Christians: why do you believe?

[DMB]

When I was reading Lisa's posts in this thread (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=261), she seemed to me to be telling us what she believed rather than the grounds for the belief. I wondered what those grounds were.

Now it's obviously difficult for any of us to explain exactly why we believe something, but I would really appreciate some explanations from Christians about why they think they believe what they do. I suggest a few questions to get going:


Did you start believing in Christianity as a child?
How have your beliefs changed over time?
Do you find any aspects of orthodox doctrine hard to accept?
Do you ever experience doubt about Christianity?
What do you think are the essentials of your Christian belief?
What was the main factor in convincing you of their truth?
Have you seriously considered other religions?

[Lisa0315]

When I was reading Lisa's posts in this thread (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=261), she seemed to me to be telling us what she believed rather than the grounds for the belief. I wondered what those grounds were.

Now it's obviously difficult for any of us to explain exactly why we believe something, but I would really appreciate some explanations from Christians about why they think they believe what they do. I suggest a few questions to get going:


Did you start believing in Christianity as a child?
How have your beliefs changed over time?
Do you find any aspects of orthodox doctrine hard to accept?
Do you ever experience doubt about Christianity?
What do you think are the essentials of your Christian belief?
What was the main factor in convincing you of their truth?
Have you seriously considered other religions?


I first believed at age five.
They have gone from adoration to fear.
I find the orthodox doctrine of hell and eternal punishment hard to accept.
I doubt Christianity all the time.
The essentials are that God loves us despite our sins. He provided a means for reconcilliation.
The main factor of convincing me was indoctrination as a child and chemical inbalances my whole life.
No, I have not seriously considered other religions.

Lisa

[DMB]

Is there any reason why, from where you are now, you would not consider other religions?

(I'm sure that your fundie indoctrination taught you how inferior they were, but perhaps now you might think about it?)

[Lisa0315]

Is there any reason why, from where you are now, you would not consider other religions?

(I'm sure that your fundie indoctrination taught you how inferior they were, but perhaps now you might think about it?)

I would be an atheist before I believed anything else.

[Ray Moscow]

I'm sort of a practising Taoist, although I don't really take its "doctrines" as any more than symbolic. Taken literally it quickly descends into woo-woo.

Same for Buddhism, IMO. Some good ideas, some good practices, but it heads down woo-woo alley if one isn't careful.

Yoga, too. Some good stuff, but also some wacko ideas mixed in.

[Joykins]

[LIST]
Did you start believing in Christianity as a child?

Yes. And it was very much a positive experience.

How have your beliefs changed over time?


They have grown more sophisticated as I've merged the worldview of the religious with the worldview of a person who studies a lot of subjects.


Do you find any aspects of orthodox doctrine hard to accept?

Sure. The hardest part is always the part about being good, though :p Probably the most unusal thing is that I'm agnostic about the afterlife.



Do you ever experience doubt about Christianity?

Sometimes.


What do you think are the essentials of your Christian belief?


<Karl Barth>Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so.</Karl Barth>

God is good and just and (even if the natural world is not if not particularly always free of evil and suffering). God is loving and this is demonstrated by his willingness to become one of us and suffer like one of us, because the Divine needs empathy, and sometimes you have to get down with people in order to bring them up out of the evil that we sometimes perpetuate.

God forgives sins.

Life conquers death.

Love your neighbor as yourself. Love your enemy (this is the one that's hard to do).


What was the main factor in convincing you of their truth?


I support the principles above and find the stories compelling.


Have you seriously considered other religions?

I have considered them but not seriously. I see a great deal of good in some strains of some other religions, but I am not super-well-educated in all the details of other religions. I do not think all strains of Christianity are an unmitigated positive, either.

[DMB]

Thanks for the answers. I wonder how old you were when you became aware of other religions.

When I went to live in Singapore at the age of 11 I first really became aware of different beliefs and it was one of the factors that led to my disbelief in any religion. Before that, I had only come across christianity.

[Joykins]

Thanks for the answers. I wonder how old you were when you became aware of other religions.

When I went to live in Singapore at the age of 11 I first really became aware of different beliefs and it was one of the factors that led to my disbelief in any religion. Before that, I had only come across christianity.

My paternal relatives are mostly Jewish so I was aware of at least some alternatives early on. And when I was 14 and we moved, nearly all world religions were represented in my very diverse high school.

[Tod]

I'm sort of a practising Taoist, although I don't really take its "doctrines" as any more than symbolic. Taken literally it quickly descends into woo-woo.

Same for Buddhism, IMO. Some good ideas, some good practices, but it heads down woo-woo alley if one isn't careful.

Yoga, too. Some good stuff, but also some wacko ideas mixed in.

I have to say, if I was forced to pick an organized religion, it would be Buddhism hands down. I have a lot of respect for many elements of that religion, even though I ultimately think they are wrong in their ideas of reincarnation and cosmic karma (social karma, on the other hand).

However, since I am best described as a naturalistic pantheist, I have my own round about belief in reincarnation; instead of the "soul" I don't believe in, I perceive the universe as "reincarnating" into various forms, of which I am but one of countless. Not really a belief so much as a statement of the obvious, but I get a somewhat "spiritual" feeling and sense of connectedness when considering the fact that the carbon in my body was probably once in a tree, a dinosaur, and ultimately a star, and so I give it a quasi-religious name to emphasize the strength of that perception. Buddhism would certainly, for me, be the easiest jump from naturalism to supernaturalism.

[beamishboy]

When I was reading Lisa's posts in this thread (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=261), she seemed to me to be telling us what she believed rather than the grounds for the belief. I wondered what those grounds were.

Now it's obviously difficult for any of us to explain exactly why we believe something, but I would really appreciate some explanations from Christians about why they think they believe what they do. I suggest a few questions to get going:


Did you start believing in Christianity as a child?
How have your beliefs changed over time?
Do you find any aspects of orthodox doctrine hard to accept?
Do you ever experience doubt about Christianity?
What do you think are the essentials of your Christian belief?
What was the main factor in convincing you of their truth?
Have you seriously considered other religions?



Did you start believing in Christianity as a child?

Yes. An altar boy since 6. I just accepted my faith as a matter of course. I believed from the moment I had consciousness.

How have your beliefs changed over time?

A lot. Now, I don't believe many things such as miracles, prayers, etc. I take religion to be more cultural. I believe there's a God in a parallel reality which explains why there's ABSOLUTELY no evidence of him in the physical world.

Do you find any aspects of orthodox doctrine hard to accept?

Orthodox doctrines usually try to push God into our world but I know there's no such thing.

Do you ever experience doubt about Christianity?

Yes.

What do you think are the essentials of your Christian belief?

To do unto others what you want others to do unto you.

What was the main factor in convincing you of their truth?

The inherent goodness of such a precept that teaches us to be compassionate and kind to those around us.

Have you seriously considered other religions?

No because they're so foreign to me. I don't believe in fanaticism and to take the trouble to get converted into an alien religion implies that one must be quite a fanatic in order to do that. My own religion is benign enough to allow me to have my own ideas about it. Besides, there is no compulsion to accept orthodox doctrines. I can imagine if I were to be a Muslim, the zealots might take me to be a heretic (they probably would) and might even kill me.

[Brother Daniel]

To do unto others what you want others to do unto you.
So would you then apply the label "Christian" to anyone who agrees with this principle? Even if they don't believe in God?

That would be a very weird, non-standard, use of the word "Christian".

(I'm just trying to figure out why that is your complete answer to a question about the "essentials" of Christianity as you see it.)

[beamishboy]

So would you then apply the label "Christian" to anyone who agrees with this principle? Even if they don't believe in God?

That would be a very weird, non-standard, use of the word "Christian".

(I'm just trying to figure out why that is your complete answer to a question about the "essentials" of Christianity as you see it.)

No I wouldn't if the person merely agrees with the principle. He's got to put it into practice.

