Reflections of a Former Christian

[§outh§tar]

Wow, SouthStar, you are a person who I don't recognise. I have cycles where I return to these forums under a different name, cause in this space names are important, and in the time I have been away from here I have changed.

Ultimately I would consider myself a nihilist. However, this is problematic. I cannot escape the fact that I have been brought up in a pseudo-Christian paradigm, and that the values I respect have stemmed directly or indirectly from something to which I have no faith in.

I found it a bit rough accepting that I didn't have any purpose, but at the same time I realised I could do something about this- make my own purpose. That includes acting towards people how I would want them to act towards me. I realise that some of this can still be seen as something imparted on me by religion, but I have weighed up pretty much everything I believe in, and have not discarded the things I value just because they might have something to do with religion.

If that makes me inconsistent, so be it. I don't think people can live without goals or a purpose. Otherwise, what would be the point? Once again, good luck to you, it must've been extremely hard to come to the point you are at. I understand that for people who believe and have always believed, that the core of their being is made up by by this belief. For you, this core was cracked beyond reconciliation, and a whole re-evaluation of yourself, a very painful one, resulted. Just keep changing man. I don't rule out the possibility that I might some day believe in ghosts or gods, even though I highly doubt this would happen, the monopoly I have on knowledge is non-existent. What I believe now will never be the same as what I believed yesterday or what I will believe tomorrow.

staples

Thank you for the compliments.

What alarms me now is that you have accepted your inconsistency. Your rationalism has made you complacent concerning these things. Alas, for me, I cannot be at peace with myself when the central philosophies of my life seem to be incompatible.

Goals are essential to giving peoples a feeling of purpose during their lives. I respect and applaud this wise thing you have said:

Just keep changing man. I don't rule out the possibility that I might some day believe in ghosts or gods, even though I highly doubt this would happen, the monopoly I have on knowledge is non-existent. What I believe now will never be the same as what I believed yesterday or what I will believe tomorrow.

These are good words to live by and remember in difficult times. Mental flexibility is something I think both atheists and theists share in their own way. It is false to state absolutely that the rationalist is more open minded. I don't enjoy such black and white distinctions. I hope your life is fulfilled too and thanks again for your time.

 

[wesmorris]

I refer you to an oldy but a goody: Refutation of Nihilism

 

[§outh§tar]

SS, you're a very intelligent person, and also very young right? My advice to you is to give yourself a break about not knowing all of the secrets of the universe as of yet and just relax. And please listen to me...someone who has waited and waited and about gone nuts waiting...IT'S WORTH IT. You do not have to die to experience the open arms of Christ. Whatever you do, stay sincere and humble, and keep your heart and mind open. God knows your heart and hears your every word. If you want the truth, God will find the perfect way to show it to you. Demand it from Him, but at the same time, I'm sorry to say it, but be patient. And have some fun while you're waiting! God is not going to let you slip through the cracks...He's all about you. Have some faith that if He is who He says He is, that He will take care of you, and give it a minute.

And, I wondered why you feel like you have to be such a fraud in regards to your religion? What are you accomplishing by being dishonest? Are your intentions to spare your family the worry or spare yourself the scorn or both? Don't you think it's best to be honest no matter what? I do. I can't see anyone who actually knows Christ wanting to force His doctrine onto someone else, even a family member. They should know it doesn't work that way. Hey SS, maybe when you are born again and experience the love of Christ for yourself, you can witness to your family, and they can get to know Him too. Until then, it wouldn't kill ya to think about growing some figurative balls. I mean, religious freedom is something a lot of men and women have died for.

Hello Lori_7

You are right: my days are now spent in search of knowledge as well as in self contemplation. I think I have missed out in a lot of knowledge during my years as a Christian. water once said that science does not necessarily make a man happy. I am not sure that the purpose of life is to be happy and in fact, I am led to believe more each day that there isn't a purpose to life. Does this mean that we fool ourselves when we busy ourselves daily in finding ways to give meaning to our short existence? For me, questions such as this are essential to giving me peace of mind. You still say God is "all about" me but you failed to explain why God abandoned me when the promise, as I had been led to believe, was that He was always with us. This seems contrary to what Christians say - that when we are 'saved', no snare can steal us away from Him. I hope you are able to answer my "Why?" for me in your next reply.

