us a call; we would love to chat with you again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hatepirate Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Meh... Better than "You go to hell! You go to hell and you die!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosingMyReligion Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Well, he just told you that you would goto hell in a nice way... That is all Christians are...a walking catchphrase. Notice the way he put in the verse from Joshua, and how he completely absolves Bible god of any and all immorality at his own convenience. So ridiculous. I'm sure he'll be praying for you before he finally decides to stop being your friend altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 <snipped for brevity> He believes the Bible is inerrant, and my main points to him were god’s ineptness and silence, his immoral character in the bible and that he is inert. This was his response: <snipped for irrelevant blah blah blah> Dear xxx, we do seem to go on and on, so please forgive us. We just do not want you guys to be making decisions as a result of other peoples and power’s and opinions. We really believe that we should have standards that guide us and which are outside our own realm of influence. We have chosen Jesus Christ as such a standard for ourselves with the possible inaccuracies as recorded by men. We see “Christianity” as a collective bag of man’s organisational creativity and error, and if you need to de-convert from that then great! Just reconsider which standards you will choose to live by. Hope to see you guys soon! Even give us a call; we would love to chat with you again. Ugh...is right! Notice how your reasons for leaving don't match what he believes your reasons for leaving are? Christians.....willfully deaf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosingMyReligion Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 What ticks me off is that whenever someone deconverts Christians always allude to that particular individual as being "brainwashed." Unfortunately, they don't realized that they have been brain washed, rinsed, and condition... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Pretty much a red-herring. "I can't argue your points, and I don't even understand them, so here I give you another answer to a fictious question instead." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunderbolt Posted May 13, 2006 Author Share Posted May 13, 2006 You all make some good points. I think what gets to me is the "you have a choice" to make whatever moral decision you want to, but you are NOT free from the consequences of that choice. Sounds like a clone of BibleGod. I am getting a little tired of Christians assuming that they have a monopoly on "morals" and by gawd, how pathetic that they can only be "moral" because they believe, and even then, they royally suck at it. The more they defend their religion, the more it implodes. Edit: corrected some spelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notasheep Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 Sounded to me like: We know we don't have any really good reason to believe what we believe, but we didn't trust ourselves to decide what's good, so we picked a popular god, and went with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoustonHorn Posted May 13, 2006 Share Posted May 13, 2006 it was just us creating our own virtual god and submitting to that image we ourselves created. Pick your cliche: a- Hello pot, meet kettle b- Looking in a mirror? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticOfBible Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 How can man even think they can judge God? In your comments you refer to God being shown as immoral inert and silent. I suggest that man cannot judge the real God. Man can only judge the god that he thinks is God. How can an ant judge a man without being aware of how man thinks and what bigger issues man might be aware of that the ant cannot even imagine? An excellant rebutal to the above point is given here. God Is Perfectly Good Because He Has A Morality Gene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticOfBible Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 How can man even think they can judge God? In your comments you refer to God being shown as immoral inert and silent. I suggest that man cannot judge the real God. Man can only judge the god that he thinks is God. How can an ant judge a man without being aware of how man thinks and what bigger issues man might be aware of that the ant cannot even imagine? An excellant rebutal to the above point is given here. God Is Perfectly Good Because He Has A Morality Gene We have chosen the teachings of Jesus Christ and we commit to the standards we can find as being from Him I guess one of standard that JC also established was to totally disregards his daddy's holy law and promoting situational ethics, eg the sparing of the adultorous women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePureOne Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Frankly they seem pretty reasonable as Christians go, and I wouldn't put any effort into deconverting them, unless it's good sport for you. As I read it though their main issue is values/morals, and they seem to be making the typical logic error that rejecting Jesus as a fairy tale means rejecting any values that the Jesus story seeks to teach...that is a logical fallacy. Jesus doesn't "own" those concepts, morality exists without religion. If they need a standard (religious people have such a NEED to have things spelled out for them!) tell them they can just consider the Golden Rule and the greater good of humanity. Things are pretty easy to figure out from that. Take euthanasia for example - does it harm anyone else if a suffering person wants to end his own suffering with dignity? Of course not. Does gay marriage harm anyone? No. Does cheating on your wife/husband? Yes. Is premaritial sex good or bad? Depends on age, maturity, and personal feelings/values. Not all issues are black and white. Deal with it, instead of being an emotional toddler and expecting everything to be spelled out for you. Religious people are emotional toddlers who need to suckle at the teat of their Jesus-mommy well into adulthood, so don't expect anything you say to be able to suddenly break them out of that. However I do think it more effective to point out that they can hold to their values and still see that Jesus is a fable. If you just shoot down Jesus without giving them an alternative it will be too scary. You have to give them another blankie at first. Anway I digress, it would be easy to point out to them that man's values and morals are often superior to the bible's, since for example the bible condones slavery even though it contradicts with the Golden Rule and basic intuition and empathy