[Ray Moscow]

But this principle predates Christianity and arose in several cultures, apparently independently. It's not distinctly Christian.

[Christina]

What about the people who put it into practice but aren't christians or even theists?

ETA: What Ray said

[David B]

So are you suggesting that someone who puts that into practise and also thinks that Jesus was a cult leader with no supernatural powers, and whose reported teaching - unless cherry picked - ranges from the good through the impractical to the downright nasty, is a Christian?

David

[Brother Daniel]

He's got to put it into practice.
Every moment? Always? Without deviation? (Is anyone a Christian?)

Or just "mostly"?

Either way, there doesn't seem to be any correlation (positive or negative) between (a) being "Christian" by any conventional definition and (b) putting the Golden Rule into practice. So my comment still stands: You seem to be making a really weird definition.

Making up your own definitions tends to make communication difficult.

[DMB]

To be fair, I think BB is in a state of flux and still working out what he does and does not believe.

[beamishboy]

But this principle predates Christianity and arose in several cultures, apparently independently. It's not distinctly Christian.

No problem. Christ is not a racist. Confuscius has something like that, so I'm told. A rose by any other name still smells as sweet. And it doesn't matter one bit if you don't wish to call it Christianity. The name does not matter.

[beamishboy]

What about the people who put it into practice but aren't christians or even theists?

ETA: What Ray said

No problem again. It'd be pretty narrow-minded and hidebound to say that one must BELIEVE in something specific to be a Christian. As if believing is all so important. Christ says that we should be DOERS of the word. Fundies who talk about belief alone are trying to have an easy way out for themselves and they probably just delight in a division from those who don't believe.

[beamishboy]

So are you suggesting that someone who puts that into practise and also thinks that Jesus was a cult leader with no supernatural powers, and whose reported teaching - unless cherry picked - ranges from the good through the impractical to the downright nasty, is a Christian?

David

I'm not alone in that view. But of course much depends on the DEFINITION of Christianity. If church attendance is required in that definition, then of course he wouldn't be a Christian. But if you are thinking of what Christ says, it's different. Remember the story of how he'd divide people into two groups. What did he say to the "good" group? That they helped the poor, fed the hungry, visited the prisoners, etc. Did he ONCE say that they believed correctly or believed he was the Lord or God or Son of God? Fundamentalists may have placed emphasis on the wrong things.

[beamishboy]

Every moment? Always? Without deviation? (Is anyone a Christian?)

Or just "mostly"?

Either way, there doesn't seem to be any correlation (positive or negative) between (a) being "Christian" by any conventional definition and (b) putting the Golden Rule into practice. So my comment still stands: You seem to be making a really weird definition.

Making up your own definitions tends to make communication difficult.

As to whether it should be ALWAYS and without deviation, nobody really knows. My personal guess is that do you allow that principle to be your rule of thumb. Of course there will always be exceptions.

As I've shown, the definitions were made by Christ himself.

[Tod]

No problem again. It'd be pretty narrow-minded and hidebound to say that one must BELIEVE in something specific to be a Christian. As if believing is all so important. Christ says that we should be DOERS of the word. Fundies who talk about belief alone are trying to have an easy way out for themselves and they probably just delight in a division from those who don't believe.

On the one hand, I can't help but think that it doesn't make sense to call somebody a Christian just because they live by the Golden Rule; after all, most secular humanists would report that they try to live by the Golden Rule. On the other hand, I'm glad to see a "Christian" who says that belief is unimportant compared to works, so I'm inclined to just let you have your definition. : )

Seriously though, one of my biggest pet peeves with the majority of Christians is the fact that they believe faith trumps works, which, as I've said before, leaves you with a bunch of people more concerned with their selfish desire for salvation than doing what is right by others. If all Christians had your attitude, I don't think they'd drive me up the wall quite as bad as they do!

I've always said that if there is a God, and he's more concerned with whether people believed in him than their moral behavior, I don't want to serve much less worship him, and would rather knowingly go to hell than bow down to such a self-absorbed tyrant that doesn't even seem to be as evolved of a being as my puny, mortal, and limited self. It sounds like your concept of God is a considerably more benign and logical than Yahweh is normally portrayed (particularly in the OT); is that correct?

[David B]

I'm not alone in that view. But of course much depends on the DEFINITION of Christianity. If church attendance is required in that definition, then of course he wouldn't be a Christian.

For the early Christians there were no churches to attend.

But if you are thinking of what Christ says, it's different. Remember the story of how he'd divide people into two groups. What did he say to the "good" group? That they helped the poor, fed the hungry, visited the prisoners, etc.

Which story are you talking about? A link to chapter and verse would help.

Did he ONCE say that they believed correctly or believed he was the Lord or God or Son of God?

I'd have thought that this would fit that bill.

32: Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
33: But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
34: Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35: For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36: And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
37: He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38: And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

I tend to the view that if the Jesus Myth guys are wrong, as I suspect they are, but don't know, that he was a cult leader, who like many other cult leaders broke up families and got a lot of followers killed.

A nasty piece of work, deserving of no respect, in fact.

No matter what my works or morals, I think you'd be hard pressed to justify calling me a Christian,

Fundamentalists may have placed emphasis on the wrong things.

As might liberal Christians:D

David

[His Noodly Appendage]

You know, muslims claim that everyone is in fact a muslim, and anyone who begs to differ has merely strayed from the path. Puts me in mind of adopting dead mormons as honorary homosexuals. Cute, but cheap. Anything can be true by definition, but such truths do not constitute facts about the world.

Lisa: I understand that chemical imbalances hold your brain hostage to certain anxieties. That's entirely understandable, and I sympathise deeply.

One thing that strikes me, though: it seems terribly unlikely to me that said chemical imbalances are so very specific about the exact choice of deity they cause you to worry about.

You really need to read Quarantine, by Greg Egan. You may not be able to break the chain, but there's nothing that clearly defines just what you have to be chained to.

You have an irrational, irrepressible anxiety about being found unworthy, and punished, and that won't go away. Fair enough. I'll pay that one. But why the fuck do you pick something so sucky to fear?

Didn't you SEE Ghostbusters?

Paging the Staypuft Marshmallow Man!

Ferinstance, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a real hardass. If you don't live up to his strict expectations, you go straight on his shitlist. The damned and condemned among his charges suffer terribly: they can only visit the stripper factory once a week, and can spend no more than one hour at the beer volcano per day. For All Eternity.

Seriously. Why not fear that instead?

[Christina]

Didn't you SEE Ghostbusters?

Paging the Staypuft Marshmallow Man!

Not bad. I may come to you for material if I ever run out of my own.

[Jobar]

Pay no mind to that pasta worshiper, Lisa. They're just another cannibal cult. "Take, eat; for this is My Meatball." BLECHH!

Instead, you should worship She Whose Hooves Are Never Shod, Our Lady The Invisible Pink Unicorn, Peace Be Upon Her Holy Horn! Believe upon Her, and you can be assured of a fine cabana at the Great Beach Bash in the Sky! And the only thing you have to eat is Ham and Pineapple pizza; and hey, if you're a vegetarian, She doesn't mind if you leave off the Ham! Such a deal!
:D

OK, back to the topic. All you Christians, have you ever noticed that no one else who also calls him or herself a Christian, actually believes exactly the same things that you do about God, and Jesus? I'm not just talking about the many denominations other than the one you were raised in. Try asking your close friends in your church, your family, your pastor or priest.

An old thread on this topic worth reading is The imprecision of language and the meaning of God. (http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?p=2296292#post2296292)

[beamishboy]

On the one hand, I can't help but think that it doesn't make sense to call somebody a Christian just because they live by the Golden Rule; after all, most secular humanists would report that they try to live by the Golden Rule. On the other hand, I'm glad to see a "Christian" who says that belief is unimportant compared to works, so I'm inclined to just let you have your definition. : )

Seriously though, one of my biggest pet peeves with the majority of Christians is the fact that they believe faith trumps works, which, as I've said before, leaves you with a bunch of people more concerned with their selfish desire for salvation than doing what is right by others. If all Christians had your attitude, I don't think they'd drive me up the wall quite as bad as they do!