My dishonesty saves me the hassle of having to explain the reasons behind my deconversion. They will not understand it just as many Christians cannot fathom the idea that a "true, born again" can willfully commit apostasy. Earlier on today, as I was writing a reply to cole grey (hey that rhymes), I told him that I was lying through my teeth to my Christian friend. In the course of the conversation, I asked her a few questions about the Bible and she either gave me circular answers or the old "we can't even begin to compare our puny knowledge to God's wisdom". These things frustrate me, sometimes because they are words I would have said, and sometimes because I now understand how silly a lot of it is. Maybe it is an irrational fear of disappointing my loved ones. But it is a fear nonetheless.

Let's not digress from the topic of morality anyhow. Nice to see you join the discussion!

 

[§outh§tar]

Jenyar, what do you think about the questions I asked in the first and, especially, in the second post?

 

[§outh§tar]

Where does one start?

Southstar i have been here off and on for a few years now. I remember you when you where the fundi "defender of the faith".

I never considered you to be my Brother in Jesus because you did not follow Jesus. You followed the teachings of theologians, you followed a Jesus of their creation. You where very confident in the basic belief that you could dispel the unbelief of others by just explaining The scriptures to them to dispel their ignorance.

You did not just believe in "Sola Scriptura" You made the great mistake of believing you had the understanding and wisdom to take the scripture and explain the apparent contradictions in it. You see you saw yourself as special, a somebody is the faith. Like a great moses figure standing upon high with a bible in one hand dispelling all the opponents of God with perfect wisdom.

Now your fall from your former religion came when you came to the blinding reality that you could not dispel all those seeming contradictions or answer all the challenges to your religion. You see Southstar no Christian knows or understands everything about God nor can they answer every question. That’s where Faith comes in Southstar. Not the blind faith of understanding nothing and believing everything. No but the faith of understanding many things but having faith over a few things. You see we "Christians" need a portion of Faith in God for the things we cannot understand because God has given no one full understanding. But you Southstar Had No Faith. You did not need any because Your religion was Sola scriptura + I Can answer all, I know all. You see your Pride in being someone special caused you to give up on your former religion when you discovered that you could no longer be that all knowing sage on the hill.

So what did you do? You took the road you have taken now. Now you seek to be someone special but now you want to be the all-wise athiest on the hill, using your intellectual powers to destroy the faith of the blind Christians to save them from mind control. You see Southstar your still the same old southstar that you where when you where the "defender of the faith" Then you sought to be a five Star general in Gods Army and receive the adulation of the underlings in your religion. You still seek the rank of 5 Star general and the recognition of your peers, The only thing that has changed is the Army you have joined.

As the Word Says "Pride cometh before destruction". You know that God will spew out someone who is bearing false witness to His will. You believed in God, But you had no Faith and you bore false witness to His will. Your religion was bound to fall away because it was built on the thoughts of man, You never followed the Messiah Jesus you followed an interpretation of Jesus.

Being spewed out of a false religion is not the end if one is meek enough to start again and search for God anew. Its a blessing to the meek to see their false religion fall down. But for the intelligent ones who seek the approval and esteem of men?

Your young Southstar. I do not know what will happen to you or what your state will be upon your death. I hope you can get over your need to be considered someone special. I hope your life leads you to the understanding that there is no peace without the Love Of The Truth. It would be better if you abandoned your pride by yourself. But know this if God loves you and you do not abandon your pride then He will break you and bring you down. like Jonah He will take away your intellect He will do what is needed to destroy your pride.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Adstar, from all of this that I have read, you have only called me a fraud.

And to add insult to injury, you say I am again a fraud in the atheist "Army" and you say I have a "need" to be considered someone special. Putting these hurtful things aside, none of these accusations have any basis in the original post. In fact, I don't believe your agenda now is to participate in the discussion but rather, to put me down and tell me what I was and tell me what my motives were - then and now.

Ironically, and most painfully for me, the things you have accused me of are the same things you commit so clearly here.

