With A Heavy Heart, I Say This to Atheists and Christians

[okinrus]

I'm not sure what Galileo has to do with the "flat-earthers." Note also that Copernicus was a priest, so Galileo's theory may have been accepted by the Church if not for Galileo's attacks on those who disagreed on him. (ie., if Galileo had presented his theory respecting all theories involved, admiting his theory could be false, then there would not have been so much of a problem with.)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

Shortly after publication of Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World - Ptolemaic and Copernican the Inquisition banned its sale and ordered Galileo to appear in Rome before them. Illness prevented him from travelling to Rome until 1633. Galileo's accusation at the trial which followed was that he had breached the conditions laid down by the Inquisition in 1616. However a different version of this decision was produced at the trial rather than the one Galileo had been given at the time. The truth of the Copernican theory was not an issue therefore; it was taken as a fact at the trial that this theory was false. This was logical, of course, since the judgement of 1616 had declared it totally false.

Found guilty, Galileo was condemned to lifelong imprisonment, but the sentence was carried out somewhat sympathetically and it amounted to house arrest rather than a prison sentence. He was able to live first with the Archbishop of Siena, then later to return to his home in Arcetri, near Florence, but had to spend the rest of his life watched over by officers from the Inquisition. In 1634 he suffered a severe blow when his daughter Virginia, Sister Maria Celeste, died. She had been a great support to her father through his illnesses and Galileo was shattered and could not work for many months. When he did manage to restart work, he began to write Discourses and mathematical demonstrations concerning the two new sciences.

http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Galileo.html

 

[anonymous2]

Is there anything wrong with mocking those who believed the earth to be flat because the Bible says so and so it MUST be true? Galileo was actually supressed for being a heretic, not conforming to the rules of Church which says don't question or doubt.

At that time, (heck, even today there are people who are geocentrists), the heliocentric theory was not obviously true. After Galileo, via the then recently invented telescope, discovered that there were phases to Venus which could not happen with traditional Ptolemaic geocentricity, Tycho Brahe proposed that some (all?) planets besides the earth revolved around the sun instead. What I'm saying is that evidence for the heliocentric theory wasn't as good as it is now. For instance, there was no detection of stellar parallax at the time due to the lack of sophisticated equipment. Even with such equipment, the parallax is very small due to the vast distance between the earth and the closest stars.

 

[Sirius83]

Something that seems to be forgotten about all this, is exactly what the Dark Ages were. It was a time where the church ruled everything, a time where the comman man was not even allowed to read the bible and make their own judgements. A time where you had to obey what the church said or be persecuted like a criminal. Millenia of no progress, of oppression. It's things like this I draw as examples of what religion has done to the world.

Here, some reading on the Dark Ages:

http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com/dark_age/radicalism_and_the_threat_of_democracy.html

http://www.visionofthechurch.com/Histoverview.html

 

[TheERK]

On the contrary, there is AMPLE evidence to believe so. Everything is relative; it's not possible for everyone to see things exactly the same way. Even if everyone in the world agrees that peace is the way to go, they're each going to have they're own ideas about what peace is and how to obtain it. Peace as a uniform ideal is not possible. You're familiar with the term entropy, yes? "Inert Uniformity," describes the state of a society at peace. "Peace" as a uniform ideal, that is. you can't have the uniformity of "peace" without the "inert." It's inescapable. As long as the human race is not "inert," it cannot have peace.

"Everything is relative" is a three word contradiction. I hope you see why--the claim itself is an absolute claim, which contradicts the very content of the claim.

Second, an agreement may eventually be reached about what peace is and how to obtain it. Although there are disagreements now, this doesn't necessarily mean that there will be disagreements in the future. So yes, peace as a 'uniform ideal' is possible.

I know what entropy is, but apparently you do not. Entropy is a scientific concept describing the amount of disorder in a closed system. Disorder, in this context, relates to thermal microstates, and has absolutely nothing to do with society. Entropy, therefore, has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

[gentle]

Is there anything wrong with mocking those who believed the earth to be flat because the Bible says so and so it MUST be true? Galileo was actually supressed for being a heretic, not conforming to the rules of Church which says don't question or doubt.

Mis-statement about the bible.

 

[§outh§tar]

I'm not sure what Galileo has to do with the "flat-earthers." Note also that Copernicus was a priest, so Galileo's theory may have been accepted by the Church if not for Galileo's attacks on those who disagreed on him. (ie., if Galileo had presented his theory respecting all theories involved, admiting his theory could be false, then there would not have been so much of a problem with.)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm


http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Galileo.html

I was referring more importantly to the stance of the Church against dissenting view on the basis of the Bible. After all, not even you disagree that the Bible clearly views the earth to be flat in every depiction? It is after all inspired by God so I would expect anything that detracts from it's credibility is inspired by God as well (if the premise is correct).

 

[anonymous2]

Mis-statement about the bible.

I'm wondering though, if you were a Christian who lived, say, in the 4th century, would you have believed the Bible taught the earth was a sphere like planet, rotating on its axis every day, and revolving around the sun? I may be wrong, but why was it scientists who showed these things to be true, and THEN Christians decided to conform to this (but not all, there are geocentrists and even flat earthers still today)?

 

[okinrus]

No, I don't remember reading in the Bible any such statement but the "four corners." The expression "four corners" is never used to convey anything about the earth. It is an expression, much we say "four corners" today. I think the science <a href="http://www.prca.org/articles/issues_in_hermeneutics.html">hermeneutics</a> answers these type of questions. I haven't yet read it all, though.

It is after all inspired by God so I would expect anything that detracts from it's credibility is inspired by God as well (if the premise is correct).

Well, what exactly do you mean by inspired?

 

[Halcyon]

"Everything is relative" is a three word contradiction. I hope you see why--the claim itself is an absolute claim, which contradicts the very content of the claim.

Amen to that. You're preaching to the choir. For some miraculous reason, however, it's contradiction somehow doesn't negate it's validity. Perhaps a
better wording may have been "Everything in the human experience is subjective." But even that assumes an objective frame of reference by which to judge all other things as subjective. Beautiful paradox.

Second, an agreement may eventually be reached about what peace is and how to obtain it. Although there are disagreements now, this doesn't necessarily mean that there will be disagreements in the future. So yes, peace as a 'uniform ideal' is possible.

What makes you think such an agreement could be even remotely possible? You cannot get everyone to see something the exact same way because everybody's perception of everything is and always will be colored by their range of experience. Everybody's view of thie situation will be different no matter what.

I know what entropy is, but apparently you do not. Entropy is a scientific concept describing the amount of disorder in a closed system. Disorder, in this context, relates to thermal microstates, and has absolutely nothing to do with society. Entropy, therefore, has nothing to do with this discussion.

You may want to look it up again, mate. Entropy as an idea is NOT owned by thermodynamics, no sir. It is a term that belongs to Statistical Mechanics, Data Transmission and Information Theory, Cosmology, and, yes, SOCIOLOGY. The latter using the term to represent a doctrine of "inevitable social decline and degeneration."

 

[TheERK]

Amen to that. You're preaching to the choir. For some miraculous reason, however, it's contradiction somehow doesn't negate it's validity. Perhaps a better wording may have been "Everything in the human experience is subjective." But even that assumes an objective frame of reference by which to judge all other things as subjective. Beautiful paradox.

The point is, whether or not everything is relative is simply not a claim that any human is equipped to make. It might be true that all human experience is relative, but it also might be false.

What makes you think such an agreement could be even remotely possible?

Why not? Can you imagine an agreement of peace between two people? Of course you can--it happens all the time. How about 10 people? This is probably more difficult, but it can defintely happen. As you can see, it is not conceptually impossible to have an agreement of peace among any given number of people. You might be surprised; it may be the case that in a very advanced society, everyone agrees to what constitutes peace.

You may want to look it up again, mate. Entropy as an idea is NOT owned by thermodynamics, no sir. It is a term that belongs to Statistical Mechanics, Data Transmission and Information Theory, Cosmology, and, yes, SOCIOLOGY. The latter using the term to represent a doctrine of "inevitable social decline and degeneration."

First of all, statistical mechanic's entropy and thermodynamic's entropy are basically the same concept applied to different mediums. The same goes for cosmology. But if you're talking about "inevitable social decline", or sociological entropy, then you aren't making a scientific claim. I see no evidence to suggest that all societies must eventually decline and degenerate.

 

[Halcyon]

The point is, whether or not everything is relative is simply not a claim that any human is equipped to make. It might be true that all human experience is relative, but it also might be false.

Then we've reached an impasse as far as this part of the conversation is concerned. Any further developement on this part of the topic necessitates an agreement on the philosophical nature of truth.

Why not? Can you imagine an agreement of peace between two people? Of course you can--it happens all the time. How about 10 people? This is probably more difficult, but it can defintely happen. As you can see, it is not conceptually impossible to have an agreement of peace among any given number of people. You might be surprised; it may be the case that in a very advanced society, everyone agrees to what constitutes peace.

Of course, I can imagine an agreement between two people, even one between several billion people. The point is, every single person shares a unique point of view, molded in part by their genetic makeup and part by social interaction; it is inescapable that each and every person will flavor their impression of an idea with their own experience; each having different motivations for believing in the idea, different definitions for the terms of the idea, different expectations. Whether or not they conflict with each other, each and every person will have a different point of view on the situation, so an "absolute ideal," would indeed be impossible. And due to the random mutations of nature, or the unforseen events of daily life out of society's control, there will be brains that develope in a matter opposing certain commonly accepted ideals, there will be shifts in point of views; unless you can control, absolutely, every aspect of every person's life, then you return to the point I keep trying to make; Peace as a uniform ideal is impossible.

First of all, statistical mechanic's entropy and thermodynamic's entropy are basically the same concept applied to different mediums. The same goes for cosmology. But if you're talking about "inevitable social decline", or sociological entropy, then you aren't making a scientific claim.

I was under the impression that Sociology was indeed a science, and so anything arising therefrom would be granted the adjective "scientific." Making, of course, the doctrine of sociological entropy a "scientific" one. Be careful, mate, there are a few sociologists floating around these boards that might get upet by such a statement.

I see no evidence to suggest that all societies must eventually decline and degenerate.

Just requires more study.

 

[Athelwulf]

What convincing proof do you have that "a world free of suffering, free of war, free of hatred" can be done????

Because there is no physical law to suggest the contrary, there is simply no reason why such a state of affairs cannot be reached. If it can be reached locally, then there is no evidence that it can't be done globally.

Well, TheERK, it is possible, but I think it's very, very, VERY unlikely we'll ever reach this state of affairs while we, as a species, exist.

How hard exactly?

Well, assume everyone has a four-way decision with this: War/Hate, War/No Hate, No War/Hate, and No War/No Hate. Also assume that each decision has an equal 25% probability, that No War/No Hate results in 0% suffering, that No War/Hate and War/No Hate both result in 50% suffering, and War/Hate results in 100% suffering. And finally, assume the total world population is six billion.

Everyone has a 1 in 4 chance of deciding to not go to war and not hate. But the likelyhood of the entire world making a unanimous decision is 1 in 1.5 Billion. It's equally as likely that we will have no suffering.

The real figure would be in reality even less likely, because there are more than six billion people in the world, and for most people the decision to not hate and not go to war is a tough one to make.

Sorry to go through all that math, but I was interested in how likely this would be.

 

[§outh§tar]

Since I have been swamped with many responses to this thread, I have decided to reply to everything in one big post. Excuse my absence from the forum, I am out to enjoy life.

Here is the bottom line. The old testament summation is a physical walk in a physical wilderness to a physical promised land. The new testament is a spiritual walk in the spiritual wilderness to the spiritual promised land. The roles are re-chosen again by Jesus Christ. He is the passover lamb, John the Baptist plays the role of Elisha, the 12 apostiles take the role of the twelve tribes of Israel and you have the tabernacle ( TEMPLE ) inside you on your journey to Heaven, the new promised land. Jesus Christ is the bread from Heaven as we take communion we take God inside of us for our spiritual food as through his grace he changes our nature to his.

Can you show me on what evidence you base your belief that Jesus of Nazareth chose any of these roles?

Well, to be honest with you I feel that the reason why you hold your faith under inspection is doubt. You can't build faith using doubt.

Doubt may be good in some ways, but not to build faith.

Doubt only takes away, faith opens doors to things that you wouldn't have seen otherwise. Doubt works itself downwards, faith upwards.

To be equally honest I think ridiculing doubt shows an empty faith. Surely you know, if the faith is of God, it will be able to stand the test of criticism. If the Christian faith really is as exclusive as it is made out to be, surely you understand that no amount of doubt or examination can put it to shame.

Saying doubt is not profitable for building faith is like saying a man should fly in a crickety old airplane even though he has never actually sat in it. Obviously, if he doubted the airplane's ability first, he would be assured by his research that planes actually can fly, which would strengthen his faith more than weaken it. If he however found out that the plane couldn't fly and yet you accuse him of doubting instead of believing then you are in effect saying that he should ignore the mound of evidence that says the plane can't fly and just "have faith".

Why do you ask me to ignore and overlook objective criticism and believe without even knowing WHY I should believe? If after all my doubts, I did my research and actually found Christianity to be what it claims to be, then has my doubt not resulted in a stronger faith? Surely, doubt can build faith!

Ok. But running away from the site doesn't make you a coward, how much is your faith worth to you? For me it's worth more than anything physical. Running when your faith is in danger is defending your faith.

If I left this site everytime something cropped up that was able to shake my faith, that would mean I did not truly believe my faith to be worthwhile and able to withstand criticism, hence my hasty departure.

If your faith can be "in danger", then obviously that faith cannot support itself so why should you support it by closing your eyes. Being ignorant for the purpose of building faith defies any common sense as I see it.

To me it doesn't matter if the Bible say the earth is round or flat, it doesn't matter if the universe was made in 7 days instead of billions. It's not important to my life. The Bible tells me the reasons why, I don't expect it to be exact. But I do feel that some parts of the Bible are incomplete, but they are incomplete to me, they may still have a higher purpouse or meaning.

The contradictions of numbers I feel is less important, why? Because it bears no value for me, and I didn't actually think the contradictions were too bad, I thought they would be worse than that.

This is a classic Christian argument, but I will delve more deeply into this bit a little while later. In effect saying, although a Book supposedly inspired by the God of the entire universe cannot even be accurate, I still believe in it. If the reports in the Bible can and do contradict themselves, why do you believe that the Bible is even theologically accurate? If the God you serve is unable to support Himself in simple matters of addition and subtraction, why do you think the message concerning theology is any more valid? A house divided against itself cannot stand; if the Bible contradicts itself and is incapable of handling 'simple' math problems, what business do you have closing your eyes in ignorance of it's pitfalls simply to justify your faith?

I've had insights to problems that seemed impossible to solve, even contradictions that just couldn't be ignored, but then they were solved right in front of me, even the impossible ones. So don't think that we know it all, or that science has all the answers, there will come a time when we understand and not need to ask anymore.

I don't think science has "all the answers" but I think it is very clear that when a religion like Christianity claims to be exclusive and that it's Bible is the Holy Word of God, we make every effort to verify that claim. This really has nothing to do with science itself, and everything to do with reason; if the Bible cannot support itself in certain instances (as even you admit) then what is your faith based on? After all there are other religious books that have similar errors in them, why don't you believe in those?

One day I decided that I would take the concept of God more lightly, so that I could live a more normal life, like everyone else. I started swearing (but I never felt comfortable with it), doing everything that "normal" kids would do, I did alot of bad things (like shoplifting and to that effect) because I didn't feel bounded by the rules, I lost my moral obligation to follow the rules - ok some rules I kept of course, but shoplifting was one of these rules that I could say to myself "why not? It's not harming anyone...".

"Normal" kids don't shoplift or swear. Contrary to the Christian stereotype of nonbelievers, most kids are actually decent (especially outside of America). Regardless of whether or not I consider myself Christian, I don't swear or shoplift and I certainly have not "lost my moral obligation" as you are insinuating. I don't have any desires to be lawless or anything of the sort even though I do not consider myself yoked to the bonds to which I was previously subjected.

But somewhere inside me I felt this feeling of "no! wait, that's not the right way!".

But for the first time of my life (probably) I ignored it! It was a voice of reason and kindness but I turned my face away from it.

I still kept the belief in God (somewhat vague though), just as you describe to me now.

On what evidence do you base your belief that this voice of reason and kindness was from God? If an atheist/agnostic finds a person's wallet and takes it to the lost-and-found instead of pocketing it, does that mean God is the one reasoning with them? If yes, why do you say so, and if no also, why do you say so? There have been many non-Christian humanitarians who may have been atheist/agnostic, do you say that because they listened to their "inner voice", they were listening to God?

Jesus did say that He would return before the generation would pass. I don't know why He said that, and I'm not going to get into that, since it's beyond my understanding. But I will provide you a related passage in the Bible (which you probably have read allready, but maybe you need it now):

This is my problem with most Christians today. There Gospels and New Testament make it absolutely clear that Jesus before His death and His disciples after His resurrection were absolutely convinced that His coming was MUCH closer than 2000 years.

(Mat 16:28 NIV) I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

There are also the two parallel versions in Mark and Luke.

(Mark 9:1 NIV) And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."

Luke 9:27 I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God."

There is one other difficult verse in Matthew without other synoptic parallels.

(Mat 10:23 NIV) When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

There are similar verses with their synoptic parallels in the other gospels

(Mat 24:34 NIV) I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

(Mark 13:30 NIV) I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

(Luke 21:32 NIV) "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

(Mat 26:64 NIV) "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

(Mark 14:62 NIV) "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

(Luke 22:69 NIV) But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God."

How can you maintain any sense of integrity and honesty if you will blindly close your eyes to these prophecies by Jesus Himself, not counting the similar verses made in the rest of the Gospels by the apostles who also preached that the Kingdom of God "is at hand" in an immediate sense?

Ignoring it will not make the failed prophecy go away, now would it?

I want to give you an advice. Why did you feel freedom when you considered being a atheist?

I do not feel "freedom" as such, but rather free of obligation. If I were to ever make a mistake, I am not under the constant burden of sorrowing over my actions to my Lord, as Christian theology maintains. Don't worry about me choosing the wrong path just yet, I have made no trenchant decisions that cannot be revoked and I will be as humble as possible. As I have said many times, it is simply not my desire to cease being a Christian and every bone in my body aches to follow Christ in consistency, but my mind will simply not accept circular argument and flawed belief.

Bertrand Russell:
I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true.

Pray to God, let Him help you see the answers to your doubts, or let Him give you the strength to walk through this.

You have no idea just how many times I have prayed earnestly and in all humility that my feeble understanding be supplemented and yet nothing. Unfortunately, my plight is not at all like your story where you strayed from God to find your own way. I WANT to believe that all my hopes have not been futile, and I would LOVE to believe the Gospels, but what are these hopes to be grounded on if reason has shown that this faith is not grounded in reasonableness. It's not like I'm going to be on some sort of quest to find my own way in life all of a sudden, I really still do hope there is some chance I may be wrong all along but I cannot in intellectual honesty believe the Bible is God's Word, just as you cannot in intellectual honesty believe 2 + 2 = 5 just because someone told you so.

I thank you sincerely for showing such personal concern over my wellbeing and I apologize if this response to you seemed harsh as it really wasn't meant to be. In effect all you told me was what to believe instead of telling me WHY to believe. I assure you, I used to read the Bible and study it every chance I got. I am certainly familiar with what the Bible teaches and that is not where my problem lies; it is WHY I should believe something to be superior when it cannot even defend itself. What I need now is not inspiration, but a rope to hold on to. Believing there is a rope there is simply not enough, I need to know that the rope actually is there. Thanks again for all your help and may this work out for our good benefit.

“Defender of faith” sounds good an all, but what does it actually mean, why would you defend it, and who/what are you defending it from???

Jan my good friend, let us use the past tense to refer to these things which once were. I defended the faith against heretics, basically anyone who did not interpret the Bible as I saw fit. One man's heretic is another man's reformer. Defender of the Faith comes from the latin title, 'fidei defensor'.

What else have you done to find reasons to believe?

I have looked to the Bible solely that it may defend itself against internal contradiction and inconsistency. The Bible fails to do this as well, save for commanding the believer to be without doubt; a rather convenient ploy.

This is a good starting point and a sign of progression, but don’t think you have to jump out of the frying pan and into the fire.

I'm not making any trenchant assertions like I said, I'm only saying "I don't know", and what I knew before cannot defend itself without extravagant/circular argumentation.

So what do you think of Jesus now?

A very good question and anyone following this thread should take note of this response particularly

I previously believed the traditional 'orthodox' Protestant view of Jesus. Son of God descended as Man to save the world from the curse of the Law. This of course is not as essentially important to my faith itself as the question is not what did I believe about Jesus, but rather why did I believe this about Jesus which consequently leads to the answer to your question. I adhered firmly to this view of Jesus, firstly because I was taught to believe this was the truth about Him before I ever even read the Bible, or even became 'converted'. The point here is, if I was raised in an Eastern Orthodox setting, I would have interpreted the Bible through the eyes of Eastern Orthodoxy and if raised in a Catholic setting, through the prejudice of Catholic theology.

Jesus is the only one who at all leaves me a shred of hope/fantasy that I may one day be awakened from this 'dream' and reconciled to God's perfect plan. Of course it is an absurd claim considering my earlier observations but I cannot explain it. I simply cannot believe the Bible to be inerrant and I cannot believe the Bible to be without prejudice. I cannot believe any theology to be objective in reasoning and certainly cannot find any Christian interpretation that is without bias. I don't know that Jesus is the Son of God or that He isn't (although deep inside I hope that I was "right" all along and that He is). I cannot believe that He ever resurrected, fulfilled Old Testament prophecy to a T, or walked on water. Of course, these beliefs are based on the view that the Gospel accounts are without error and are completely reliable even in their superstitious time setting. Therefore to believe any such thing about Jesus is to believe that the New Testament is telling "the whole truth and nothing but the truth". I cannot find the New Testament to be trustworthy in light of theological disagreement, chronological disagreement, the writers' bias towards Jesus and belief in the veracity of their respective theologies and the broken promise to the apostles that Jesus would return to "this generation" which would not "pass away".

Considering there is an unmistakable bias by the various writers towards Jesus and the fact that New Testament theology cannot be necessarily "proved" or "disproved", it comes down to whether or not the Gospels agree on every subject internally (no contradictions) and whether the events have been shown to be exagerrated or fictional on a historical basis.

Given these sundry difficulties within the New Testament (which shall be left for another time), it is of course unreasonable to persist in believing what is not founded in truth. Somehow or the other, I still believe in Jesus despite my rejection of the Bible as God's Word. Obviously if the Bible isn't God's Word then Jesus isn't God and yet you ask, why do I still believe He is God? The answer, I don't know. I just have some enormous, insurmountable faith in Him that all manner of reason and logic cannot suppress despite my "spiritual revolution". I feel as if I am betraying Jesus as Judas did, stabbing Him in the back after all the suffering He went through for me. Of course His divinity and the doctrine of atonement can never be verified (along with many NT episodes). I feel as though He is weeping for me right this moment as I continue to denounce Him. It breaks my heart more than you could ever imagine that I could ever turn my back on my beloved Jesus, my Lord and Savior. Of course I don't intellectually believe He is my Lord and Savior anymore, but in my heart I still do and it is a fire that burns ragingly and has not been doused by any reason. I have prayed countlessly to Him that He may deliver me from doubt and He is unable/unwilling to answer and yet I believe in Him stubbornly. Could this possibly be the simple effect of brainwashing? Why am I so drawn in love and hope and faith to a Character whose story I cannot reasonably believe? I do not believe in unicorns (how cliche to this Religion forum!) and yet even if I did, I did not have such a heartfelt love towards unicorns. It is impossible for me to explain away this paradox, and yet my heart continues to war with my mind.

It is because of Him that I continue to hope beyond all reason that one day we may soon be reunited. I am forced (I think beyond my conscious will) to dote on Him who I have never seen and whom I never will see. Even more terrifying to me than Hell is the prospect of disappointing my Savior and watching the sorrow on His face on the last day which I do not even believe in. It is a madness which I cannot cure myself of. A lingering desire to hope despite reason which grieves and torments me day and night. I stay up at night thinking about how ludicrous Christianity is from any objective viewpoint and yet I still listen to Christian music and occasionally pray in hope. What is this faith of mine in a Character based on utter (senseless) devotion in complete contradiction of my knowledge. What I believe and what I know, are they the same? I would not look at the Bible the same way and I would not talk about religion the same way and yet why do I believe even when I consciously do not "want" to. Is it rather that I need to believe?

Perhaps Jenyar was right when he said:
What SouthStar gave up wasn't God, it was his certainty. The only certainty one can have. It's choosing a self-affirmed life instead of a God-affirmed life. But he isn't dead until his dead, so I think we can do away with eulogies and elegies altogether. Faith isn't as fragile as everybody thinks, and doubt isn't as all-powerful as everybody thinks.

SouthStar, the problem I think you need to grasp, is that Christianity and many religions have many adherents because there is at least a bit of truth in them. I hate to tell you this, but if you truly have been raised a Christian, I doubt you will ever fully "throw off the shackles" of this faith. With as much information as there is in the Bible and related history, there are certain things which appear, at the least, coincidentally true, and despite the amount of apparently contradictory texts and apparently immoral teachings within Christianity, those few things which actually DO seem right and true will probably keep you in the lingering doubt, and having you say to yourself "What if it IS really true? What if there IS an eternal hell?" I think the only way you will ever overcome this, is if you accept that there are coincidences and patterns in this life, even amazing ones, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're inspired by the "all powerful" deity. There usually is at least something true, and perhaps AMAZINGLY true about a religion. Why else are there followers of religions? Are they all just completely delusional without a shred of truth at all? Who would follow such a religion? I will almost say that such a religion does not exist.

It's not an issue of each religion having some measure of truth to it at all. Christianity claims COMPLETE exclusiveness from all other religions, which are "wordly" and incidentally "man-made". Whether or not there is some truth to Buddhism is not Christianity's concern, it was either believe in Him, or go to hell (literally!).

The reason Christianity is so popular is because it delivers a final canon of true doctrine. The Gospels call it the "mystery" that was hidden until the time of Jesus. Meaning until then, there was NO other valid religion apart from Judaism. Because Christianity drops "the final authority", the Bible, in the believer's lap, there is no reason for the believer to think objectively. After all, if you had the source of all truth along with a billion or more other believers, what reason would you have for doubting? The same argument you used for religion can be used against it. A man can also be enticed to a religion because there are so many selfless, moral people (Mother Theresa for example) and has spawned so many revered theologians throughout the ages, even converting the lowest criminals into icons of moral uprightness that there would be little reason to be skeptical of it's validity at first glance.

Because of the "completion" given the believer by the final authority (Bible), the reader has no reason to be skeptical even when having bumped into apparent contradictions because a more "seasoned" believer will confidently resolve the contradiction by means of circular reasoning, basing the resolution on the premise that the Bible is inerrant and therefore any thing appearing to be in disagreement have simply been interpreted "wrongly". There is simply so much literature (I now call it propaganda) available to the believer "resolving" all sorts of attacks against the faith (evolution for example) that the believer becomes confident in the superiority of his/her belief's against that of an unbeliever.



A little more on how I've been faring

I spoke a little bit to my Christian friend the other day (hinting at my disbelief but not having the guts to come out with it). I employed the Socratic method to allow her to see just how circular her reasoning is by asking her questions which lead to the ultimate realization that there is no basis for believing without tremendous ignorance. (Note: when I say "tremendous ignorance", I mean to say ignoring all skeptical viewpoints on the faith in order to go on believing, as Cyperium said earlier).

To my surprise, she told me that she would like to change the subject when I had her cornered into admitting she didn't know what she presumed to have known. Surprising because this is the same Christian friend who loved to talk with me about Jesus and Christianity, now running away from the implications of her answers to my questions. Like I may have said before, the two primary responses for Christians in times of reasoning are "God is so much above us that we cannot comprehend" and "My life has been changed so much (ever since conversion) that I just can't attribute it to anyone but God".

Obviously the first statement is a paradox, for if God is really that immanent then either we cannot comprehend anything at all, or anything revelation He provides can be interpreted "correctly" and comprehended fully. Since we are talking about Christianity, we will assume the latter. The Bible truly does promise wisdom to all believers:

James 1
5If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. 6But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind.

Firstly, even in extraction, the statement reads as literally as when in context. Secondly, as we see the promise for wisdom (to understand the Bible) is promised specifically. I shan't waste time here referring to statements by Jesus Himself promising the believer, "Ask and ye shall recieve". By this evidence, we can see that it is simply unreasonable to claim that certain things in a Bible penned by men are beyond human comprehension, that contradictions only appear so because of feeble human understanding, since that implies that God rejects His promise to give wisdom "generously to all without finding fault". Secondly, if contradictions only appear so because they are beyond our understanding (also implying that the Holy Spirit is incapable of doing it's job as specified by Jesus), then there are no such things as contradictions since every so-called contradiction is simply something we can't understand.

In response to her comment that her radical change in lifestyle was only attributable to God, I asked her if she then thought Ghandi or Buddha was going to heaven to which she replied negatively (and quite vehemently). I proceeded with the Socratic questioning and finally reached, "So you say they have gone to hell because the Bible says so. And the only reason you give for believing the Bible is that your life has been changed dramatically by it. Now why do you say that your change in life is by God and Gandhi's lifestyle is not?". At this point the conversation went cold and she said something to this effect, "There is no other way I can explain why my life has changed. I can't give you the specifics." After this, we turned the conversation to other things.

I was both satisfied and grieved deeply by her response. I had shown that the Christian faith cannot be accounted for by reason after the theological argument has been exhausted and skimmed. I was saddened though that even though I had shown she did not really know why she believed (and believe me, she is a great Christian, perhaps even greater than I was ), she simply would not even for a moment take a more objective inspection of her faith. I do not know from where this irrationality stems from in the Christian community, but it is quite analogous to my account concerning my current relationship with Jesus (see above).

I have had less and less time to do as much research as I would like to and now cherish my time (except for today when I felt you guys might need a briefing). I am beginning to feel a numbness in me, as if the pain is being dulled, although my feelings towards Jesus still burn without reason in me. I still hope that I will one day somehow be able to be reconciled, just like the prodigal son, which is also a feeling grounded in emotion rather than reason. I am terribly shipwrecked inside, as my mind constantly wars with my heart; I simply cannot help it. I continously (and I mean that literally) think about the flaws in Christian reasoning as my heart consistently pleads with me to overlook these difficulties and hold fast in faith. Only one will hold out, total faith or total reason; for the two are like water and oil and are immiscible in these instances. Ironically, it is in the greatest period of turmoil in my life that I have no family, friend, Bible, or God to turn to.

 

[§outh§tar]

Wow, that post was certainly much longer than I thought. Pouring my heart out must be therapy.

 

[anonymous2]

It's not an issue of each religion having some measure of truth to it at all. Christianity claims COMPLETE exclusiveness from all other religions, which are "wordly" and incidentally "man-made". Whether or not there is some truth to Buddhism is not Christianity's concern, it was either believe in Him, or go to hell (literally!).

I know SouthStar, I was just trying to say that I doubt you'll find that "magic bullet" to absolutely disprove Christianity. After all, how do you disprove a theology? I think it ultimately comes down to what you WANT to believe. There's "evidence" for just about every belief anyone has ever devised. Look at how studies are done today, if you have a lot of money you can create a study to "prove" just about anything you want. What do YOU want to believe, SouthStar? Sure, you can look at anti-Christian arguments, believe that Christians use farfetched "how it could have been" explanations to reconcile "alleged" Biblical discrepancies, you can read how the Bible does not seem totally historically accurate, how the Bible does not appear to agree with science, how there are many variants of Biblical manuscripts (missing verses, words, different words, additions, compared to other manuscripts) how the deity of the Bible doesn't seem very moral, consistent, etc, but, there will always be something which still seems true about the religion, won't there? What I'm saying is that ultimately I think you will need to accept that a religion doesn't have to be total, complete nonsense in every way in order to disbelieve its theology. That is, if you want to overcome the "what if it's true" doubts. Then again, you are just now leaving Christianity (or having doubts), from what I can tell, you have been raised in it, so I don't think your rejection of Christianity will be sudden. I think it's going to take some time if you're really serious about "throwing off the shackles", so to speak.

Oh, and SouthStar, you see all those passages acting like Jesus is coming soon, but you know, whoever wrote that passage in 2nd Peter had it figured out, which I gather you're aware, "A day with the Lord is as a thousand years." Sounds like a rationalization, doesn't it? So that totally negates all the other passages, see, when "Paul" (or whoever wrote that passage) says "we who are alive and remain" will join up with Jesus, what he REALLY meant was "those Christians living thousands of years from now and still are living when Jesus comes back"..

To be honest, I myself have a feeling that, sure, if all Christianity taught is to "believe in Jesus", then ok I guess I could do that. But then what? Christianity doesn't stop there, as we both know. It continues to have a claim on your life, that you need to follow Biblical precepts (many of which I don't think are bad, but which ones are they exactly?, the Christians themselves don't seem entirely sure, I mean, look at how many Christian sects there are). And not all Bible manuscripts completely agree with each other, nor do some sects totally agree on which books to believe in, Catholic, Protestant, Ethiopic canons are different from each other.

 

[Athelwulf]

To my surprise, she told me that she would like to change the subject when I had her cornered into admitting she didn't know what she presumed to have known.

Care to tell me approximately how the conversation went up to that point? I'm very interested in how it went.

 

[§outh§tar]

Care to tell me approximately how the conversation went up to that point? I'm very interested in how it went.

Well, we had already been emailing each other as I was telling of my doubts about certain things in the faith so when we finally spoke it was just a discussion on what my latest email was about.

Because my email had been particularly blatant and well, harsh about certain faults Christians have, she was a bit reserved from the beginning I suppose. She got quite defensive when I started questioning her since she knew where I was going with all the questions. I knew she knew that I was trying to show her by her own admission that her faith was not grounded on reason and thus, she behaved very defensively and started defending her faith even though I had never even attacked it in any way, save for asking her questions.

I suppose it's different when a fellow 'Christian' questions you about your faith, as opposed to when a nonbeliever questions you about your faith, which is when you start using Christian rhetoric to soothe the argument in your favor. I know all the tricks however and therefore would have been very persistent if the conversation had continued in that path.

 

[Athelwulf]

Okay, but I was curious about what questions ya asked and her responses.

 

[okinrus]

SouthStar, we out necessity change views overtime. For instance, when I was a lot younger I studied the Bible on my own, which led me to the misconception that the Bible was the sole source of the faith. Deciding to read the Bible from the beginning, I came to the conclusion that God was quite arrogant and cruel, and could never make it past Leviticus. But I eventually did read other material, and found this prior view to be false. I don't think this kind of drastic shift is possible in one day, but I've once changed a theological position after one day of studying. It's possible.

For this reason I don't think the Bible should be the sole source of one's faith. The signficant failure of this is less a matter of the doctrines which arise, but that it's better not to have single point of failure. Even though any given passage will have a explanation behind it, attempting to quell every contrivance against each and every passage is simply a waste of time. The Church Father's, being closest to the origin of the Bible, did not treat the entire Bible this way, and so I see the Bible being an example of truth, of truth fullfilling itself in the lives other people. But this need not mean that we should make the Bible become our one and only truth.

SouthStar, also context is everything. Both James and Paul wrote those letters when the Bible did not exist as a full-bound book. Hence, why would James use wisdom to mean interpretation of the Bible?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

§outh§tar: "Excuse my absence from the forum, I am out to enjoy life. "
*************
M*W: I'm glad to hear you are trying to enjoy life. You deserve to enjoy life instead of the constant fear of burning in hell. If heaven is a place where only Christians go, then the hell they created is for Christians.

You are still in the grieving process, and writing is a very effective healing agent. In a way, SouthStar, you had an addiction to Christianity, and now you're in detox. What you are feeling is emotional withdrawal. As the days go by, your heart will be quieted and your mind will be clear. Take it one day at a time, and you will be healed.
*************
SouthStar: Surely, doubt can build faith!
*************
M*W: Doubt results in more doubt or in truth.
*************
SouthStar: "Normal" kids don't shoplift or swear. Contrary to the Christian stereotype of nonbelievers, most kids are actually decent (especially outside of America).
*************
M*W: Well, I would have to disagree with you here. I've lived outside of America, and I'm of a different opinion about how children are being raised in other countries. As undisciplined as American kids are, we're still the most Puritanical country. You should see some of the teen magazines in Germany! Magazines like that can only be purchased in porn stores here! I lived in Germany for five years, so I can't really speak for other countries, but like we have gas stations on every corner, Germany has a sex shop on every corner. European children grow up with sex as a normal thing. American's still fear talking to their children about sex. It's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
*************
SouthStar: "Regardless of whether or not I consider myself Christian,..."
*************
M*W: Jesus didn't consider himself to be a Christian.
*************
SouthStar: I do not feel "freedom" as such, but rather free of obligation.
*************
M*W: This was one of the first feelings I had. My heart wanted to go to mass, but my head said that was just a habit I had. I went through habitual motions to prove something, not to myself, but to those around me -- children, friends, co-workers. When I realized that it was ME I had to prove something to, I could no longer believe in Christianity. There was no logic or evidence or proof.
*************
SouthStar: You have no idea just how many times I have prayed earnestly and in all humility that my feeble understanding be supplemented and yet nothing.
*************
M*W: SouthStar, may I suggest that you stop all that praying to a God you're not sure is there, and simply be still and know?
*************
SouthStar: Jesus is the only one who at all leaves me a shred of hope/fantasy that I may one day be awakened from this 'dream' and reconciled to God's perfect plan.
*************
M*W: SouthStar, I believe you will come to know the real Jesus. I don't know. Maybe that's an oxymoron. I guess I should say you will come to know Jesus better that you ever did before.
*************
SouthStar: I feel as if I am betraying Jesus as Judas did, stabbing Him in the back after all the suffering He went through for me. Of course His divinity and the doctrine of atonement can never be verified (along with many NT episodes). I feel as though He is weeping for me right this moment as I continue to denounce Him. It breaks my heart more than you could ever imagine that I could ever turn my back on my beloved Jesus, my Lord and Savior. Of course I don't intellectually believe He is my Lord and Savior anymore, but in my heart I still do and it is a fire that burns ragingly and has not been doused by any reason. I have prayed countlessly to Him that He may deliver me from doubt and He is unable/unwilling to answer and yet I believe in Him stubbornly. Could this possibly be the simple effect of brainwashing? Why am I so drawn in love and hope and faith to a Character whose story I cannot reasonably believe?
*************
M*W: The heart plays tricks on the mind. However, I can see that you have made some progress in your healing because you are recognizing the possibility of brainwashing. You're angry with yourself for being duped your whole life by something that wasn't really there. Trust me, that anger will turn to joy before too long.
*************
SouthStar: I spoke a little bit to my Christian friend the other day (hinting at my disbelief but not having the guts to come out with it).
*************
M*W: I suspect you're hoping your friend will replace the truth you've lost. That is a tremendous loss, and you will have to take the time needed to grieve through your loss.
*************
SouthStar: I have had less and less time to do as much research as I would like to and now cherish my time (except for today when I felt you guys might need a briefing).
*************
M*W: Please continue to update us, and write as much as you feel like writing. Let it all pour out. We're here to listen and comfort you through this process.
*************
SouthStar: I am beginning to feel a numbness in me, as if the pain is being dulled, although my feelings towards Jesus still burn without reason in me. I am terribly shipwrecked inside, as my mind constantly wars with my heart; I simply cannot help it.
*************
M*W: The 'numbness' you're feeling is normal. You are undergoing a great emotional loss. Numbing out is a defense mechanism to dull the pain. I understand how you're 'shipwrecked inside.' Your ship of faith went down. That was the same ship that carried you for most of your life. Now your ship is gone, but you're swimming in familiar waters, and all your friends at sciforums will be your life preservers.
*************
SouthStar: Ironically, it is in the greatest period of turmoil in my life that I have no family, friend, Bible, or God to turn to.
*************
M*W: Before one can begin to rise from the depths of despair, he needs to see how dark and deep the abyss. (That's just some wisdom from Medicine*Woman.)