I've always said that if there is a God, and he's more concerned with whether people believed in him than their moral behavior, I don't want to serve much less worship him, and would rather knowingly go to hell than bow down to such a self-absorbed tyrant that doesn't even seem to be as evolved of a being as my puny, mortal, and limited self. It sounds like your concept of God is a considerably more benign and logical than Yahweh is normally portrayed (particularly in the OT); is that correct?

(Emphasis mine)

The God of the OT was not accurately portrayed in the OT. The Jews were at that time a horde of ancient nomadic foraging pillaging xenophobic tribesmen and it's to be expected that their literature would be full of the violence in their lives. Claiming that the carnage that they wreaked was ordered by God was something very common in the ancient world.

Someone else mentioned Islam that claims that everyone was born a Muslim. I think that stand is to be distinguished from mine: In Islam, X was born a Muslim even though he was born in a Jewish family. When X could understand things, X naturally became a Jew. In Islam, he has LEFT the original religion. That makes him an apostate. Strictly speaking, the Quran allows for apostates to be killed. Islam is saying a 20 year old Jew is NOT a Muslim.

I am different. I am saying a 20 year old Jew or atheist or Muslim or agnostic or anything WHO LIVES HIS LIFE with the precept of doing to others as he would others do to him and who helps the poor, the sick, etc IS A BROTHER IN CHRIST. Islam says he's not a Muslim. I say he's a Christian.

Someone also says it's like calling a dead Mormon a homosexual. I'm afraid that is incorrect. I would never go up to an atheist or a Muslim who is compassionate and kind and loving and tell him he's a Christian. That would be UNKIND of me. Maybe the name "Christian" is unfortunate because a Muslim wouldn't like to be called a Christian. American atheists hate the name too because of the aggressive fundamentalists in their midst. Christ did not use the name "Christians". He just welcomed people who fed the hungry, clothed the naked, etc. Perhaps I shouldn't say these good Muslims, Buddhists and atheists are Christians because that would be offensive. I should just say they are "welcomed" people. Just like good Christians are welcomed in similar fashion.

Someone asked for biblical quotations. Here they are:

It's in Matthew 25:

32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Notice in verse 32 that ALL NATIONS shall be gathered before Christ. That would include Muslim nations, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, atheists, agnostics, etc. Notice also that at no point did Christ talk about belief.

[beamishboy]

OK, back to the topic. All you Christians, have you ever noticed that no one else who also calls him or herself a Christian, actually believes exactly the same things that you do about God, and Jesus? I'm not just talking about the many denominations other than the one you were raised in. Try asking your close friends in your church, your family, your pastor or priest.

An old thread on this topic worth reading is The imprecision of language and the meaning of God. (http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?p=2296292#post2296292)

Hi Jobar,

Of course you are spot on. No two Christians who are communicants in the same church can come up with the same idea about God and the Christian faith. But don't you see? It's only fundamentalists who bother about doctrines and one's concept of God. They seem to think that belief is so blooming important. But they miss the point of Christianity totally. It's not what you believe but what you do that matters. Christ says, "Be ye doers of the word, not hearers only". Elsewhere he even said there are many who will call him 'Lord' 'Lord" but he will say to them that he knows them not.

It doesn't matter if we think God is a chimpanzee, or he's in 3 persons or 5 persons or if they think God does not exist.

How does one know that someone is a Christian? Let's see what Jesus himself says:

John 13:35 "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."

Was anything said about belief?

[DMB]

BB, I assume you are aware of how difficult it is to base anything on the bible, because it is usually possible, if one is so motivated, to find contradictory bits.

I don't know how much you know about the history of Christianity. The "faith versus works" struggle was at the heart of the Reformation, although it wasn't the only bone of contention between Catholics and Protestants. Find out a bit more about Martin Luther, without whom the CofE would not exist in its present form.

But one thing that both Catholics and Protestants are agreed on is that works alone won't hack it. You need faith as a starting point. Luther gave faith primacy. Some Catholics argue that faith leads to love and that love leads to good works.

I'm a Humanist. I try to do the odd good work, but I have no faith at all. So I am damned. A Christian saying otherwise is being sentimental, along the lines of someone who claims that their dog or cat will go to heaven.

[beamishboy]

BB, I assume you are aware of how difficult it is to base anything on the bible, because it is usually possible, if one is so motivated, to find contradictory bits.

I don't know how much you know about the history of Christianity. The "faith versus works" struggle was at the heart of the Reformation, although it wasn't the only bone of contention between Catholics and Protestants. Find out a bit more about Martin Luther, without whom the CofE would not exist in its present form.

But one thing that both Catholics and Protestants are agreed on is that works alone won't hack it. You need faith as a starting point. Luther gave faith primacy. Some Catholics argue that faith leads to love and that love leads to good works.

I'm a Humanist. I try to do the odd good work, but I have no faith at all. So I am damned. A Christian saying otherwise is being sentimental, along the lines of someone who claims that their dog or cat will go to heaven.

Damned? That's an ancient word. It's absent in today's theology. The only people who would call you damned are those who carry the Bible with them everywhere they go and button up their jackets all the way for fear of showing any skin and go to a church named after the road it stands on and are probably in the Bible Belt of the Deep South.

It's not sentimentality. It's what Jesus actually said. Anyway, I don't deny that there was a time when churches were very dogmatic. There was political reason for them to defend their turf. They declared there was no salvation outside the church. That was to keep the people controlled. The faith was never meant to be like that.

[DMB]

BB, you are going to have to discount a lot of the bible to get away from the idea of damnation. I don't know where you get this idea of liberal Christians versus fundies. Yes, both exist, but they are on a spectrum. You can't speak for theologians en masse. And denying anything special about Christ, as I do, means I am damned. But cheer up! You and I are both damned by Allah anyway for refusing to accept the ideas transmitted to the last and best prophet, Muhammad.

[Joykins]

Notice also that at no point did Christ talk about belief.

Not there.

[Joykins]

Damned? That's an ancient word. It's absent in today's theology. The only people who would call you damned are those who carry the Bible with them everywhere they go and button up their jackets all the way for fear of showing any skin and go to a church named after the road it stands on and are probably in the Bible Belt of the Deep South.

It's not sentimentality. It's what Jesus actually said. Anyway, I don't deny that there was a time when churches were very dogmatic. There was political reason for them to defend their turf. They declared there was no salvation outside the church. That was to keep the people controlled. The faith was never meant to be like that.

"Damned" is the word for what happens to the goats.

[Norrin Radd]

Did you start believing in Christianity as a child?

I like to say I thought I was a Xian for almost 20 years before I actually *became* a Xian.

I was baby-baptized in "the oldest Siebenberger Saxon Lutheran church in the United States" (so the claim goes). However, we were totally non-practicing -- not even Easter and Christmas. (We celebrated the holidays, but in a mostly non-religious way.)

I attended a week of VBS ("Vacation Bible School," not "Visual Basic Studio") as a kid... um, twice I think -- once at a Free Methodist church, once at a Presby church. Maybe one at the other local Lutheran church too, not sure.

Didn't do any "churchy" stuff during my HS years, but considered myself a Christian. (I knew I was not a Jew or something exotic like Hindu, and I was certainly not an atheist -- *shudder* -- so of course I must have been Xian.) Never heard of the "born-again" sort of Xian until Jimmy Carter made them semi-famous.

First encountered born-again believers "live and in person" at college in, oh, late '79. Treated some of them rather rudely, but after a few months became one of them.



How have your beliefs changed over time?

I was "born again" at about age 19 1/2 while at college. I attended CMA churches -- basic fundygelical stuff.

Around 4 years later, I experienced what Pentecostals call "baptism in the Holy Spirit," and soon after began attending a Pentecostal church (unfortunately one that had "Word-Faith," a.k.a. "Name it and Claim it," beliefs). As I became more familiar with the Bible, I eventually became disenchanted with some of the more extreme and IMO Scripturally dubious practices and beliefs in that church.

Occasionally attended a small local Calvary Chapel until it closed.

Currently it's difficult to find a church that even reasonably approximates my beliefs. I'm orthodox on the main points, but it's hard to feel "part of" a church when you disagree with its style of worship, its emphasis on "rules and regulations," its view of women in ministry, its view on the ministry of the Spirit, its understanding and emphasis on eschatology, etc.



Do you find any aspects of orthodox doctrine hard to accept?

No. I'm sympathetic to a few notions some would consider heterodox, but I have no major complaints with traditional orthodoxy.



Do you ever experience doubt about Christianity?

No, not really. I experience "ebbs and flows" in my perception of intimacy with God, but no real "doubts."



What do you think are the essentials of your Christian belief?

1Co 15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
1Co 15:4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
1Co 15:5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.
1Co 15:6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
1Co 15:7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,
1Co 15:8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.


Rom 10:9 If you declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Rom 10:10 For one believes with his heart and is justified, and declares with his mouth and is saved.


Joh 8:24 That is why I told you that you will die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins." ...

Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, I tell all of you with certainty, before there was an Abraham, I AM!"


1Jn 4:2 This is how you can recognize God's Spirit: Every spirit who acknowledges that Jesus the Messiah has become human — and remains so — is from God.
1Jn 4:3 But every spirit who does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist. You have heard that he is coming, and now he is already in the world.




What was the main factor in convincing you of their truth?

Subjective experience and circular reasoning, to be frank. They are based on Scripture, I believe in the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of Scripture, and Scripture repeatedly emphasizes the importance of "faith" and the experience of the Spirit


Have you seriously considered other religions?[/quote]

Seriously? No. But I get a kick out of sci-fi and superheroes, so some of the religions that show up in those venues are fun.

[David B]

That's interesting, Norrin.

You seem to be one of those Christians whose certainty primarily derives from what could be called religious experience, rather than by your upbringing, or by reading the Bible under the assumptions that it somehow true (or truish, in many cases).

I find religious experiences interesting, in large part because I've had them, to the point that it led me to devote years of my life in, for want of a better word, spiritual persuits. In a non Christian context, in my case, and since then I've come to see such experiences as explicable naturalistically as experiences, rather than them being actual experience of, for want of a better word, the divine.

Maybe a religious experience thread would be a good idea:)

Interested?

David

[Notta]

I'm going to answer this because I was a staunch Christian for most of my life until a few short years ago.


Did you start believing in Christianity as a child?

Yes. One of my earliest memories is being in church with my parents. I never doubted it for almost as long as I've been alive.

How have your beliefs changed over time?
Yes. As a teenager I became much more orthodox and ended up a biblical literalist. I was much more rigid than many of my relatives. I used to think the rapture was imminent (in the early 70s) and that God spoke directly to my brain. Later, as an adult, I became somewhat more tolerant of others. As a teen and in my 20s I used to witness to strangers and try to get them to accept Jesus.

Do you find any aspects of orthodox doctrine hard to accept?
I always found it hard to accept the idea that those who heard about Christ and rejected him were doomed to hell, and so were those who hadn't heard and didn't know or believe. Why punish someone who never even knew the bible? Why punish innocent unbaptized babies?

Do you ever experience doubt about Christianity?
Never. I never had any inkling my faith could be shaken. I started doubting only when I started researching the history of the bible. And there were YEARS when I wished I had never opened that door, but continued on my non-doubting, unshakable path of blind faith.

What do you think are the essentials of your Christian belief?
Love one another; have faith that god is protecting you and has your best interests at heart; and that Christ died for our sins and if you only believe in him you'll go to heaven -- otherwise, you'll burn in hell for all eternity.

What was the main factor in convincing you of their truth?
Hell, I needed no convincing! I was attempting to convince others! I just knew that god existed and had created the world. Isn't it apparent that all the beauty and complexity in the world is directed towards making it a wonderful home for his favorite living things? [/fundie rationalization]. It rarely worked, though.

Have you seriously considered other religions?
Don't laugh at this, but I seriously considered Catholicism as an alternative to Christianity. At least the flavor of Christianity I knew (fundamentalist protestantism). I was raised to believe that Catholics weren't trueTM Christians (idol worship, Latin masses, worshiping the pope, etc.), but I never knew a Catholic who questioned his/her faith. By the time I was deconverting, a couple of my relatives had married devout catholics, and they always seemed so content in their faith and its practices. I envied them, and I knew they didn't need to heavily rely on the bible to understand their faith (unlike my brand). Once I realized that all christians were basically following the same story, one I could no longer believe, it was a short step to discovering that all religions follow a story, and no story seems more believable than the next.

I had a few hard moments this past Easter, though, as Easter was always my favorite religious holiday, and I would spend hours in church services in the two weeks leading up to Easter. Old habits are hard to shake.

[VoxRat]

...
I had a few hard moments this past Easter, though, as Easter was always my favorite religious holiday, and I would spend hours in church services in the two weeks leading up to Easter. Old habits are hard to shake.
[/LIST]I still like the music.

[SallyAnne]

Did you start believing in Christianity as a child?

Nope. But I knew about Jesus as a child. I liked and respected him as a historical personage and I enjoyed the Nativity Story and Carols at Christmas time, I liked the story and the theme.

How have your beliefs changed over time?

Radically and completely. From total unbelief in anything spiritual or religious, to belief that Jesus Christ is exactly who He says He is.

Do you find any aspects of orthodox doctrine hard to accept?

No. But I'm still in awe that Jesus Christ came and died on the Cross for us, a world in rebellion.


Do you ever experience doubt about Christianity?

Never about Jesus being who He says He is. But frequently about Christendom at large, various theologies, interpretations, and ministers or preachers, and from time to time about myself and whether I am where I am supposed to be in terms of my walk with God. And when I had depression, I did question my salvation.


What do you think are the essentials of your Christian belief?

The same as NorrinRadd and also John 14:6 feels very personal to me and is my favourite scripture:

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

1Co 15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
1Co 15:4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
1Co 15:5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.
1Co 15:6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
1Co 15:7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,
1Co 15:8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Rom 10:9 If you declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Rom 10:10 For one believes with his heart and is justified, and declares with his mouth and is saved.

Joh 8:24 That is why I told you that you will die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins." ...

Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, I tell all of you with certainty, before there was an Abraham, I AM!"

1Jn 4:2 This is how you can recognize God's Spirit: Every spirit who acknowledges that Jesus the Messiah has become human — and remains so — is from God.
1Jn 4:3 But every spirit who does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist. You have heard that he is coming, and now he is already in the world.


What was the main factor in convincing you of their truth?

Probably personal conviction, being convicted by the Holy Spirit of sin and then being born again, forgiveness from God and coming into peace with Him through Jesus Christ. I felt it. And when that happened, it's like I had a new pair of eyes and I couldn't see things the way they used to be, it was impossible because everything felt new. And I felt that my previous life, the one of unbelief, had been spent under water the whole time, and that I'd only seen and heard things through water, that everything had been blurred but now believing in Jesus made everything make sense and it was clear and brightly lit.

And the Bible came alive to me, I hadn't been able to read it properly as an unbeliever, I couldn't understand it half the time. But when I came into belief things started leaping off the pages and resonated with me inside, like it was speaking directly to me. And when I would pray for understanding if I couldn't understand a difficult concept, it would come, either one way or another. I would have a chance encounter with a Christian or I would find some resource which would confirm something, it was incredible...

I also had some scary encounters with a false teacher who pretended to be a friend, so I also became aware very early on that I had stepped into a spiritual battle ground and had to be on guard against a real spiritual enemy (Satan).

Have you seriously considered other religions?

I seriously considered many other belief systems and ideologies because I wanted to understand the nature of good and evil and I was thinking deeply about conscience and what it was. I also wanted to know what happened after death but I wanted the truth and wasn't easily convinced of any kind of "heaven" and would rather have stuck with the "when you're dead, you're dead." I didn't want to be a Christian at all and tried to avoid and run away from it, I came to faith very reluctantly and painfully because I didn't want to and was afraid to let go of everything I had believed before. I was terrified of making any leap of faith into the unknown and as faith is essentially trust, I was afraid to "trust" or "hope" in case Jesus wasn't even true and it was all baloney and I had misplaced my vulnerability.

So I wrestled with it for years, probably 5 in total, that's how long it took to research other stuff and come to terms with (or even recognise) the fact the God was trying to reach out to me. I would always put things down to coincidence, or stuff like that, but then it became to frequent and obvious and I could only so many times say to myself "oh that was just a coincidence, it means nothing." In the end it was like a jigsaw puzzle that came together and clearly pointed to Jesus Christ and I couldn't deny it any longer because it did mean something.

So during my journey I looked into many things but was never committed to take anything seriously because Jesus kept featuring everywhere even when I least expected it. I read many books, spoke to different adherents, and was strongly attracted to the New Age movement, particularly Celtic Pagan Beliefs. Not in practicing magic or anything like that, but I was interested in how Celts believed in the spiritual elements of nature. That was the only one I was seriously attracted to and although I wanted to move toward it, I kept being pulled away from it by the question of Jesus and His validity.

In the end, Jesus won and my interest toward Celtic and the New Age started to leave me. I was worried when I first became a Christian that I would not be able to let go of my interest in New Age stuff, but it left me anyway. I was quite shocked and humbled by that and thought I would have to fight it but I didn't, the attraction wasn't there anymore.

[Nohweh]

How have your beliefs changed over time?

Radically and completely. From total unbelief in anything spiritual or religious, to belief that Jesus Christ is exactly who He says He is.

Did your beliefs about capitalization in the English language change as well? I must confess I find the pious treatment of pronouns annoying. It's awkward to read and looks like preaching. At the very least, if you insist on this practice, use it consistently. ("Who" is also a pronoun.)

[JamesBannon]

and I was certainly not an atheist -- *shudder* --
What's so bad about being an atheist?

[SallyAnne]

How have your beliefs changed over time?

Radically and completely. From total unbelief in anything spiritual or religious, to belief that Jesus Christ is exactly who He says He is.

Did your beliefs about capitalization in the English language change as well? I must confess I find the pious treatment of pronouns annoying. It's awkward to read and looks like preaching. At the very least, if you insist on this practice, use it consistently. ("Who" is also a pronoun.)

Ok, thanks for the reminder, I will endeavour to use it consistently.

[Norrin Radd]

Did your beliefs about capitalization in the English language change as well? I must confess I find the pious treatment of pronouns annoying. It's awkward to read and looks like preaching. At the very least, if you insist on this practice, use it consistently. ("Who" is also a pronoun.)

The convention seems to be that the capitalization only applies to "personal" pronouns, as opposed to "indefinite" pronouns. Personally, I do tend to extend the practice to include indefinite pronouns and sometimes even to nouns that apply to Deity. And I usually reverse the process by refusing to capitalize "satan." I confess I'm not rigorously consistent about it.

Sorry it bothers you. Some people are apparently annoyed by those of us who write "God" instead of "G_d." I'm not one of the nice, polite ones who will conform to their sensitivities.

[Norrin Radd]

and I was certainly not an atheist -- *shudder* --
What's so bad about being an atheist?

Aside from the fact that they eat kitties?



Ok, in the context of my post, that was mostly expressing my sentiments of that time. I live in a small town in western PA, squarely in the "Rust Belt." I doubt if any similar-sized town in the "Bible Belt" has more churches. Before I went to college and met a few -- both of them being the stereotypical faith-mockers, but one much more aggressively and obnoxiously -- I thought they were virtually mythical beings that existed only in the products of Hollywood.

[JamesBannon]

and I was certainly not an atheist -- *shudder* --
What's so bad about being an atheist?

Aside from the fact that they eat kitties?



Ok, in the context of my post, that was mostly expressing my sentiments of that time. I live in a small town in western PA, squarely in the "Rust Belt." I doubt if any similar-sized town in the "Bible Belt" has more churches. Before I went to college and met a few -- both of them being the stereotypical faith-mockers, but one much more aggressively and obnoxiously -- I thought they were virtually mythical beings that existed only in the products of Hollywood.

I'll bet you met more than two and simply didn't realise it! Have you ever wondered why some atheists might be aggressive towards believers? Note, I'm not saying aggression is justified, just explainable.

[Nohweh]

The convention seems to be that the capitalization only applies to "personal" pronouns, as opposed to "indefinite" pronouns. Personally, I do tend to extend the practice to include indefinite pronouns and sometimes even to nouns that apply to Deity.
I doubt that is the case. Would you ever use words such as "everybody", "someone" or "many" to refer to deity? I was pointing out a relative pronoun, not indefinite pronouns.
Sorry it bothers you. Some people are apparently annoyed by those of us who write "God" instead of "G_d." I'm not one of the nice, polite ones who will conform to their sensitivities.Your heartfelt amends to my sensitivities notwithstanding, I hold to my opinion that ostentatious capitalization is more gratifying to the pride of the writer than to her desire to communicate.

[JamesBannon]

Criticising someone for their writing style is a LAME form of argumentation!

[DMB]

I don't mind if Christians sprinkle capitals around, as long as they don't expect me to do the same.

ETA I do get a bit irritated by all the "(PBUH)" etc. sprinkled around references to the prophet of Islam, but that's just me being inconsistent.

I get really annoyed, however, by "G-d". It seems ridiculous.

[Criada]

Did you start believing in Christianity as a child?

I remember believing as a very small child... much as I believed in Santa Claus. But that didn't last long.. I was agnostic by the age of about 6, and atheist by 10.

How have your beliefs changed over time?

Apart from as above, I became vaguely agnostic again at about 18, began to seriously thing 'there was something out there' shortly afterwards, and became a Christian about a year later.

Do you find any aspects of orthodox doctrine hard to accept?

The whole hell and eternal punishment thing jars.


Do you ever experience doubt about Christianity?

Yup, all the time

What do you think are the essentials of your Christian belief?

God loves us and Jesus died for us, and rose from the dead... that's about all that is essential


What was the main factor in convincing you of their truth?

Jesus.
And what I saw in a couple of Christian friends.

Have you seriously considered other religions?

Yup, I studied a lot of comparative religion from about the age of 9... my father was very determined that his children wouldn't be 'brainwashed' into accepting any one religion.
At about 18 I started to really look for truth in world religions.
In the end, Christianity was the only one that really made sense to me.

[sohy]

Criticising someone for their writing style is a LAME form of argumentation!


Yes and the word pedantic also comes to mind. :)

[SallyAnne]

I'll bet you met more than two and simply didn't realise it! Have you ever wondered why some atheists might be aggressive towards believers? Note, I'm not saying aggression is justified, just explainable.


I find that the most "aggressive" are apostate Christians rather than bonafide unbelievers who have never believed. The ones who used to believe and then fell away and now have a bucketload of resentment. Of course, that certainly isn't true in every case, just the majority of the ones I've experienced. The ones who grew up in religion and had no choice and feel that they were brainwashed. They seem the most hostile towards believers. Thinking that we are stupid, ignorant, and ridiculous to believe because they themselves found no validity in it.

But then, the Gospel is also an offense and does cause hostility in the unbeliever because it makes audacious claims which are hard to accept. When I used to be a genuine unbeliever (one who had never believed) my attitude was that I didn't mind if Christians wanted to believe it. But I felt sorry for them and regarded all religions as an emotional crutch that I personally didn't need. I thought the whole lot of it was nonsense and very much on the fringe of the majority of us but my main feeling was "live and let live" and if they want that then that's fine. But I never used to mock Christians or say nasty things to them about their beliefs, I wouldn't have dreamed of saying to them what has been said to myself since I've become a Christian.

[SallyAnne]

my father was very determined that his children wouldn't be 'brainwashed' into accepting any one religion.



yeah, my Dad felt that way too....

[David B]

I'll bet you met more than two and simply didn't realise it! Have you ever wondered why some atheists might be aggressive towards believers? Note, I'm not saying aggression is justified, just explainable.


I find that the most "aggressive" are apostate Christians rather than bonafide unbelievers who have never believed. The ones who used to believe and then fell away and now have a bucketload of resentment.

I think you might be part right, in my experience, insofar as many, though not all, do tend to dislike the religion more, seeing what it has done to them, and perhaps their families, more.

Of course, that certainly isn't true in every case, just the majority of the ones I've experienced. The ones who grew up in religion and had no choice and feel that they were brainwashed.

Yup, them, and the ones who maybe somehow want to atone for sucking others in, or trying to. I see that in myself, though not in a Christian context.

They seem the most hostile towards believers. Thinking that we are stupid, ignorant, and ridiculous to believe because they themselves found no validity in it.

Now there I think you are just flat out wrong. What I have seen leads me to think that the majority of deconverts, while being I think more than averagely hostile to the religion, are on average less than averagely hostile to the believer. They have some empathy, they have been there.

It also seems to me to be a fairly common mistake for people to interpret an attack on their beliefs, or their opinions, for an attack on the person themself.

But to attack a belief, or an opinion, is not to attack the person as a whole.

Sometimes, of course, a person as a whole can be righteously attacked, as in that bastard Snelling who lies for AiG.

but generally, if you look for it, Sally Anne, you will find that deconverts tend to be kinder to the religious person, having been there themselves, but more anti the religion.

But then, the Gospel is also an offense and does cause hostility in the unbeliever because it makes audacious claims which are hard to accept.

It makes supernatural claims without any non biblical confirmation.

It makes historical claims which evidence suggests are wrong.

That's a start. The gospels are simply not reliable documents.

When I used to be a genuine unbeliever (one who had never believed) my attitude was that I didn't mind if Christians wanted to believe it. But I felt sorry for them and regarded all religions as an emotional crutch that I personally didn't need. I thought the whole lot of it was nonsense and very much on the fringe of the majority of us but my main feeling was "live and let live" and if they want that then that's fine. But I never used to mock Christians or say nasty things to them about their beliefs, I wouldn't have dreamed of saying to them what has been said to myself since I've become a Christian.

Sometimes things really need standing up against.

Religion being one of them, to my mind, though of course some religions, and varieties of any specific religion, are more virulent than others.

But it is only rarely that I dislike or think ...bad the person who holds the belief.

I'm not the sort of guy to stand outside a church haranguing worshippers about the mistakes they are making.

But if anyone evangelises me, then their views are fair game.

And if people want to talk about their beliefs here - any belief, religious, artistic, political, scientific..... then those beliefs are up for challenge.

But it is usually the belief, not the person, who is challenged, and that is the sort of ambience that we want at SC.

To view an attack on your beliefs as being an attack on you really is a mistake. Especially, I suggest, when the attack on your beliefs comes from someone who formerly held them, or something very like them.

David

[SallyAnne]

Now there I think you are just flat out wrong. What I have seen leads me to think that the majority of deconverts, while being I think more than averagely hostile to the religion, are on average less than averagely hostile to the believer. They have some empathy, they have been there.

No, that hasn't been my experience, and listening to most of them, they haven't been where I've been and don't empathise with me. I come from an atheist background, I wasn't a believer and then stopped so they don't empathise with me. I've only come across one apostate Christian on-line who I felt had some understanding of where I am. I got on well with him, I empathised with his fall away from the faith and he empathised with why I still believe, but that is very rare so I appreciated coming into contact with someone like him...


It also seems to me to be a fairly common mistake for people to interpret an attack on their beliefs, or their opinions, for an attack on the person themself.

Sure, I can agree with that. But aspotate Christians, realising how PERSONAL our beliefs are, and not taking that into account, it does feel like an attack. But sure, those sensitive ones (like you who is kinder and more understanding) don't do that, but I think there are less of those ones around, certainly on-line anyway.


But to attack a belief, or an opinion, is not to attack the person as a whole.

Sure, I understand that, but when it comes to something like one's relationship with God, it is personal. When someone says nasty things about our God, you don't think that hurts those of who believe in Him? Many times I have come to accept it because it's just the way it is, but occasionally it's as if someone is saying "your mother is an ugly monster." It's as personal as that, but those who make the comments don't even regard God as being real so feel free to say anything they want even if it hurts someone else, it doesn't seem to enter their mind that it can. That's why I don't believe that the majority of apostate Christians empathise with where I am, because if they did, they'd be more careful in how they speak with me so I don't think they empathise or care about me at all. And that's fine, it's not like we're friends or anything....


Sometimes, of course, a person as a whole can be righteously attacked, as in that bastard Snelling who lies for AiG.

but generally, if you look for it, Sally Anne, you will find that deconverts tend to be kinder to the religious person, having been there themselves, but more anti the religion.

No, that hasn't been my experience, I don't find the majority of apostate Christians to be kind at all. Some are, sure, but not the majority.


But it is usually the belief, not the person, who is challenged, and that is the sort of ambience that we want at SC.

Sure, that does seem to be a bit of the ambience here and it is better than where I've been before.


To view an attack on your beliefs as being an attack on you really is a mistake. Especially, I suggest, when the attack on your beliefs comes from someone who formerly held them, or something very like them. David


But I have been attacked personally, I've been called a liar, insincere, proud, evil for believing, not a true Christian, someone who shames my Lord, someone who spits in my Lord's face, carnal and someone who is falling head first into hell and dragging my family to hell with me. Those are some of the accusations made against me by apostate Christians which is bizarre because they're not even supposed to believe God is real, nvm hell.

Sorry, but I haven't had pleasant experiences around apostate Christians in general, they're not kind. But I try to keep an open mind towards individuals and take people as they present themselves. I'm just speaking generally. And no, I don't find many apostates that can empathise with me, only that one I mentioned above, he did and I did with him on why he was fallen away, it was a rare encounter but one that I'm glad I've had. But the majority, I expect for you too when speaking with believers, we've all heard it all before on both sides of the table. But ex-Christians, the bitter apostate mockers, are amongst the cruelist people I've ever come across in my life. Thankfully, I didn't know any when I was an unbeliever myself, and I'm glad because I couldn't have spent time around that mockery not even as an atheist myself. I've only come across them "the mockers" since being a Christian and they don't even represent or identify with what my life was like as an unbeliever. I don't have anything in common with them, not when I was an unbeliever and not as a believer, they're something else altogether.

[DMB]

Most theists find it hard to separate attacks on their religion from attacks on themselves. But if one comes online to discuss things like religion, there are bound to be attacks on the ideas of that religion. If believers have a stong emotional attachment to their own particular belief, they do see robust criticism of those beliefs as attacks on them for believing it.

So the Christian may resent attacks on his/her god or Jesus as being equivalent to an attack on their mother, while to the atheist doing the attacking it is the equivalent of attacking Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.

The believers who seem to take this attitude to the extreme are a subset of Muslims, which is why one is not longer able to raise questions of abuse of human rights in the name of religion in the UN Human Rights Council.

To me as a lifelong atheist (not an apostate) I actually find it offensive that believers speak about their god/prophet as something real that I ought to respect. But I also recognise that I don't have a right to be protected from other people's ideas that cause me offence, provided they can refrain from unnecessary personal attacks on me.

I would to suggest to all participants here that we should try to listen to one another without resenting the differences of opinion and outlook.

[SallyAnne]

So the Christian may resent attacks on his/her god or Jesus as being equivalent to an attack on their mother, while to the atheist doing the attacking it is the equivalent of attacking Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.



Right, which proves that the atheist (the ex-Christian type anyway) doesn't emphathise with a religious person.

[DMB]

So the Christian may resent attacks on his/her god or Jesus as being equivalent to an attack on their mother, while to the atheist doing the attacking it is the equivalent of attacking Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.



Right, which proves that the atheist (the ex-Christian type anyway) doesn't emphathise with a religious person.

No. It doesn't prove anything. And one can empathise with a person even if one thinks they are in a terrible muddle.

[SallyAnne]

So the Christian may resent attacks on his/her god or Jesus as being equivalent to an attack on their mother, while to the atheist doing the attacking it is the equivalent of attacking Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.



Right, which proves that the atheist (the ex-Christian type anyway) doesn't emphathise with a religious person.

No. It doesn't prove anything. And one can empathise with a person even if one thinks they are in a terrible muddle.


One can empathise with a person they think is stark raving bonkers? Why? Because they think they used to be bonkers themselves once too?

[Mung Dynasty]

DMB is right. Your logic is faulty there, Sally Anne.

Anyway, regarding Mohammed, I don't mind the addition of PBUH to his name. I always see it as "Push Bacon Up Him".

[SallyAnne]

DMB is right. Your logic is faulty there, Sally Anne.



Whatever, I don't believe that anyone who speaks to me and thinks I believe in the equivilent of a Cosmic Supreme Tooth Fairy has any empathy or understanding for where I'm coming from.

They think I'm stark raving mad or as DMB puts it politely in "a terrible muddle." But lets not be coy over what they really think.

[SallyAnne]

Sometimes, of course, a person as a whole can be righteously attacked, as in that bastard Snelling who lies for AiG.




Who is Snelling and what is AiG?:confused:

[Mung Dynasty]

DMB is right. Your logic is faulty there, Sally Anne.



Whatever, I don't believe that anyone who speaks to me and thinks I believe in the equivilent of a Cosmic Supreme Tooth Fairy has any empathy or understanding for where I'm coming from.

They think I'm stark raving mad or as DMB puts it politely in "a terrible muddle." But lets not be coy over what they really think.Perhaps you should be less eager to tell others what they are capable of thinking, feeling and empathising with. What about the examples of atheists who used to be Christians? Do you think they would be incapable of empathy?

[Mung Dynasty]

Sometimes, of course, a person as a whole can be righteously attacked, as in that bastard Snelling who lies for AiG.




Who is Snelling and what is AiG?:confused:

AIG is Answers in Genesis, the promoters of Young Earth Creationism. Snelling is a lying cunt who does their dirty work.

[DMB]

DMB is right. Your logic is faulty there, Sally Anne.



Whatever, I don't believe that anyone who speaks to me and thinks I believe in the equivilent of a Cosmic Supreme Tooth Fairy has any empathy or understanding for where I'm coming from.

They think I'm stark raving mad or as DMB puts it politely in "a terrible muddle." But lets not be coy over what they really think.

Stark raving mad is not the only option. Deluded is another, for example. :D

One can empathise, because we are all capable of being deluded over one thing or another. It took me quite a while to understand that Blair was bullshitting about Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction". I thought the British Government must have had secret intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq, which for operational reasons they could not share. So, yes, I was deluded by that.

And would you deny that as a self-declared former atheist you now feel yourself enlightened in comparison with these spiritually impoverished unbelievers?

[SallyAnne]

DMB is right. Your logic is faulty there, Sally Anne.



Whatever, I don't believe that anyone who speaks to me and thinks I believe in the equivilent of a Cosmic Supreme Tooth Fairy has any empathy or understanding for where I'm coming from.

They think I'm stark raving mad or as DMB puts it politely in "a terrible muddle." But lets not be coy over what they really think.

Stark raving mad is not the only option. Deluded is another, for example. :D



Yeah, quite, which doesn't endear me to think that someone empathises with me.:D

[SallyAnne]

One can empathise, because we are all capable of being deluded over one thing or another. It took me quite a while to understand that Blair was bullshitting about Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction".


You're kidding? :eek: Blimey, I think most people could see that porkie a mile off even without the so-called secret "intelligence."

[SallyAnne]

I thought the British Government must have had secret intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq, which for operational reasons they could not share. So, yes, I was deluded by that.



I don't think you were deluded, just misguided which was their aim because they were intentionally trying to deceive people.

[SallyAnne]

And would you deny that as a self-declared former atheist you now feel yourself enlightened in comparison with these spiritually impoverished unbelievers?


Not particularly, no. Because if you read what Jesus says in the Bible, sometimes believers can be the most spiritually impoverished of all without even realising it. Especially if you read some of His letters to the churches in Revelation, particularly when He says to the church at Sardis "you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked." So unbelievers aren't necessarily the barometer of spiritual impoverishment but the Church at Sardis was and that is still relevant today. We always have to be ready to be disciplined and reproved by Him when it comes to spiritual enlightenment, not compare ourselves to unbelievers as being spiritually impoverished.

[His Noodly Appendage]

But I have been attacked personally, I've been called a liar, insincere, proud, evil for believing, not a true Christian, someone who shames my Lord, someone who spits in my Lord's face, carnal and someone who is falling head first into hell and dragging my family to hell with me. Those are some of the accusations made against me by apostate Christians which is bizarre because they're not even supposed to believe God is real, nvm hell.

Bullshit.

There's a handful of things that could translate to this, but none of them are as you represent it.

As you say, atheists believe in neither god nor hell, so they aren't going to call you out on those things. We're generally contemptuous of those that would use 'carnal' as an insult, too.

However, I can perfectly well see how the conversation could have gone. Most likely of all, you were being called a hypocrite.

That is to say, all of those things, by your own avowed standards, most likely ones you were directly promoting.

Were you calling sexual activity immoral on religious grounds, without being perfectly chaste until your wedding night, and then only in it for childbearing? If so, the 'carnal' shoe fits.

Rinse and repeat, variously, for the other charges laid at your feet. If you're going to take the bible as the source of your ethics, and call out others for lacking them, then you must be prepared to be mocked viciously for failing to follow all of them.

Ten bucks says that was the point they were making, but it went right over your head.

[SallyAnne]

DMB is right. Your logic is faulty there, Sally Anne.



Whatever, I don't believe that anyone who speaks to me and thinks I believe in the equivilent of a Cosmic Supreme Tooth Fairy has any empathy or understanding for where I'm coming from.

They think I'm stark raving mad or as DMB puts it politely in "a terrible muddle." But lets not be coy over what they really think.Perhaps you should be less eager to tell others what they are capable of thinking, feeling and empathising with. What about the examples of atheists who used to be Christians? Do you think they would be incapable of empathy?


I don't think anyone is incapable of empathy. But to insist that just because someone used to be a Christian then they must have empathy with me and what I believe isn't automatic, and in my experience, the apostate Christian doesn't empathise with me, no.

[SallyAnne]

But I have been attacked personally, I've been called a liar, insincere, proud, evil for believing, not a true Christian, someone who shames my Lord, someone who spits in my Lord's face, carnal and someone who is falling head first into hell and dragging my family to hell with me. Those are some of the accusations made against me by apostate Christians which is bizarre because they're not even supposed to believe God is real, nvm hell.

Bullshit.



No it isn't bullshit, and as you haven't been on the boards that I have you don't know what has been said to me or the other believers there. NorrinRadd knows exactly what happened so I'm not lying to anyone here.

[SallyAnne]

Rinse and repeat, variously, for the other charges laid at your feet. If you're going to take the bible as the source of your ethics, and call out others for lacking them,


But I didn't, not that I expect anyone here to believe me, but whatever, you can believe what you like.

[SallyAnne]

Ten bucks says that was the point they were making, but it went right over your head.


Ten bucks says that I know how the conversation went down better than you do, and no, I wasn't pointing to any speck whilst ignoring my own beam. There are some vicious ex-Christian mocking apostates who delight in trying to undermine the faith of those of us who still believe. And if you don't want to believe that then fine, but many Christians know this is true because we have experienced it rather than the "empathy."

[Mung Dynasty]

Perhaps you should be less eager to tell others what they are capable of thinking, feeling and empathising with. What about the examples of atheists who used to be Christians? Do you think they would be incapable of empathy?I don't think anyone is incapable of empathy. But to insist that just because someone used to be a Christian then they must have empathy with me and what I believe isn't automatic, and in my experience, the apostate Christian doesn't empathise with me, no.
I didn't insist that at all. I merely said it was perfectly possible. You had seemed to be saying it was not possible.

[SallyAnne]

Perhaps you should be less eager to tell others what they are capable of thinking, feeling and empathising with. What about the examples of atheists who used to be Christians? Do you think they would be incapable of empathy?I don't think anyone is incapable of empathy. But to insist that just because someone used to be a Christian then they must have empathy with me and what I believe isn't automatic, and in my experience, the apostate Christian doesn't empathise with me, no.
I didn't insist that at all. I merely said it was perfectly possible. You had seemed to be saying it was not possible.


No I wasn't saying it was impossible, just that it's not a given which is what I think David was trying to imply. Just because someone used to believe what I believe, it doesn't mean that he empathises with me.

[Mung Dynasty]

Ok, fair enough then.

[SallyAnne]

Were you calling sexual activity immoral on religious grounds, without being perfectly chaste until your wedding night, and then only in it for childbearing? If so, the 'carnal' shoe fits.



Er no, I mentioned once that I liked to drink the odd glass of wine, that unwittingly gave ammunition to a legalistic apostate Christian to accuse me of being a boozer and therefore a terrible terrible carnal Christian. I wasn't saying to an unbeliever "you can't drink" only admitting that I enjoyed the odd tipple. But the legalistic horrors expect Christians not to be real people.

Blimey, if it's anyone who will drive me away from ever leaving Christianity it will be a legalistic-minded apostate Christian.

[SallyAnne]

Sometimes, of course, a person as a whole can be righteously attacked, as in that bastard Snelling who lies for AiG.




Who is Snelling and what is AiG?:confused:

AIG is Answers in Genesis, the promoters of Young Earth Creationism. Snelling is a lying cunt who does their dirty work.

Oh. ok. I'm not aquainted with this person or the argument very well.

[David B]

I don't think anyone is incapable of empathy. But to insist that just because someone used to be a Christian then they must have empathy with me and what I believe isn't automatic, and in my experience, the apostate Christian doesn't empathise with me, no.
I didn't insist that at all. I merely said it was perfectly possible. You had seemed to be saying it was not possible.


No I wasn't saying it was impossible, just that it's not a given which is what I think David was trying to imply. Just because someone used to believe what I believe, it doesn't mean that he empathises with me.

I can't see anything that would lead you to think that.

What I said was

What I have seen leads me to think that the majority of deconverts, while being I think more than averagely hostile to the religion, are on average less than averagely hostile to the believer. They have some empathy, they have been there.

This was written with the definite aim of not implying that it was 'a given', which I don't think it is. A general tendency, though, I do think.

So how, I wonder, could we get to such different perceptions?

It's possible that you are right, and I am wrong, but I think not.

Speculating, I'm reminded of a phenomenon I think most people will have experienced from time to time, when the phone rings, and as you go to answer it you think 'That'll be so and so and so' and it transpires that it is, in fact, so and so.

That tends to be memorable, and can lead people to believe in some sort of ESP. It shouldn't, though, because the brain tends to not remember the not memorable, as all the cases where the phone rings, one thinks that it will be so and so, and it transpires that it is not so and so.

http://www.skepdic.com/confirmbias.html

I wonder how many posts you've had from deconverts which you have not considered as attacking you, but just haven't figured on your radar.

Couple this with mistaking attacks on a belief for an attack on a person, and I suspect that that would explain what I think is a misapprehension on your part.

David

[SallyAnne]

Couple this with mistaking attacks on a belief for an attack on a person, and I suspect that that would explain what I think is a misapprehension on your part.

David




No, I just don't think you want to believe that ex-Christians and atheists can be mocking and cruel towards believers, you prefer to rationalise them as only ever attacking the beliefs therefore it is permissable. But myself and many believers have experienced it. It's not happening so much on this site, but there are many sites where it's not edifying for a Christian to be around ex-Christians who have a grudge to bear and a major axe to grind against their former faith and viciously take it out on any Christian who happens to cross their path.

Granted, I'm not saying that level of vindictiveness is happening here, I think the underlying feeling here is one of sympathy for us poor deluded Christians, if only we could shake off our delusion and step into the light of atheistic reason. You may think that is empathy, I think it's more like pity.

[Mung Dynasty]

Granted, I'm not saying that level of vindictiveness is happening here, I think the underlying feeling here is one of sympathy for us poor deluded Christians, if only we could shake off our delusion and step into the light of atheistic reason. You may think that is empathy, I think it's more like pity.

Kind of like the Christian attitude to atheists. :D

[SallyAnne]

Granted, I'm not saying that level of vindictiveness is happening here, I think the underlying feeling here is one of sympathy for us poor deluded Christians, if only we could shake off our delusion and step into the light of atheistic reason. You may think that is empathy, I think it's more like pity.

Kind of like the Christian attitude to atheists. :D


*chortle* :D

[Mung Dynasty]

AIG is Answers in Genesis, the promoters of Young Earth Creationism. Snelling is a lying cunt who does their dirty work.

Oh. ok. I'm not aquainted with this person or the argument very well.The "argument" is the basic 6,000 (or thereabouts) year old Earth and a literal Genesis. Complete rubbish, of course, and disproven by all the available evidence. AiG keep themselves going by either ignoring the evidence and/or misrepresenting it and/or by fabricating supposed "evidence" of their own. Snelling helps them do it.

[SallyAnne]

AIG is Answers in Genesis, the promoters of Young Earth Creationism. Snelling is a lying cunt who does their dirty work.

Oh. ok. I'm not aquainted with this person or the argument very well.The "argument" is the basic 6,000 (or thereabouts) year old Earth and a literal Genesis. Complete rubbish, of course, and disproven by all the available evidence. AiG keep themselves going by either ignoring the evidence and/or misrepresenting it and/or by fabricating supposed "evidence" of their own. Snelling helps them do it.


oh.

[Notta]

I wonder how many posts you've had from deconverts which you have not considered as attacking you, but just haven't figured on your radar.Sallyanne, I'm a deconvert, and I haven't attacked you. In fact, I think you and I have experienced very similar things, except that while you were discovering religion and the peace it brought you, I discovered atheism. But your descriptions of what you were thinking in your life, how you acted, and how you have changed echo my own thoughts and feelings, just towards the opposite end of the belief/non-belief spectrum. I don't expect you to agree with me, but some of your posts could have been written by me (in my opinion). And I hold no animosity towards you at all; I hold none toward ANY believer, since many people whom I dearly love believe as you do.

However, I find it difficult to believe that a true atheist would tell you that you are going to hell and will drag your family down with you. A disbelief in hell goes hand-in-hand with a disbelief in heaven and god. Maybe the person attacking you was still in the half-way position of not entirely disbelieving in god or all other parts of the Christian religion. For a couple of months after I stopped believing in god, I still thought I was going to go to hell for my disbelief. Once I finally stopped worrying about hell, I realized I was fully an atheist, not before.

[VoxRat]

I guess I'm a deconvert of sorts. Having been a Believer into adolescence. (That was, well, a while ago for those of you that don't know me :) ) and I haven't been shy about speaking up when I disagree with Sally Anne. If that has ever been perceived as an "attack", I regret the misunderstanding.