LOL! Can you imagine an atheist going around trying to correct believers' doctrine?

"Salvation is by faith ALONE!...you know...if there was anything to be saved from...which, there isn't."

Or,

"You can't reject the trinity and call yourself a Christian because...because...God is...uh...One...if there were a god...but there isn't. yeah"

While I don't fully understand how a believer can pick and choose from the Bible, the demand that one accept everything or reject everything does seem rather infantile and unnecessary. Now, I read a pastor make exactly that assertion this morning. But, just because fundies make rules, doesn't mean they get to decide who is or isn't a Christian. Indeed, the ranks of progressive Christians are swelling.

I had come to a belief in god THROUGH the inerrant WOG. Whatever god was, or at least whatever we could know about him, I knew was neatly contained within the pages of the Bible. I use the term Bible-god sometimes. For me, they really were one and the same. I believed in the Holy Spirit and his power, of course. But, nothing in real life even within my relationship with god could ever contradict the unmistakably clear teaching of the Bible. If something did, it was wrong. Pretty narrow, huh?

I'll give you an example (I'm going to switch to present tense for ease of reading and writing):
1)Mormonism is a satanic cult and LDS members are most assuredly on the path to destruction if we don't get in there and pull them off by showing them the many contradictions and revisions of the Book of Mormon.
2) I have a tendency to be able to "spot" other believers even before they tell me they are believers. I can feel the Spirit within them. I'm usually right. Although I've gotten a few false negatives (they would claim anyway) I've never gotten a false positive.
3)A co-worker of mine sure seems like a faithful person. I feel the goodness of the Spirit within him.
4)He's MORMON! *shudder*
5)Well, I guess I got it wrong this time. He obviously can't be saved and can't have a right relationship with JC. He doesn't even believe in the Trinity for crying out loud!

What do you say to someone who views life through the girthy lens of a 1,000+ page book?

Thanks for corresponding with me. I look forward to future discussions.

Peace

I have found that having discussions with people who have ideas radically different than my own has forced me to pull my head out of the proverbial sand and accept the difficult realities which seem to challenge my beliefs. One thing I have learned recently is that no matter how hard you believe something, you cannot change reality. This applies to everyone, I think.

A good example in my life is neurology. As a physical therapy student I have to understand some neurology to rehabilitate patients who suffer from neurological injuries. Studying neurology shows the function of the human mind and takes away a lot of the spiritual aspect of it. This can be threatening to someone who wants to believe in a "soul", however because of my discussions here and other places, I have forced myself to accept reality and adjust my beliefs accordingly. So my point is, thanks for being one of the people who is helping me embrace more of reality.

Cheers,

Matt

I would have more difficulty convincing myself that there is no God than in continuing to believe that there is God.

Yes. So in order to be true to yourself and avoid becoming a walking contradiction, that is what you ought to believe, until new information or experiences tell you otherwise. But, we humans (atheists, theists, hockey-fans) have a tendency to close ourselves off from any new info. once we've decided on something. It takes a conscious effort to counteract that tendency by looking at the arguments and data of
both sides, fearlessly.
That's why fundies are so hard to reach. If they learn something that contradicts what they believe, they're risking eternal suffering for changing their minds or even questioning/ "doubting." So, they have to be anti-knowledge in certain fields and to a certain degree. I ran up against those limits often in my ruminations.

A very recent example might demonstrate what I mean. A post on an unrelated (language) blog discussed the origin of human language and its evolution. It was met with the very first respondent proclaiming:

Considering the origin of language, I must point out that there’s no need to speculate about such things. The Holy Scriptures tell us that Man was capable of speech when he was first created, and thus God created language as well as everything else.
I certainly do not want to start an argument, but it seems very futile to discuss how language might have developed from a simpler form to the more complex...

I wasn't angered by his narrow-mindedness. I felt really sorry for him. Here's a guy who's into languages (like me) and he's cutting himself off from relevant historical and scientific knowledge that could benefit and expand his interest in that subject.
To me, and probably a little contrary to most on this blog, the preeminent concern is not Atheism, per se, but the FREEDOM from restrictions on human thought and inquiry. Personal god-belief isn't necessarily opposed to that, I'm seeing more and more thanks to discussions like this. It's my former brand of Christianity that was.
But, for me, facts still weigh much more heavily than even my own personal experience.

Anyway, I know I'm going on and on. Don't feel like you have to respond, unless you want to of course.
-Polly

I enjoy talking to you and hearing your perspective. It helps me stay grounded and in touch with different points of view. I value that. I also value the respect that you show towards me despite my different beliefs. Thank you.

I think Hitler did suffer at least some consequences for his actions although they were, I think, insufficient. Happy people do not commit suicide. Along those lines, I have observed a sort of built-in judicial system of sorts. In my experience, a positive attitude and commitment to moral behavior creates a sort of person who has joy even in difficult circumstances. These "good" people are their own reward. In contrast, negative, selfish people tend to be their own punishment, surrounding themselves with other unpleasant people and stewing in their unhappiness. I have observed this "moral justice" at work. Perhaps it is not ubiquitous, but in my experience it is very common. The sad part is that people end up destroying themselves ultimately.

I believe in Truth and that whatever it is, it's worth seeking out. But, there is another virtue that weighs, perhaps, equally heavily and that is being true to yourself. If you've had an experience and that convinces you of something that your brain tells you can't be true, what do you do? I dunno. Luckily, my brain and my heart seem to be in agreement.

My brain finds merit in the logical arguments on both sides of the issue. It is my experience that makes my brain think that there is something more. I do not have a problem admitting that I do not fully understand that "something more". Nevertheless, I continue to experience it and Christianity is the means by which I do so. I would have more difficulty convincing myself that there is no God than in continuing to believe that there is God.

I also think it is interesting that you separate God from the natural world. I think that it is possible that there is nothing except the natural world, except that we do not have an exhaustive explanation of the natural world.

One thing that comes to mind when I ponder what sort of being could be the "primary cause" ; the being that acts in the absence of a cause. I think of an ant walking across a kitchen counter in a house where "Mr. Jones" by Counting Crows is playing on the CD player. What does an ant know of music?

Truly, I wonder if it is even rational to postulate understanding a being able to create our reality. It would be like inventing a new primary color, I think.

Cheers,

Matt

You know, I've heard even fundamentalist apologists say that they didn't think Hell was necessarily for all "unbelievers." I don't remember the name of the book, but it was quite surprising and you may find their view interesting if you haven't heard it before. Their conviction was that when JC said, "I am the way, truth and life, no one comes to the Father except through me" (one of my favorite verses to quote at "liberal" Christians, btw) that JC didn't mean that no one who didn't know his name per se wouldn't get into heaven, but just that whoever gets to heaven, whether they knew it or not during their earthly sojourn will have arrived because of God's grace through JC.
Naturally, I think this is a dodge. But, it's not a horrendous interpretation. Anyway, if people are going to believe in the Bible, it would certainly be better for Christians to adopt this stance compared to the damnation-for-jaywalking mentality.

Re: beatings. My hope is that emphasis on demons and even angels, too, will decrease and people will take concrete actions based on concrete information to solve their problems. It may be a part of Christian cosmology (maybe not), but it's not incumbent on Christians to try to spot such beings in their lives and exorcise them. I think certain "ministries" emphasize demons because it's easier to deal with a sentient being - even an evil one - than with "luck" or the random happenings of the economy and nature and their impact on one's life.

I find it extremely telling that out of the entire Bible demon possession is only ever mentioned in the synoptic gospels and once in Acts. Though "demon-possessed" is used as an epithet in John, possession and exorcism are not mentioned as far as I can remember. I wonder if Mark was part of some kind of cult? Matthew and Luke simply borrowed much from him - that's the theory, anyway. I'm not sure demon possession even should be part of Christianity, especially since Paul's writings don't mention it. It may be a "pagan" belief that slipped in through Mark. But, this is all amateur biblical "scholarship" on my part - laughable attempt, at that.
There are scant references to demons in the OT, and usually they are describing idols.

-Polly

Certainly, no one likes to think that Hitler got away with what he did. So, some kind of punishment is reasonable to expect of a god. But, the fundie god is far from reasonable - he's a brutal despot.

I don't believe there is anything beyond the natural world. I am as sure of this as I am about anything. I'm not an agnostic. I really don't believe there is a god or anything supernatural. It's all just man-made fantasy. When I die, I'll cease to be.
I can't say I KNOW this, but I can say that I'm convinced.

Peace,
Polly

I have had a similar experience. The more I search out God, the more I love. That is why I stick with it. There is also the rescue from addiction. I think I would have destroyed myself if that had not happened. It is hard for me to attribute that to myself as it came immediately after praying about it.

I also have issues with the brutality in the Old Testament. Hell does not bother me so much because I think that much of the perception of hell is a creation of a doctrine based on tangential references in the NT. Jesus does indeed speak of Hell, but he speaks of it as a place for the punishment of the wicked. The idea that God sends people to hell for not believing the right thing is, I think, an extrapolation. I will revisit this idea with closer study, but off the top of my head, I think it works.

There is also the idea that Hell is not eternal and is simply a place of punishment that one stays until one has been justly dealt with before annihilation. There is also the concept of annihilation. These are much more fair and there are Christians who support the idea. I have never looked at a scriptural basis for these as my ideas have been changing so rapidly I do not have time to keep up with them.

Regarding the beatings:

I see your point and it is valid. The New Testament mentions demons and one could extrapolate many things from that, I still hold that the extrapolation is strained and tenuous and it is not accurate to suggest that Christianity lends itself easily to such abuses. It must be dramatically twisted beforehand. I think that I have begun repeating myself on this matter. :)

Regarding Demons and Hell:

Demons are odd and ill-defined in the scriptures. I have heard people speak of demonic activity in earnest but I have never experienced it. I do not have a problem believing that demons could exist, however I do not live my life searching them out or in fear of them, neither do I attribute ill-fortune to them. I guess my actual stance on demons is that they seem irrelevant to my life except in one matter. There are times when I am stuck on a negative mindset which I cannot shake. At those times I seek God's help and it leaves me. There are particular mindsets which can be addressed in this manner, however they are rather personal and I hope you will excuse me for not being more specific. I freely admit feeling silly attributing these feelings to invisible evil creatures, but by seeking God, the feelings are dismissed every time I can remember. So I retain demons as possible.

Hell, I think, would be absolutely necessary if there is to be any justice. I do not contend that people who do not believe the "right thing" should go there, but I definitely think that if there is an afterlife, there should be some sort of consequences for committing moral evil. I do not have a problem with punishment for the deserving. I think that there should be a sense of scale for the punishment as well.

So, do you think that God probably isn't there or is just unknowable?

Matt

Well...now that I've laid my spiritual life-story on you...

Did you experience a change when you followed God?

Yes. As I mentioned, the very last belief to slip away was belief in the power of the H.S. for changing hearts and minds. The reason that lasted longer is that I myself attributed the greater love, compassion, and yes, I'll say it, wisdom (that is, discerning the consequences of one's actions on others and the future ramifications rather than being myopic and self-centered as we humans are prone to be) in me to His work. Quite frankly, the deeper I got in prayer and Bible studying the better I got, to a point. I really did believe that there was an all-loving, all-wise, and all-powerful individual at the heart of my change who was winning me over.
On the other hand, the deeper I got, the LESS I was able to accept the OT's brutality, and the NT's Hell. Go figure, the lessons on love I learned from the Bible, actually made me more prone to reject it. I guess the student can become greater than his teacher (Luke 6:40)

Somewhere in the back of my mind was always the nagging doubt, "What if this change is simply the result of maturity? What if just living and acting more thoughtfully and wanting good for all, is the only real change?"
In other words, what if it really is all just ME? I would still fail: times of selfishness, irritability, etc.. There didn't appear to be anything supernatural at work. I look out at others (not judgmentally, but critically) who have prayed and sought longer than I've been alive and I see results that are far less divine. I removed the plank from my eye and I see a lot of other plank-heads walking around who ought to have been fixed by the great Carpenter by now. Often I would get discouraged, thinking, "after a few more decades of spiritual discipline, is THAT the best I can hope to achieve?"

Re: the beatings. My contention is that people don't just take moral teachings from the NT, they take a theory of the workings of the world at large. I don't think they beat mentally ill people out of malice. I think they try to drive the demons out of demon afflicted victims by the methods that are tangentially mentioned in the NT.

Do you believe in the existence of demons? Hell?
Demons, Hell, and I would say even the immortality of the human soul seem to be NT innovations. Even Satan, "the Accuser" was regarded as morally neutral in the OT, usually.

N-Joy,
Polly

Well, I can relate to you in quite a few things, as I suspected I could. Although I was not raised literalist YEC, I was for quite awhile. That worked fine when I was more concerned about surfing and having fun than in questioning my beliefs, but when I started delving into the matter and raising old objections which were latent in my mind, I realized that I did not feel honest with myself to take the Bible in what is called a "literal" fashion. It just did not make sense.

This was recently and I am still looking and thinking and evaluating. I am comfortable with saying that the creation account, Job, and Noah do not seem to be actual historical things. I think that I am able to continue to believe in God because I never really bought in to the whole idea that the Bible must be 100% right or it is 100% wrong. I am comfortable viewing the Bible as fallible.

Regarding the H.S.

Did you experience a change when you followed God?

I know this is a personal question and feel free to not respond. The reason I ask is because it was my personal experience, as I have stated many times before, that makes me think that there is something to the idea of God. I think that if I had never had this personal experience, and that my entire belief in God was based on the accuracy of 2000+ year old documents, that I would not have much to say here. I would probably be agreeing with you.

Regarding the beatings:

I find it hard to believe that anyone could seriously take those scriptures you mentioned along with the rest of the teachings of Jesus and, after careful though and reasoning, come to the conclusion that beating mentally ill people was the best course of action. However, I know for a fact that there are respritory therapists who treat emphysema patients all day long and then go outside for a smoke break, so I suppose that nothing should shock me.

I will say that I often have a very hard time believing in demons and the like.

Cheers,

Matt

Conservative and literalist, yes - YEC.
Then, Old-Earth Creationist,
then Old-Earth, evolutionary divine interventionist (at this point I also started doubting the historicity of Noah, Job, Genesis creation, and other stories)
Then...well, you can take it from there.

Do you see the way the scriptures gave way as I looked deeper into the matter? The more I read, that is, the nearer I drew to God, the more He backed off. Until, finally, He seemed to be on his tiptoes in a tiny, dimly lit corner. I was not content to Let him remain. I politely, yet firmly, demanded that if He had no business here, He should leave.

Now, the very last thing to go was belief in the power of the H.S. to change lives. I noticed that good people are good either way and bad people who happened to be believers tended to use scripture to rationalize their bad behavior. If the H.S. has any power, it should be manifest in those who seek God.
I want to emphasize that the individuals I referred to above were really seeking God. If the H.S. is really so easily thwarted even in the face of earnest efforts to seek God in his word and through prayer, then Where is the Power?

1. He(God) doesn't do healings. Though he says that whatever we ask for in JC's name, it's ours. The caveat of "His will" is not added in certain places. fine, we'll defer to the limiting passages.
2. He doesn't guarantee financial stability. fine
3. He doesn't show any evidence of his own existence. fine - though that would save more people or at least keep those who DO believe in him inthe fold, which is presumably what he wants.
4. But, the fact that He doesn't give wisdom or goodness to those who seek him is inexcusable. If anything is His will, THAT is His will.

What's left? nothing. Even if he exists, you may as well not believe in Him, because he really doesn't seem to do much of anything at all.

Re: beatings - In the other post I wanted to demosntrate that there were some elements directly from the New Testament that could lead one to conclude that physical beatings could be the order of the day in response to demon possession. I don't know if it made sense to you. As for me, I can see how the Congonese were reasoning from the scriptures

Peace,
Polly