And this, everyone, is the reason why I can't tell just everyone that I'm no longer a Christian.

Thank you Adstar.

 

[§outh§tar]

I've never seen any feral children!? And if I did, I would expect all sorts of abnormal behavior from a social animal raised without the benefit of species-specific parenting and interaction. Remember, we're talking about group selection here which involves the interaction of individuals. It's not simple or romantic.

When you speak of "abnormal behavior" what standard of comparison are you using for "normal behavior" and why so? Secondly, what exactly do you mean by "social animal"?

And I said it was a simplistic rendition of a complex issue (group selection). Yet the principle holds. In fact Aztec sacrifices fit pretty well. They generally used slaves and conquered enemies (those generally not of thier group in other words). Similar to the way we think it's been Ok and in fact moral throughout history to kill enemies over abstract ideas. Like terrritorial boundaries. Or religious preference. Right? Hell, the Aztecs were appealing to their GODS for their very existence in a hostile environment.

P.S. It's not my explanation. It happens to be mainstream evolutionary thinking.

I just looked up 'group selection' in Wikipedia and it has nothing to do with societies but rather alleles. Maybe you are using a different definition? In any caes, I don't see how this second half of your post relates at all to 'mainstream evolutionary thinking'. I would be greatful if you could explain that too and provide some references.

Sorry if I'm missing the point entirely, but I also don't see how any of what you said ties in to your initial assertion that morality was innate. The Aztecs weren't exactly in what we could a 'hostile' environment since their empire was substantially larger than surrounding cultures. This is probably why they were able to flourish until the Europeans and smallpox came along.

As a sidenote, I thought it was interesting when you said, "Similar to the way we think it's been Ok and in fact moral throughout history to kill enemies over abstract ideas". People have and still do kill and imprison people who they have deemed 'immoral'.. (according to what standard?). By what you have said, we can conclude that morality is also an "abstract" idea. If this is true however, then morality has no basis in reason and it is therefore not logical to expect, or force someone to adhere to it - or for oneself to be compelled to adhere to it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

By what you have said, we can conclude that morality is also an "abstract" idea. If this is true however, then morality has no basis in reason and it is therefore not logical to expect, or force someone to adhere to it - or for oneself to be compelled to adhere to it.

I cannot subscribe to this line of reasoning simply because morality is very much a logical outcome of our pursuit of sustainable success as a society.
It is impossible to clarify if one wishes to shift the focus from macro social to micro social. Mankind has been evolving it's morality for thousands of years and all the immorality of the past is all a part of that evolution.

I personnally don't feel morality is innate but it is an essential sentient expression of our desire to survive in a sustainable fashion. [which is innate]
For example it could be argued that religion evolved as a way of bringing order to teh chaos of no rules or regulations. A way of controling the impulsive nature of ourselves so that we can develop civilisation and rationality.

Was religion used immorally as a vehicle for this order or was it a necessary part of social evolution that has been slowly becoming obsolete as we require it's discplines and devotion less?

Would society function at all with out morality or collective rules and obligation?

or force someone to adhere to it - or for oneself to be compelled to adhere to it

Life is always a voluntary act. No one can be forced to be moral as morality is essentially a personal self obligation. However we do pay a price if we choose to reject the morality that our collective society pushes upon us but that choice is ALWAYS yours and no one elses.

 

[Jenyar]

Jenyar, what do you think about the questions I asked in the first and, especially, in the second post?

SouthStar,

I support your search all the way. Although it's a simplification of what you're going through, it seems you have only changed your religious convictions. You went from "I believe God has saved me no matter how I feel from one moment to the next" to "I believe God has abandoned me, because I didn't feel Him intervene". The desert of your faith may seem particularly dry, but every person goes through such a desert - and it's necessary for our personal growth.

But there is one important thing I must share with the Christians before I finish. I think I have said this before but not many have realized the implications. At the time that I realized that the faith I had held on to was slipping right through my fingers, I cried out to God for help. My plea to God was earnest, for I was genuinely confused and seemed to be spiralling uncontrollably into some unforeseen darkness. A drowning man who cries out for help is earnest. But time and time again all I heard was silence. And my frantic, pathetic voice whimpering for some glimmer of hope, a lifeline. FUCK! SOMETHING! But apparently, the God who we hear loves us and wants to save us from our unbelief, who will carry us when we fail, He just let me go. This is not to complain at God or rant just for the sake of it; there is a deeper motive. I wish one day for Christians on the forum and elsewhere to understand that their God neglected - no, failed - to fulfill His most basic promise. Why?

It seems your faith (which is defined around your earlier Christian convictions) depends on God repeating himself to you. The certainty we have of God's love was concluded 2000 years ago, with Christ - He is the assurance that God delivers on his promises, and the touchstone of faith. Before and after Jesus, God has simply called people towards that moment.

Just think about it: God acted so completely and unconditionally through Christ, that no other mediator would be necessary - but we prefer him to be incomplete; we still want other saviours, other miracles of that scale, preferably one for each generation, maybe even one for each individual. On the other hand, God did not close off history with Christ, but let His kingdom stand with open doors, so that more people could use this knowledge to repent and receive salvation - but here we want complete knowledge, final certainty, before we would accept the invitation. People place themselves in a Catch-22 situation with their demands, and blame God for the result.

But remember what Paul said: "if we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself" (2 Timothy 2:13). He keeps his covenant of love, and that covenant wasn't made to every individual separately. It is made corporately (God chose a "nation", a "people", a "kingdom") and is incorporated in Christ.

And you're not the first who's run into exactly this trouble; I've probably mentioned this Psalm to you before:

Psalm 77:1-12
I cried out to God for help;
I cried out to God to hear me.

When I was in distress, I sought the Lord;
at night I stretched out untiring hands
and my soul refused to be comforted.

I remembered you, O God, and I groaned;
I mused, and my spirit grew faint.

You kept my eyes from closing;
I was too troubled to speak.

I thought about the former days,
the years of long ago;

I remembered my songs in the night.
My heart mused and my spirit inquired:

"Will the Lord reject forever?
Will he never show his favor again?

Has his unfailing love vanished forever?
Has his promise failed for all time?

Has God forgotten to be merciful?
Has he in anger withheld his compassion?"

Then I thought, "To this I will appeal:
the years of the right hand of the Most High."

I will remember the deeds of the LORD;
yes, I will remember your miracles of long ago.

I will meditate on all your works
and consider all your mighty deeds.​

Paul had the same advice: "Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel" (2 Tim. 2:8). But maybe you feel you can't believe that God was faithful in the past, or ever, and so you have no foundation for faith.

In an apologetic attempt to exonerate God, I expect you will accuse me of not trusting enough, or not having patience, or not listening closesly for 'God's voice', or even for having too zealously rooted my faith in the unworkable doctrine of sola scriptura. But at least, in future conversations, do not pretend that I did not entreat God's deaf ears for as long as my dwindling faith would hold out. What does this tell you about God and His promises?

None of us could do any of those thing "enough", which is why we needed salvation. We could not come to God on our own strength, and if we needed to we should all despair of God's distance and silence. If we depend on those virtues (and they are virtues, which we should seek and practice) we will only ever see our failures and deficiencies. But they will be our experience of ourselves (with God as our ideal), not of God himself.

You quoted Acts 2:21:
"And it shall come to pass
That whoever calls on the name of the LORD
Shall be saved."

But saved from what? From doubt, from fear or hardship? Certaintly not. When Jesus said we must pick up our cross and follow Him, it was a metaphor of how this life will treat you, and what we might encounter. It treated Him that way, and He also experienced God aparently forsaking Him. And once again, it echoes the Psalms - Psalm 22:

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from the words of my groaning?

O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
by night, and am not silent.​

But it doesn't stop there. God had the last word, and Jesus' faith was vindicated... and so was David's. He ends the psalm this way (v.29-31):

All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;
all who go down to the dust will kneel before him—
those who cannot keep themselves alive.

Posterity will serve him;
future generations will be told about the Lord.

They will proclaim his righteousness
to a people yet unborn—
for he has done it.​

For he has done it. God has not forsaken you, and Christ is proof of that. Maybe your faith has to die first before it can be resurrected as something that doesn't depend on you, something you can rely on. You have not been forsaken because you lost your childhood faith - it never depended on your faith; but to be reconciled with God you will have to allow God the final say. You will have to allow for God's faithfulness despite the apparent strengths or weaknesses of your faith.

The mere conviction that you have been rejected is a lie that can lead you further and further away from God. It's not God's will that this happens, but it's the inevitable result of forgetting that God existed before you, and did not depend only on any individual's personal experiences to prove his faithfulness. He showed it once and for all - by exhibiting his nature to a showcase of representatives, and ultimately in Christ himself - so that people who otherwise would not have experienced it might see it, might remember a past not their own, and return to Him in spite of themselves.

In the meantime, I wish you all the best, and hope you find a place where you can be true to your conscience, free from any religious legalism, bitterness or hypocrisy. I will pray that you continue to respect your parents, flee from immorality and falseness, and practice love that even your enemies can see.

 

[water]

SouthStar,


Please read Tolstoy's Confession of faith: http://www.ccel.org/t/tolstoy/confession/confession.html

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Hello crunchycat,

There have been a lot of responses so far but no one has come forward to give answers to the questions I posed at the end of my post. Please answer them for me.
I thank you for your input, but it is not satisfactory to only know what morality is; it is better to know what to do with it. Is it reasonable to do the things I asked about?

Ahhh, gotcha...

I'll answer the specific questions asked.

It is this dilemma of logical consistency which prompts me to write as I have today. If the atheist is to be consistent with his rationalist mantra then he must be a nihilist. Nihilism is the corollary of atheism. If you have an "impulse to destroy" and you resist out of fear of the consequences, or because you have been taught that it is some nebulous thing called "wrong" then you have become inconsistent. How will you insist that reason is the last line against absurdities such as religion when morality is so inextricably linked to it?

Atheists and rationalists / nihilists are different. Atheism is a side effect from
a method of thinking that aligns to the way reality works. 'Believers' use
the word Atheist to differentiate themselves from us from a 'God'-centric
position (a mental trick to give their position greater perceived attractiveness
and value). If we were to differentiate based on thought, then having the
categories of 'Reality Aligned' vs. 'Belief' makes the latter category far less
attractive and valuable.

Morality targeted at addressing human potential, protection, needs, and
wants would be an excellent way to start and it becomes bound to 'real'
things rather than doctrine. Finding a balance of behavioral tolerances that
enable the individual to achieve their potentials, meet their needs, meet
their wants, and protect themselves from harm could do wonders. I personally
like the classic American "Life, liberty, and persuit of happiness". Individuals
are encouraged to maximize these goals without subtracting them from
others.

Can you keep your peace intellectually knowing that people are raised with moral teachings, that morality varies from society to society, that the general populace seldom questions the basic pillars of morality, that people who go against what a society arbitrarily deems "moral" are punished the way the society sees fit?

Yes I can as long as I have an opportunity to influence others.

Are these not the properties of the religion you have come to loathe, the one you have come to feel indifferent to, the followers of which you have come to feel sorry for?

It's really the notion of 'belief' that has the negative impact. IMO, it's the
root of anything negative that pops out of religion.

Are people too not raised with religion, does religion not vary from society to society, do the religious not rarely question the basic doctrines, only going as far as to tweak and modify them for personal comfort - just like people do with morality?

For a religion to survive, it has to be adaptable and that means a certain
level of ambiguity needs to be present so reinterpretation is possible.
Christianity is a great example of an adaptable religion... everything from
the Crusades to Mormons. An individual will typically adapt their personal
behavioral tolerances to meet a situation (i.e. situational ethics). That
is 'natural' human behavior.

Is it then reasonable to espouse morality and yet condemn religion?

Morality can be bound to reality rather than fantasy.

Will you call for the punishment of someone who commits a crime disagreeable with your moral codes and yet be OUTRAGED when the religious call for measures in concordance with their tenets? Is this reasonable? Does this seem logical to you?

I would try to understand the human aspects that led to the the undesierable
behaviors and possibly take the opportunity to influence society with truth
depending on how much I cared.

 

[water]

Morality can be bound to reality rather than fantasy.

Define "reality".

 

[(Q)]

Reality is the state of the world as it really is rather than as you might want it to be.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Define "reality".

That which exists.

 

[§outh§tar]

water, I will read it soon as I can. I was caught by this bit:

The religious doctrine taught me from childhood disappeared in me as in others, but with this difference, that as from the age of fifteen I began to read philosophical works, my rejection of the doctrine became a conscious one at a very early age. From the time I was sixteen I ceased to say my prayers and ceased to go to church or to fast of my own volition. I did not believe what had been taught me in childhood but I believed in something. What it was I believed in I could not at all have said. I believed in a God, or rather I did not deny God -- but I could not have said what sort of God. Neither did I deny Christ and his teaching, but what his teaching consisted in I again could not have said.

Looking back on that time, I now see clearly that my faith -- my only real faith -- that which apart from my animal instincts gave impulse to my life -- was a belief in perfecting myself. But in what this perfecting consisted and what its object was, I could not have said. I tried to perfect myself mentally -- I studied everything I could, anything life threw in my way; I tried to perfect my will, I drew up rules I tried to follow; I perfected myself physically, cultivating my strength and agility by all sorts of exercises, and accustoming myself to endurance and patience by all kinds of privations. And all this I considered to be the pursuit of perfection. the beginning of it all was of course moral perfection, but that was soon replaced by perfection in general: by the desire to be better not in my own eyes or those of God but in the eyes of other people. And very soon this effort again changed into a desire to be stronger than others: to be more famous, more important and richer than others.

also, water, do you think there can be sound reason for obligating oneself or another to the adherence of morality?

**

Quantum Quack I'm working on a reply for you but it's a bit long and I'm a bit lazy at the moment. I have it finished but I shall need to go back and make some amendments.

**

Jenyar, I'll get to it ASAP. Think about emigrating to thescienceforums.

 

[water]

Reality is the state of the world as it really is rather than as you might want it to be.

You have thereby only stated an identity -- "Reality is the state of the world as it really is".

That I want it to be somehting else does not mean that I see it as such. In fact, I first have to be able to see the difference between the two, before I can act on my ideal and change reality to become the way I want it to be.

 

[water]

also, water, do you think there can be sound reason for obligating oneself or another to the adherence of morality?

Yes. Do you want to fuck yourself up or not? If not, then you have a sound reason to adhere to morality.

 

[§outh§tar]

Do you want to fuck yourself up or not?

Eh?

 

[(Q)]

That I want it to be somehting else does not mean that I see it as such. In fact, I first have to be able to see the difference between the two, before I can act on my ideal and change reality to become the way I want it to be.

Your version of reality includes the existence of gods and is not the reality we live, but is the reality in which you want to live - you've already made your choice. The differences have already been presented and explained, yet you choose to ignore or reject them because they do not fit into your version of reality.

 

[Satyr]

So let me see if I’ve got this right….

This topic is an exposee of thoughts by an idiot who had the mental weakness to be seduced by Christian childishness and the character flaw to be taken by Christian morality….and we are supposed to now take his most current intellectual burps, which he calls reflections, seriously?

I don’t know about you guys but when I hear about someone who has managed to get himself into an automobile accident I don’t seek out his instruction on driving a car, nor do I take whatever he has to say about avoiding accidents seriously.

What I do is listen, giggling under my breath at his utter stupidity, and then wait for his next accident to send me into convulsing laughter.

To do otherwise would be like expecting the scorpion to not bite the fox in the middle of the river.
If it’s in your nature to be weak and gullible it will always be a serious part of your character.
Like addictive personalities.

 

[§outh§tar]

If you had any level of reading comprehension you would understand that I was asking for input not giving it..

I don’t know about you guys but when I hear about someone who has managed to get himself into an automobile accident I don’t seek out his instruction on driving a car, nor do I take whatever he has to say about avoiding accidents seriously.

Non sequitur.


Now go away. It will be sad if you come back out of spite. Pathetic really.

Just go away and don't come back.