would tell you. So what they are really doing is listening to their human conscience anyway, which agrees with those "positive" things Jesus (allegedly) advocated while turning a blind eye to horrible things like slavery, murder, and the rest of the tale that is morally repugnant according to *human* values. If nothing else you can point out that the bible must be the work of men, not the infallible word of God. If they believe they possess a divine soul, then that must be superior to any advice of the bible, and it could explain their innate ability to clearly sense that slavery and biblical atrocities are "wrong". That will make their heads spin. My 2 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex-COG Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 We just do not want you guys to be making decisions as a result of other peoples and power’s and opinions. We really believe that we should have standards that guide us and which are outside our own realm of influence. We have chosen Jesus Christ as such a standard for ourselves with the possible inaccuracies as recorded by men. We see “Christianity” as a collective bag of man’s organisational creativity and error, and if you need to de-convert from that then great! Just reconsider which standards you will choose to live by. Ok, so they are saying that you shouldn't make decisions based on other peoples opinions and teachings, yet, they have chosen the opinions and teachings of Jesus to follow? Um, what's the difference here? They at least admit that there are inaccuracies and errors. But, then they seem to think that there is still a clear enough "standard" to follow in the first place. I think they are trying to convince themselves more than you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 I suggest that man cannot judge the real God Grrrr, I hate it when they say this. In one breath they tell you that man cannot or should not judge god, then in another breath they tell you how loving, forgiving, etc., god is. Umm, hello!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Isn't the idea of the bible morals from god that they are absolute and eternal? Somehow above and beyond God himself. The higher law. Then he should be a follower of the same morals, otherwise the morals are not absolute in an universal context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Isn't the idea of the bible morals from god that they are absolute and eternal? Somehow above and beyond God himself. The higher law. Then he should be a follower of the same morals, otherwise the morals are not absolute in an universal context. Exactly. Like Burnedout said, when you simply apply the moral standards of the Abrahamic god to the Abrahamic god, you end up seeing that he doesn't follow much of anything he says. It's like a politician who has one set of laws for the government and another set for the governed. People would reject a government like that, so why not reject a god who is also like that? If he can't even follow his own rules, how can Biblegodzilla be worthy of belief? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunderbolt Posted May 14, 2006 Author Share Posted May 14, 2006 I love your responses on this - it gives me some fodder on how to respond to him. I have no desire to deconvert him or anyone else for that matter, but I will respond because he is my friend. As you have all observed, his thing is a moral standard "outside" of ourselves, which means even if he didn't say it directly, I might as well pick Zeus or Allah, since he is obviously familiar with the potholes in his theology and god. I also found his ant vs man comparison a false analogy, since and ant and a man don't communicate on the same level, whereas we are told god at least communicates to us on a level that is mutually understandable. As such, we have every right to judge god, and even their book says "test the spirits" or wait, did it say "don't tempt god?" Gawd, that book is so confusing ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 One problem with the man/ant analogy is that it would be man setting standards and moral code for the ants! We would somehow learn to communicate with the ants, and then tell them we humans consider democracy and equality to be the higher moral standard, so the worker ants should get vacations, and the war ants should start working, and the queen should get of her lazy ass and start carrying some sticks too. But when the ants asks us to help them when the hill gets flooded from some rain, we say "you shoud pray to me and I promise to always answer, but the answer is no, I won't help." Even further, if one ant disobey my freak-laws, I would stamp out half the colony and kill a whole bunch of ants in my "holy rage". Would I consider myself an ethical being by doing such things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunderbolt Posted May 14, 2006 Author Share Posted May 14, 2006 One problem with the man/ant analogy is that it would be man setting standards and moral code for the ants! We would somehow learn to communicate with the ants, and then tell them we humans consider democracy and equality to be the higher moral standard, so the worker ants should get vacations, and the war ants should start working, and the queen should get of her lazy ass and start carrying some sticks too. But when the ants asks us to help them when the hill gets flooded from some rain, we say "you shoud pray to me and I promise to always answer, but the answer is no, I won't help." Even further, if one ant disobey my freak-laws, I would stamp out half the colony and kill a whole bunch of ants in my "holy rage". Would I consider myself an ethical being by doing such things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 You all make some good points. I think what gets to me is the "you have a choice" to make whatever moral decision you want to, but you are NOT free from the consequences of that choice. Sounds like a clone of BibleGod. I am getting a little tired of Christians assuming that they have a monopoly on "morals" and by gawd, how pathetic that they can only be "moral" because they believe, and even then, they royally suck at it. The more they defend their religion, the more it implodes. Edit: corrected some spelling Yeah. Sure, you have free will, but you'll be tortured for all of eternity if you don't do what Biblegod says. Doesn't sound much like free will to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FriedVillageGuts Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 Quote - "Nevertheless the alternative for us is much scarier than relying on what we believe is a lifestyle teaching that is consistent and of good values." Interesting admission - basically admitting they could be off base but don't want to look at the alternatives since that would be too frightening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts