deconversion

Hey all,

Found this blog a little while ago and have really enjoyed reading it. I'll cut through the crap and put it on the table now: I'm a Christian. I'm very interested in arguments and any kind of well-thought out reasoning to try to explain life. To make something clear, I'm not here to convert anyone. I'm also not doing this as part of a project, 'outreach', or anything else. Noticed this post and a I'm ashamed that something like this has to be put up:

Please let me know who they are and I'll be more than happy to ban their IPs. The blog is for de-converts to discuss our exit from Christianity NOT for Christians to try to re-convert us. It's ok for us to respond to those who are trying to understand who we are and why we came to our decisions or even to those who attempt to give us that nugget that would cause us to see the light. However, relentless posting of Bible verses, cut and paste sermons, etc. only serves to detract from our discussions.

Thanks,
Paul

Rest assured, I won't be doing that. Nor do I claim to have any real, convincing answers to 'reconvert' you or any of that nonsense. I'm very interested in what is said here and I, honestly, find myself having better, deeper conversations with my athiest or 'de-converted' friends than my Christian ones.

I'm a junior at Virginia Tech and an Economics major (former Aerospace Engineer) and I really love reading, good coffee, U2, John Mayer, thought-provoking movies, baseball and USC football (go Trojans!). I hope that you all can welcome me to this community--it's been a while since I've been a part of a great message board.

Thanks!

David

Welcome David. I'm usually pretty talkative around here. Right now I'm busy with a real 'hurry up' project at work. Should be over in about a week. Then I'll have more time to banter.

Hi David,

Thanks for being up front about your Christianity.

Most of us here are former Christians, so we will be able to answer just about any question you have.

(Not me, I'm the village idiot. Most of the other people on this site are very deep thinkers and have well thought out reasons for the opinions they hold.)

As you read through our various posts and such, you will find that most of us didn't start out looking to "leave the Church" or walk away from our faith. In fact, most of us didn't WANT to leave our faith, but we had questions/issues that kept niggling at our brains until we had to do something about it.

I don't think any of the regulars on this site will be out to deconvert you, but you do need to understand (as Leo alluded to): that is a possibility. If you are a seeker of truth and don't care where it takes you, join in!

@LeoPardus: Truthfully, I'm not really looking for anything specific. I have some questions I'd love to ask an athiest/agnostic/de-convert but they aren't incredibly urgent.

About me: grew up in the church, lived a double life in high school (looked like a great Christian on the outside, lived a "fleshly/wordly" life in my private time) and by graduation completely fell away and dropped Christianity. Did what I wanted, had a lot of fun in the processs, then when I came to college I "found God" or whatever you want to call it. The story is a bit more detailed than that but we can get into those details later.

I'm someone who is constantly thinking and analyzing things and never really accepts the "stock" answer without tearing it apart and seeing if it holds up. I also hate churchy terms (i.e. quiet time, fellowship as Christian hanging out, etc.) and (believe it or not) don't think C.S. Lewis is the greatest thing to happen to book writing. I'd call myself reformed in doctrine but I'm never going to make the mistake of thinking a 'free will-er' isn't a Christian.

@Warning!: One of the most interesting stories I heard was from Bart Ehrman (UNC Professor and NT textual critic) who, in his own words, left the faith "kicking and screaming." Sounded strange but I think I understand that process (and maybe where you and others were at) a little more than you might think. Christianity when simply exercised as religion can definitely provide a sense of security in an otherwise crazy world.

Hi David,

I will speak from the heart as much as possible. There are a bunch of very logical and smart people here who can help you think through all sorts of things. I am more of a heart person.

I think most of us left kicking and screaming, to be honest. Who wants to leave the faith of your family, the comfort of the songs you sang since you were a toddler, a divine friend who is always with you, the promise of answered prayer and blessings and heaven? Really?

I grew up in the reformed church...and stuck with it. If you want the definition of a "good girl" in high school and college - look no further. I really LOVED God and being in the church. I saved myself for marriage (so did my hubby). God was a great comfort to me. And I lived what I believed, period. For so many years, I accepted the Bible's answers to the tough questions. I didn't even see the questions as tough - I knew what Scripture taught. So the question of evil and suffering in the world? I knew all the verses, and I had God with me, so I was okay. Or so I thought.

But when I continually dealt with the pain and suffering in the world (not just mine), came to full grips with it, the way that Scripture addressed it became more and more shallow to me. The answer is that it will all be made right...one day...after we die. The answer is that God somehow wanted it this way, or let it be this way for our benefit. Nevermind that an all-knowing God knew exactly how everything would turn out and knew how he would respond to it. There, of course, can be no free will with an all-knowing and all powerful God. So, if that is true, then He knew exactly what it would be like from the beginning and decided that the earth and humanity was a worthy experiment anyway. Because it would please him to be loved by beings who would go through great suffering and death. He would rather see so many people suffer disease and abuse and hunger and HELL than to just create some beings and stick them in heaven and let them enjoy it.

Now I don't believe the story anymore. I don't have religion or spirituality. I just love people, give to people, and enjoy every moment of this life. I do my best to behave ethically, because that's the kind of person I want to be for myself and for my family. If God wants to punish me for that, then I don't like him anyway.

And yes, it is incredibly weird to think that I would choose hell over the Christian God! I was taught that the only people who would make that decision would do it because they loved sin and themselves more than they loved goodness and mercy. NO, that is NOT the truth. I would choose "hell" because the Christian God does not make sense to me. I simply cannot make his plan make sense in my brain or my heart, and I cannot fake it.

I believe that in the reformed faith, my "not getting it" would be part of God's perfect plan, and so would my going to hell. The people who came to Christ through me (like the one I prayed with on the playground in fourth grade or my dear friend in high school), well...I was "used" for God's purposes but was never intended to enjoy his heaven. Because I don't get it...because God did not intend me to get it. He created me as a goat who wore sheep's clothing for about 20 years. Do I have it right?

You might not want to stick around this site. I am really easy compared to some of these folks. They ask the tough questions and write the difficult things. The more I've read, the more comfortable I feel not having God in my life. Life is still good and rich and beautiful. :) But I am sure you can still read the frustration in my message. I AM angry that it all wasn't true. I wish everything would be "made right" in the end. But more than that, I am angry to think that so many Christians in this world would simply assume that I am bound for hell because I am following my conscience. I wish there was less judgment...much less judgment.

May you be healthy, happy, safe and free...
Mary

@Mystery Porcupine: Truthfully I'm not sure where I'll fit in here, if at all. On the one hand I want to be respectful but on the other hand I can't really pull any punches from what I believe to be the truth. I've got no idea how this will work now but I'll try to work towards it. I really appreciate how welcoming and respectful you guys have been thus far.

The presence of emotion in terms of decisions is definitely interesting. Anytime I see an idea that I have a hard time accepting--or at least understanding--it seems like it comes down to emotion (be it politics, economics or matters of faith). I'm really sorry you feel used. But the judgement is the worst part. Not a fan of that at all, either.

Made a joke about being "reformed" at the standard evangelical church I grew up in and the awkwardness was palpable. "You mean... you... believe in... Predestination?! You must not really be a Christian at all!"

David:

Oh dear, Leo, "Danger Will Robinson!" too old a reference for someone. Where do the years go?

Haha I love the Lost in Space reference! Definitely not too old... the new one was the first PG-13 movie I ever saw. Thought I was a huge rebel that day.

Questions:
1) Did you genuinely enjoy your faith, in and of itself, at any point?
2) What, if anything specific, really seems "un-Biblical" or hypocritical about Christians from an outside perspective?
3) What's the most unattractive thing about God? And why?
4) Do you find pure reason or personal experience to be valid in making belief decisions? Both? Neither?
5) What do you think of the concepts of "free will" and "choice"?
6) If God were to "show up", what would be the most reasonable response, in your opinon?

Finally, why the DC Wager? I think it's great (and it probably accounts for the warm welcome I've gotten) but it doesn't make any sense to me. I've only read athiest/agnostic literature and opinions from postmoderns (Nietzsche, etc.) and they all seem to derive athiesm down to a complete rejection of the moral implications posed by the existance of the very supreme being they deny exists--essentially taking away the basic tenets that come from a presupposition of a deity along with that being. Reading it makes it seem like a more practical version of Pascal's Wager. Thoughts?

Got a bunch more but they're mostly random, opinion-based questions. Most of the things I think about are broad and more big-picture or related to how we as people digest the world around us and interact (or fail to) with a supreme being.

Leo, I'm really interested in hearing your story if it's similar to mine. Where do our stories diverge?

1) Did you genuinely enjoy your faith, in and of itself, at any point?

Haha really enjoyed reading those responses... especially the last one. I had a conversation with a agnostic friend of mine a month or so ago and we talked about how God didn't seem "real" to him so the rational response to him was to assume that no divine being existed. I asked him what he would do if that being did show up and, without hesitation, he said that he would worship that being and submit unconditionally. Not what I expected at all. Didn't know if anyone else felt that way.

Your answer to #3 is really interesting but it's something a lot of people really struggle with--myself included. I don't have a great relationship with my Dad at all and probably my favorite guy in a Bible Study I help lead was brutally murdered at the beginning of this semester at school. Let to a lot of anger about that topic. The origin, nature and effects of evil (or "sin") are some of the hardest, deepest and most important things to wrestle with, theologically or philosophically.

I'm 100% in agreement with you on #2, by the way.

1) Yes I did. I enjoyed the fellowship of like-minded people. I enjoyed worship. If there ever was I time I felt God existed, it was during times of worship, both corporate and personal.

2) That's a tough one for me because I assigned all failures of believers to lack of faithfulness to god. I guess the first real time I saw hypocrisy was when I got to know my pastor on a personal level. THAT was an eye-opener!

3) When I was a believer? That he wouldn't talk to me. Everything was a freaking mystery. Did god speak to me or was that my own thought? Is an unanswered prayer a NO, a LATER, or a PERSEVERE? What is god's will for my life? Etc, etc.

4) Neither. While I could reason my way to a decision from scripture, most of the time my personal experience didn't bear out the decision. Or I would make a decision based on what I thought God was leading me to do, only to see later that it was a bad decision. THAT is the part that got me the most, I always had to wait to see how it turned out before I could figure out if it was "the holy spirit leading me" or not. Well, by then it's too late!

5) I believe in free will. Humans can question their programming.

6) If it really were God? I would worship him. What else are you going to do if a real God shows up? Beat him up? I don't think so!


1) Did you genuinely enjoy your faith, in and of itself, at any point?


Shoot. It was the biggest, most important thing in my life for 25 years. I’d be excited to hear of anyone coming into the faith. Loved to hear good teaching. Read a lot. Taught bible studies. Talked about it and studied and hashed it over with friends. It was life, truth, the way.

2) What, if anything specific, really seems "un-Biblical" or hypocritical about Christians from an outside perspective?


-Even thought they are supposed to have the holy spirit enabling them, they’re just as immoral, just as prone to embezzling, divorce, alcoholism, abuse, etc as anyone else.

-They’re arrogant; think they have THE answers to everything

-They can’t take criticism or being told they are wrong or being insulted or put down. (Methinks there are a few bible verses about how they should respond to those sorts of things.)

-They generally don’t know their Bible worth squat. (Ask any of them to cite the beatitudes or the 10 commandments.)

-They know zip about their own history.

-Most of them know zip about other denominations and next to zip about the theology of their own branch.

-They know zip about other faiths.

-Knowing zip, they then roundly condemn everyone else.

That’s a very short list. Books could be written. The Bible would be one such book.

3) What's the most unattractive thing about God? And why?


I’ll assume you mean BibleGod.

-He murders babies for things their parents did.

-He tells his people to kill whole villages but save the virgins for themselves.

-He supposedly communicates to the world with a 2000 year old mythology text even though he supposedly has infinite power to do better.

-He’s incredibly inconsistent and contradictory.

-He’s uncaring, unloving, inattentive, bad-tempered, petty….

All those I derive straight from the Bible. Again, this is a very short list.

4) Do you find pure reason or personal experience to be valid in making belief decisions? Both? Neither?


Both. “Pure reason” doesn’t happen much. We humans unfortunately get reasoning cluttered by experience (or inexperience), prejudice, emotion, digestion, and other factors. Experience of course is necessary in decision-making. Just try to imagine making a decision without consulting your experience. (It’s oxymoronic.) The trick is to apply the correct parts of your experience, and to avoid applying things that clutter reason.

5) What do you think of the concepts of "free will" and "choice"?


We must believe in ‘free will’; we have no choice. J

For me it’s always been simple. As far as I can perceive, I have the ability to weigh options and decide on matters. That’s free will. I cannot see how it’s predetermined. If someone wants to insist that things are predetermined, that’s his/her problem. I have the free will ability to ignore such silliness.

6) If God were to "show up", what would be the most reasonable response, in your opinion?



Ask him what he expects of me now that he’s shown up.

Finally, why the DC Wager?

It’s really a sort of response to quadrant four of Pascal’s wager. That’s that part of Pascal’s wager that posits, “God exists, so you’d better believe.”

I think it's great (and it probably accounts for the warm welcome I've gotten) but it doesn't make any sense to me.

If you’re familiar with the concept of ‘enlighten self-interest’, think that way. We mostly all want the same, basic things out of life: food, shelter, clothing, health, care, friends, maybe some spare time and something interesting to do with it, happiness, etc. The best way to get it is to help others get it too. That amounts to being a “good person”. If there’s a deity waiting to judge as at the end, it makes no difference. Being “good” is the best course anyway.

Hope that helps makes sense relative to the rest of what you brought up.

Leo, I'm really interested in hearing your story if it's similar to mine. Where do our stories diverge?

Pop over to the blog site, look in the archives for the articles “Fundy to Orthodox to Apostate” and “Praying my way to losing faith”. Those will give you most of the story.

David,

I'll start by answering your questions.

1) Did you genuinely enjoy your faith, in and of itself, at any point?
Absolutely. Growing up, our lives revolved around the church, so all of my friends and activities were integrated into my faith. I took my faith seriously and truly tried to live it in my daily life and it brought me great joy. That joy was real, even if the cause for it was hollow and empty.

2) What, if anything specific, really seems "un-Biblical" or hypocritical about Christians from an outside perspective?
This isn't a direct answer but I'll give it a shot: In order to beleive in a faith, I believe a person has to live a contradictory life. Otherwise rational, intelligent people turn off their powers of reasoning when it comes to this topic. My parents are a perfect example. Everything they do in their lives fall into the category of doing what makes sense. They are very grounded, common sense type people. But when it comes to their faith, they're willing to accept a story about a magical being who walked the earth two thousand years ago and other similar fairy tales.

3) What's the most unattractive thing about God? And why?
The fact that there isn't a single piece of evidence that one exists. The idea of a god is extremely appealing. I'd love to think that one existed. Then again, I'd also love to believe that my favorite super hero exists too. But really, the most unattractive thing about the christian god is the fact that he created humans to please him and praise him. Seems a little egotistical and un-biblical to me!

4) Do you find pure reason or personal experience to be valid in making belief decisions? Both? Neither?
What else is there? Reason and observation are the only two things that we have. They go hand in hand. Each is useless without the other.

5) What do you think of the concepts of "free will" and "choice"?
Not sure what your asking here. As animals, we have free will and choice to do as we please. We usually choose to give up some of that freedom to be part of a civil society.

6) If God were to "show up", what would be the most reasonable response, in your opinon?
I would be in awe, as I think most people would be. I'd have a lot of questions and be extraordinarly curious. Of course, I'd need proof that he was a god or that he was THE god. As an agnostic, I leave the door open for the possibility that a god exists. However, even if one existed, how does a person get from there to believing in a specific religion? Belief in a god and belief in a specific religion are very seperate things.


Now I have a question for you. On what basis do you have your discussions with your agnostic/atheist friends? In my experiences, it's impossible to have a reasonable, rational discussion with someone who's final argument always boils down to "faith." A debate between a person of faith and a person of reason will always be a completely lopsided affair. Now, if you just like to engage in discussions for the sake of curiousity...good for you. But watch out, that leads to a road that results in you posting your deconversion story on online forums!

Hi David,

It's interesting to meet a reformed Christian here. Except in specific circles that I've since left, I rarely encounter anyone claiming (or admitting to) reformation theology. I was also a reformed Christian, because it seemed to be the most consistant Christian position. (If it doesn't make sense that I would demand logic about god without demanding proof for the existance of god, I suppose the easiest answer is that being raised in the church creates blind spots). Granted, that god did not seem particularly "good" by any human standard, but goodness paled in the face of consistancy, and after all, I was on the winning side. I also adjusted my emotional personality in a somewhat unpleasant way to match my theology. Not only were most people going to hell, but they had no way to help themselves, and were completely dependent on god to give them faith. Furthermore, their judgment would be a source of god's glory insofar as it demonstrated his perfect justice, so that the Christian should rejoice in god's justice. In response to this knowledge which was almost intolerable, I became very unsympathetic to other people, who only existed for god's glory. How can goodness in this life have a meaning when it's directed toward vessels of god's wrath?

As I was deconverting, my first conclusion, due to inability to believe, was that I truly was predestined to hell. If you could know such a thing, what should you do? Praise god for demonstrating his justice through you? Seems effed up. I concluded this because I prayed for faith, I begged for faith, but it eluded me, and the only answer that I had was that god was withholding faith because I wasn't chosen. Now, as an ex-Christian, I'm an atheistic agnostic- unbelieving in Christianity or any major religion, agnostic toward non-dogmatic Deism.

I have two problems with Christian "hypocrisy". The first, as has already been mentioned, is how Christians are no better in behavior and do not have happier lives than non-Christians. That doesn't mean that all Christians are bad people- but both their good and bad behaviors are found in non-Christians. There are a lot of passages in the Bible about recognizing god through the lives of Christians- everyone that loveth is born of god and knoweth god; he who loveth not, knoweth not god for god is love. What can it mean for Christians when their lives completely fail to demonstrate anything that I and other unbelieves lack? Nor do I desire to live forever. So the only thing left for Christianity to tangibly offer to me is the fear of hell, and even most Christians have contempt for those who are only involved with the religion to escape a punishment.

The second problem is that god does nothing to purify his church from those who defame his name. This does not seem characteristic of the Bible god at all- that god is extremely jealous of his name. He punishes those, even within the early Christian church, who threaten to tarnish his reputation. And then suddenly he goes hands off for 1900 years? Why the disconnect? I realize that there are explanations about why the mechanisms of the early church were different, but this seems more like a theological difference.

When I was at the end of my time in Christianity, the elder whose leadership I was under hung me out to dry, and when another member called him to accountability, he dodged it. And yet while I was a Christian, I failed to realize that he was such a person. My very Christian parents heard him speak and thought he was oh so godly. And he's still there at Blacksburg Christian Fellowship, preaching and having no intention of making amends. When this happened, I was in a cycle of attempting to believe, trying and trying. If he'd not cast me off in an unbiblical way, it's very likely that I would have attempted to come back to the church, because I was nothing if not stubborn. God could have used that event to return me to fellowship. (Do understand though that I am not an unbeliever now because I am angry at the church or someone in the church, it was merely the impetus to finally "come out"). What are the options- either the holy spirit doesn't care to convict him about how he hurt me or he's actively suppressing the holy spirit? About 20 other people were aware of what happened as well, although I consider that most of the blame should fall on the person whose job it is to care for his parishoners. And most other people that I know, both Christians and non-Christians, have similar stories of trouble in their churches. The Christians brush it off with "no one's perfect", yet these troubles defame god's name over and over, the god who was willing to strike two people dead for lying to the church about money. It seems that this god neither purifies his people so that they embody the fruits of the spirit, nor purifies his church so that it is a place of true refuge, charity, and worship. If god wants to prove himself, for me to be satisfied, he doesn't need to heal amputees or write his name across the sky, he needs only to do the things he promised for his own people. When I see a unified church filled with loving people, that is how I will know that Christianity is the right belief to follow.

@Everybody: Thanks so much for answering those questions. Loved the responses. Leo, thanks for the explanation of the DC Wager. Makes a lot more sense. I think I get where you guys are coming from now.

@AndrewMT: Usually it's in the context of two guys getting together over a cup of coffee to talk about how the world works. Sometimes it's politics, sometimes sports. Often it heads to the philosophical, scientific or spiritual. Most of them are ex-Christians and left the church for one reason or another, be it crappy church leadership, wack charasmatic experiences, ineffectual teaching and lack of growth, or just not finding the kinds of answers they were looking for.

I read an Aristotle quote that went something like, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Even though I don't agree with all of their (or your) assertions about God and the meaning of it all, I still find a lot of significance in those views.

First off, from believing in a God (we'll let that mean the Christian God) I see every person as being made in the image of that God [Genesis 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 11:7 (don't take the second verse as sexist; there's more to it than that)]. Seeing God as a being gracious enough to give us minds capable of reasoning these things, to me, glorifies Him. We may disagree on what the end of these thoughts are but the means of them, to some extent, points me to my Creator. All that theology aside, I genuinely enjoy discussing these things way more than celebrity crap, the news, politics, sports, girls or anything else.

I also agree with many of your complaints against Christians and the church. If at all possible, I try to right any kinds of wrongs in terms of teaching, theology or meaning for things. When Jesus said to 'love thy neighbor' I take it more as a command than an explanation of an impulse when dealing with the typical Bible Belt Christian. If I can do nothing more than show that Christians who (a) actually read and know their Bible, (b) investigate their theology, and (c) put their faith up to the hard questions are worth your time or respect then I feel I've done a good job.

Andrew, I think I understand what you're saying in terms of faith vs reason arguments. I can't stand it when anyone (especially pastors) feel they have carte blanche to pull out the, "well it just comes down to faith [, son]" and feel like they done anyone a service.

This may not be the time or place, but it really comes down to glory, not faith, as the end of the argument. The faith one is too people-centric, rather than being God-centric.

I also just genuinely enjoy the banter here and how thoughtfully you guys deal with your lives and what you think of the divine. I'd love to learn about you guys, have you guys learn about me and teach me (whether you know it or not) how to be a better person--not just a better 'Christian'.

@luthieneponine: I'm really sorry to hear about that experience with an elder. Truthfully, I've heard nothing but good things about BCF--I'm a Blacksburg resident and a student there. Did you go to Virginia Tech or Radford? I attend Grace Covenant Presbyterian Church. It's way more traditional than anything else I've ever experienced but their church is a real family--flaws and all. It really is unique. But I'm genuinely sorry that you had to go through that at BCF. I hope that was really just an abberation and not a more serious problem.

As for the 1900 year gap, I don't know if I have a great answer for that. All I can think is that it may be worth looking in what is going on in the faith outside the borders of the US. There are many more Acts-style churches with ridiculous things happening in them outside this country. I'm very skeptical of that stuff but some of it is a little bit too real for even me to doubt (and I'm about as cynical as you can get on those things). A book I read once relayed a story from a missions board who said something to this effect: "We don't tell those stories in America because people doubt them and it ends up hurting their faith. It isn't constructive." Just about any time Jesus healed someone or so-and-so was struck down it was in an instance when doing so would have 'proved God's existance' and faith would have been increased. If God is truly attempting to draw people to Himself, I don't see it as that crazy that He would do crazy things in receptive places and not do them in cynical, skeptical places.

What do you think?

Hey David, welcome to the site. Thought I'd take a whack at your questions.

1) Did you genuinely enjoy your faith, in and of itself, at any point? I enjoyed it when I was a child and a teenager.
2) What, if anything specific, really seems "un-Biblical" or hypocritical about Christians from an outside perspective? No unity. There are so many denominations, traditions and schools of thought in Christianity it seems so very human, nothing divine.
3) What's the most unattractive thing about God? And why? God's cruelty. As for why, an eternal hell, impossible standards, and behavior that we'd call barbaric and psychopathic in a human.
4) Do you find pure reason or personal experience to be valid in making belief decisions? Both? Neither? Mainly reason but there is definitely a place for personal experience.
5) What do you think of the concepts of "free will" and "choice"? I'm going to assume you're asking in the context of Christianity, okay? If you're asking a more generalized question let me know. Free will is impossible with an omnimax god. Same with choice. I think its more just an apologetics excuse to try to bring all the disparate parts of the Christian faith together.
6) If God were to "show up", what would be the most reasonable response, in your opinon? Wow you do exist. I don't think I'd worship the Christian god though. More likely run off screaming "He's real, give up all hope."

@luthieneponine: I'm really sorry to hear about that experience with an elder. Truthfully, I've heard nothing but good things about BCF--I'm a Blacksburg resident and a student there. Did you go to Virginia Tech or Radford? I attend Grace Covenant Presbyterian Church. It's way more traditional than anything else I've ever experienced but their church is a real family--flaws and all. It really is unique. But I'm genuinely sorry that you had to go through that at BCF. I hope that was really just an abberation and not a more serious problem.

As for the 1900 year gap, I don't know if I have a great answer for that. All I can think is that it may be worth looking in what is going on in the faith outside the borders of the US. There are many more Acts-style churches with ridiculous things happening in them outside this country. I'm very skeptical of that stuff but some of it is a little bit too real for even me to doubt (and I'm about as cynical as you can get on those things). A book I read once relayed a story from a missions board who said something to this effect: "We don't tell those stories in America because people doubt them and it ends up hurting their faith. It isn't constructive." Just about any time Jesus healed someone or so-and-so was struck down it was in an instance when doing so would have 'proved God's existance' and faith would have been increased. If God is truly attempting to draw people to Himself, I don't see it as that crazy that He would do crazy things in receptive places and not do them in cynical, skeptical places.

I went to Virginia Tech, and also heard nothing but good about BCF while I was there. However, it struck me that one reason you hear nothing but good about a church can be because they're unwilling to let bad things be dealt with unless that bad thing is about to cause a noisy scandal. A case like mine could easily be pushed under the rug. And what it made me realize was that in every church I've been in, similar things have happened. They seem pretty insignificant to the faithful- it was just assumed that if someone stopped coming to church (especially if they were "in sin") then they would be back if god convicted them... When you notice that someone hasn't been to church in a few weeks, do you call to see if they need anything, even if you're not that close to them? I've certainly been guilty as a church member... but if god looks after his own church, surely he would have the holy spirit convict other Christians to help their own? So it's easy for Christians to call it an abberation, dismiss it as a few backslidden people who aren't right with god- and as for their own failings, hey no one's perfect- yet if god is so in control that he knows every hair on your head, much less the problems of every church member, then it is in fact a serious problem.

As for god drawing people to himself in receptive places, many miracles in the early church were worked in places where the people were not particlarly receptive. Some who were at Pentacost accused the apostles of being drunk. After a miracle at Lystra, even after preaching about Jesus, Barnabus and Paul could barely keep the crowd from sacrificing to them and then they were stoned by the very people who'd witnessed the miracle- not exactly receptive. In fact, despite several miracles that Paul did that were supposedly witnessed by a good number of people, his detractors continued not only disbelieving his message but actively persecuting him. It also suggests to me that god plays a numbers game. Not enough people in America would be convinced by evidence of his existance, so the ones who would be aren't worth revealing himself for.

However, the evidence of god that I requested of god was not a physical manifestation of miraculous power, but that I would be given faith and internal evidence of god's love. The lack of an answer may not be proof of the non-existance of god, although it set me down a path of exploration that led me to the conclusion that the Christian god is not real- but it is surely enough to have good reason to not become a Christian.

@luthiene: What do you think about other ideas or concepts about a divine being (i.e. Allah/Islam, Deism, Pantheism/Universalism, Hinduism/Pantheon-like Concepts, or anything else)?

@Blue: I actually did mean in a more generalized context--my fault. Should have specified that. I'd agree that when some of the basic characteristics of the Christian God (omniscience, -presense, -potence, etc.) are taken to their natural end that truly libertarian free will is not really possible.

What about with where you're at right now? What do you think about the ideas of choice and fate in the context of your understand of how this crazy universe works?

What about with where you're at right now? What do you think about the ideas of choice and fate in the context of your understand of how this crazy universe works?

Fate is a meaningless concept to me. Choice in the way you're asking isn't really a question with my way of looking at the world. I do assume you're talking about choosing something in regards to Christianity, right? I'm an atheist, why would I think there is any choice for a god I find no evidence of existing.

Good questions!

@luthiene: What do you think about other ideas or concepts about a divine being (i.e. Allah/Islam, Deism, Pantheism/Universalism, Hinduism/Pantheon-like Concepts, or anything else)?

I have basically the same problems with Islam as I do with Christianity, minus the personal experiences. I suppose that I could try calling out to Allah and asking for faith, but by this point I have so many problems with things found in the Koran and in the practice of the religion that I'm not sure that's a viable option.

I have no particular problem with Deism or its believers, but I don't find that there's any compelling reason to believe in such a god either. Such a being can not be proven or disproven, and it seems that there's little reason to do either.

Universalism- if there's any evidence for god, I think that it's found in the way that people of all different religions and beliefs have spiritual experiences. A non-dogmatic friend of mine described a spiritual experience accompanied by a great feeling of love... and for every religion, there are those who appear to get something wonderful but completely personal out of it. However, this does not indicate that any particular religion is "the one right way" or that god has one specific set of instructions for all people, or that these personal experiences can be generalized in any way.

I don't know a lot about Hinduism. I know that Westernized Krishna consciousness is subject to the same abuses as other religions in many ways that have been well-documented. As far as any physical interference in the universe by such beings, this has the same problems as any godly physical interference.

Basically, the more tenets surrounding a god, the more we have to question the validity of the claims. The Christian god, particularly the fundamentalist Christian god (but your Calvinist god too), is largely based on the concept of the inerrancy of the Bible. When contradictions, unfilfilled prophecies, and other discrepencies are found in the Bible, it makes it an unreliable foundation upon which to judge that everyone who doesn't believe in a certain way will go to hell. More vague gods are impossible to disprove, but I see no reason why I should go searching after one if one exists. I have love in my life, joy and peace. I have a really happy life. I try to minimize the harm that I cause to others. I don't need a religion to have those things. So after years of searching for a god and not receiving an answer, desparate to hear one's voice to the point that I almost caused myself physical harm, I now think that if a god has something to add to my peaceful life, then he can reveal himself to me.

@Blue: Maybe I'm just saying all this incorrectly or it's just hard to understand. Here's where I'm coming from: if we assume no divine being then we look at a world 'governed' or 'driven by' evolutionary causes (essentially, "survival of the fittest"). Things get done because of other evolutionary forces driving them. You eat too many ham sandwiches and you will be driven to eat peanut butter sandwiches instead. Whether it's to correct a protein imbalance or simply to center one's palate and avoid dependence on the ham--I'd like to think it's because PB&J is simply better--is immaterial. Our bodies are constructed in a way to temper themselves or addict themselves in an evolutionary way. We have innate desires and impulses that drive us to act or choose in different ways.

Whatever you want to define as the origin of that ongoing evolutionary process isn't the primary focus here. As this engine runs there is a Butterfly Effect of sorts using every decision to impact the ones that will follow. This is, in a sense, Determinism.

As we experience the present, we see apparent choices in front of us--do I make a ham or a peanut butter and jelly sandwich?--and we jump to the conclusion of us having truly libertarian free will. "I choose ham! The world didn't see that one coming." In reality, we had limitations on our choices to begin with. Determinism lead us to a place where we only could choose only ham or PB&J. Turkey, in this illustration, wasn't an option for whatever reason. This is what is called "Free Agency." We have choice, but with constraits.

But if we take Determinism to its logical end, even our present choices and the deliberations that lead us to them are parts of this system working itself out. They aren't purely our own present creations but rather products of sum total of all that has happened through the past. (Once we get to this point, we're not far from a Calvinist's view on how God works, ironically enough.)

That's a whole lot of stuff. I don't mean for a second to try to tear you apart and tell you exactly what you should believe. I've tried to examine this thought process again to see any obvious holes in it but please tell me where your views differ from mine. I just got frustrated by my asking obtuse questions and figured I'd put it all on the table and ask for your opinions. So, what are your thoughts?

@luthiene: You're absolutely right in much of our knowledge of God being taken from the assumption of the credibility of the Bible. I tend to see much of the evidence pointing to its credibility. No doubt, you see the opposite in it. We could spout statistics and dates at eachother but I don't think that would help either of us.

It sounds a lot like your criticisms of systems of belief are based on the 'humanness' of them, which is definitely a legitimate claim. Do you think there is a sensible way to find or relate to God without the presense of human corruption?

@Dloughin
Thanks for actually coming out and asking what you really want to know. I find endless circling tiring. And don't worry about trying to tear me apart with determinism. I don't find it that big of a deal honestly.

Basically when it comes to determinism I subscribe to a limited determinism and limited free will. Because of random fluctuations with that lovable scamp of the universe, quantum theory, true determinism becomes impossible to use to fully predict future actions. An infinite system can never be pre-determined.

On the other hand I can't choose to do anything I want just out of my own will. I'll never fly to the moon, breathe underwater, marry a supermodel (for starters my wife would kill me) just because I decide to. So my freewill is limited.

But all this to my way of looking at the world doesn't really matter. I'm never going to see all the many paths that existence took to set me up for my turkey sandwich. That has no effect on my life now since I can see that my actions will determine things in the present and the future. What do I care if this was truly determined when the singularity expanded? Or when my primate ancestor started walking? There probably is no grand purpose to all of existence, but I can create meaning for myself even if there is one that I can't know. I'm an absurdist if you know what that means.

I'm not going to worry about something that may be determined at such a low level of causality that I can't see it. Determinism does not imply fatalism. It rather shows us that we do determine our future. Our good desires cause good, our bad desires cause us to do bad. We can't stop disasters like say 9/11, but we can set up emergency responses, methods to prevent further disasters.

You may enjoy this paper that I referenced to refresh myself on the whole determinism debate. http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Free-Will-Determinism.htm

Now I'd like to turn around and ask you about your thoughts on determinism since you didn't really list what your views are as far as I can see.

Blue

@luthiene: You're absolutely right in much of our knowledge of God being taken from the assumption of the credibility of the Bible. I tend to see much of the evidence pointing to its credibility. No doubt, you see the opposite in it. We could spout statistics and dates at eachother but I don't think that would help either of us.

It sounds a lot like your criticisms of systems of belief are based on the 'humanness' of them, which is definitely a legitimate claim. Do you think there is a sensible way to find or relate to God without the presense of human corruption?

I agree that spouting statistics and dates would not benefit either of us.

If it sounds like my criticism of religion is based on 'humanness', then I think that I've given the wrong impression of my beliefs in this thread. Asking if I think there's a sensible way to find God without human corruption isn't really a question that I can answer because I don't believe that there are any gods. I am definitely NOT "spiritual but not religious" or anything like that.

Regarding the existance of creator gods, I am throughly agnostic. I'm a hard agnostic. Not only is it impossible to know anything "before"/outside of space-time but space-time is necessary in able to talk about causes and effects. It can't be proved that there was no creator of the universe... but there's no particular reason to imagine that there should be one either. To say that the universe must have had a cause is using space-time causal relationships to explain something outside of space-time.

So going from agnosticism about creator/first cause gods, there are two options if there is a god. Either he (or she or they) is a god that interferes physically in the universe or he does not. There are problems with a being outside the universe interfering with physical quantities within the universe. Laws of conservation and reaction must be broken or changed. It's possible to define a god to say he has such absolute power that he can negate physical laws at the point where he makes a change, but there would have to be pretty strong evidence for it to make sense to make a definition that goes against the observed properties of physical laws. That's FSM stuff.

At this point, it does make some sense to investigate the claims of specific religions. A religion claiming a god that physically alters the universe automatically has more to prove than a religion that claims that god only works "spiritually". It's only when one is claiming that god does not interfere in the physical universe in any tangible way, but is only a spiritual/psychic force that arguments against belief should be based on the "humanness" of the system. In this case, evidence for a particular god must be made from internal evidence. And then it can be seen that internal evidence does appear for a variety of people, but this internal evidence isn't consistent or dealing with one god/belief system.

However, Christianity claims both spiritual evidence and physical interference, so that I think it's useful to point out contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible, lack of physical evidence, the fallicy of the cosmological argument, and lack of spiritual evidence. I think that they all work together, but I am definitely not saying "religion didn't work for me, so it must be wrong". In my experience, Christians can always find some argument for why there's a one in a million chance that something seemingly contradictory could have happened in a certain way (Judas hung himself and then the rope broke, Jesus ascended twice, God incited the devil to get David to take a census), and then claim that if you'll just have faith, it will all make sense. So I find it worthwhile to point out that I first came to Christianity as someone desperately wanting to believe, tearfully begging for faith, which never materialized, and not as a natural skeptic wanting to tear down your beliefs. And if the culmination of your religion is in personal faith, then personal reasons for unbelief belong at the end of the list of reasons to reject religion. There's no more evidence for believing in spirituality or a non-religious way of relating to god than there is for Christianity, it's just impossible to disprove claims that don't extend beyond fuzzy feelings.