A year without God turns into atheism.........(article)

[Murphy101]

And then there's me who thinks, "Ha! How ironic that St Anthony led to them and they were right there all along!"

[Guest]

And then there's me who thinks, "Ha! How ironic that St Anthony led to them and they were right there all along!"

:D I wonder what explanation a Buddhist has: "My acceptance of lack of knowledge as to the location of the keys has brought about the Nirvana of discovering them."

[LucyStoner]

Not that unpopular. It's very prominent in some areas of the Episcopal Church, for example. I've heard/am aware of many debates along the lines of the morality of charity vs social change/action, for instance. It seems to be a hot topic at our seminary locally.

 

I do agree, to some extent.

 

I think one of the problems is that social change takes time; some needs are immediate and cannot wait for "the wheel to turn." Perhaps a good dose of both charity that is a "handout" and charity that is social change based?

IME receiving, giving and working for direct assistance (things like food banks, shelters etc) there are vastly different models in which to do it. Some ways are very much in the charity mindset and some are more social change in their orientation. As a homeless/low income child, I mostly came into contact with the charity mindset. As an adult who has worked mainly in the nonprofit sector, I have come across a wider mix of models and the ones I see working at all levels, immediate and long term for people are more focused on social change than charity.

 

Social change doesn't mean political lobbying or fixing systemic issues only, it's about the manner in which people are helped with direct aid, even immediate direct aid. Social change is a respectful model which values all of the participants, including those being assisted. Too often in the charity mindset there is one of more of the following aspects: pity, distrust, us vs. them, paternalism or self congratulations. Charity also can become very institutionalized...I'll stop blathering but the topic of the charitable industrial complex is one that I find facinating and think needs to change. Fortunately, it very much is changing.

[Slartibartfast]

Okay but still...what does that actually mean? If a person knows/believes they have a personal relationship with God, to what do they point for verification? Sometimes, I have felt emotional while singing religious songs, or hearing a pastor speak, or reading scripture. But I have also had emotional experiences while watching Sleepless in Seattle, or reading how Harry Potter dug Dobby's grave by hand.

 

My mother is convinced that she has seen and heard all manner of kooky stuff. I assume this is how she supports her belief that she has this personal relationship. But then, does that mean people who seek the rational are incapable of "true" belief? If I was looking all over for my car keys, sat down on the couch in exasperation, only to feel something lumpy, only to discover the keys were right there under the cushion, I would laugh and say, "Ha! That's ironic! They are *right* here!" If this happened to my mom, she would believe God (or an angel) put the keys there where she would discover them, in answer to the prayers she was just uttering to find the keys.

 

 

If your mom is looking for magic and mystical explanations for things then that is what she will find.

 

I don't think that rational people cannot be true believers. I am one of those big cryer sorts of people, I can have an emotional response to a dog food commercial...:lol:

 

IMO verification is in the fruits. 

[Artichoke]

The phrase, "...a RELATIONSHIP with God..." Drives me batty. Even in my Uber Serious days, I never understood how a person can say (feel, believe) they have a "personal relationship" with God. I have a personal relationship with Dh. How do I verify this? I talk to him and he talks to me. He raises eyebrows, or smiles, or knits his brows, or throws up his hands, or laughs out loud when we communicate. I can sit beside him. I can touch his back. I can make cookies and see that he enjoys them. I can feel the warm spot where he was lying in bed. I can tell he walked in the door without even seeing him because I recognize the sound of his footfalls. I continually get feedback that WE are in a personal relationship. So I never understood how someone can know,/feel/believe they have a personal relationship with God when there is no such feedback.

 

 

Quill, is it okay to ask what your relationship with God looked like in your Uber Serious days?

[Carol in Cal.]

Okay but still...what does that actually mean? If a person knows/believes they have a personal relationship with God, to what do they point for verification?

I think that there are two aspects to the 'personal relationship' term.

 

One of them is the mystical belief (like your mom's) that there has been a specific revelation or action of God that  you tangibly experienced in your life, like praying for a parking spot and then finding one, and believing that God did that for you.

 

But the other, the more historic one, is in contrast to just going to church socially and not believing it at all.  In many cultures, church membership was an assumed norm to such an extent that it became completely rote, and completely cultural for many people.  C. S. Lewis was a great example of this.  As an atheist he even considered going into church orders as a career move, it was so normative to be involved with the church in WW1 England, even if you didn't believe a word you heard there.  So in that kind of context, which is the one out of which that term originally arose, there were scads of 'church-going non-Christians', a great source of concern of course, and so terms like 'personal relationship with God' or 'regenerated Christian' or 'I have given God my heart' came into use to distinguish between the more rote, habitual church goers and those who actually took their faith seriously.

 

My own view is that it can be really dangerous to tie your faith (your meaning no one in particular) to your emotions or direct experiences.  Emotions can come and go with the state of your stomach and lots of other things.  Sure, God can give people ecstatic or happy or favorable experiences, but He does not necessarily promise to do so. 

 

Rather, God usually reveals Himself in Word and Sacrament.  And although I find it difficult to make sense out of everything in life, I cannot not believe in Him.  I cannot conceive of a universe without a Creator.  It's just not reasonable to me.

 

 

 

 

[livetoread]

Just because he isn't listening doesn't mean the Shepherd isn't speaking. It isn't a failure for Christianity that he chose a different path.

In his case, it does mean that the Shepherd wasn't speaking to him. I witnessed his pain-filled posts about crying out to empty space. At one point he blogged about the song "Say Something". He heard it as someone losing their faith but trying so hard to reach out one last time, and he talked about how much he identified with that.

 

He was listening so hard it hurt, through all the turmoil of his doubts. He finally decided to accept his doubts, stop trying so hard, and move on. Sometimes it's the healthiest thing to do. It's still hard to be told if you had just tried, it wouldn't have happened. The assumption is always that you didn't try hard enough, when in reality some of us, Ryan Bell included, tried so hard it was ridiculous. It just didn't work out. That's okay.

 

I disagree that it isn't a reflection on Christianity, or at least non-Calvinist Christianity, because his experience, and the experience of (edited to say "some") other former believers isn't that God will help those struggling with their faith and will meet you more than half way if you reach out. Our experience is that sometimes you reach out repeatedly and get nothing that helps you maintain your faith.

[Catwoman]

And then there's me who thinks, "Ha! How ironic that St Anthony led to them and they were right there all along!"

I can always count on Saint Anthony. :)

 

Saint Anthony ROCKS!!! :hurray:

[hornblower]

Okay but still...what does that actually mean? If a person knows/believes they have a personal relationship with God, to what do they point for verification? Sometimes, I have felt emotional while singing religious songs, or hearing a pastor speak, or reading scripture. But I have also had emotional experiences while watching Sleepless in Seattle, or reading how Harry Potter dug Dobby's grave by hand.

.

The Sam Harris book Waking Up: a guide to spirituality without religion is essentially about this, about these feelings that many of us experience and about how you can experience these and still be atheist.

[Scarlett]

And seriously ? I know all one-starred threads are meant to be 'accidental' but it's funny how these accidents keep happening on certain threads...so childish...

It wasn't me I swear!

[Jean in Newcastle]

Let me explain how having a relationship with God works for me.  I'm going to tell you some of the theological and Biblical reasons why but I'm not going to give chapter and verse for three reasons.  a)  I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything and b) I'm tired and don't want to and c) I do have a hermaneutical approach and all that but I really don't want to defend it against anyone else's way of Biblical interpretation.  So take everything I say as having the disclaimer of "I believe" and "in my opinion".  

 

I believe that there is a set reality to the world for us to figure out in some way.  That reality has to include a God for it to make sense to me.  I have moments of doubt etc. but none of it makes sense for me without a creator who is bigger than us.  The Christian God is the only one I've found that meets the criteria I have for what explains empirical data while also explaining the invisible relationships of things.  I can only come to understand so much through the empirical data of the world around me (theologians call this general revelation) and the Bible makes claims to explain this further in what is called special revelation.  I look at the Bible in light of these claims and while I don't understand everything in it and find some things a bit sticky, overall, I haven't found anything that discounts it's claims to be God's written word that explains the invisible reality of the universe to us.  Those two things are my bottom line for all else and are my baseline if  you will, for all other belief.

 

So this leads me to approach what is written in the Bible in a certain way - a way that accepts it as God's communication to us that outlines how we can see His reality and how we can have a relationship with Him.  And that leads me to an understanding that two things are necessary for me to have a relationship with God.  I have to understand that as a human being I'm not holy and that I needed someone holy to take care of that problem for me because a holy morally perfect God can only be in a relationship with other creatures who are holy.  (And no, I'm not going to argue if you see God as holy or not.  See my baseline.)  My understanding of the gospel (aka the "good news") is that Jesus Christ solved the problem of how to have a relationship with God by being a holy sacrifice for me.  By accepting that sacrifice in my behalf (aka believing in Jesus Christ) I have a relationship with God.  It is a reality.  It doesn't come with any empirical evidence or feelings attached.  If A, B and C is true, then D is true.  

 

As a Christian, my day-to-day relationship with God is predicated on what Jesus Christ did for me on the cross as well as what he did when he rose again and what he is doing now for me in heaven.  I accept those as realities as written in the Bible.  And I live as if those are realities.  So when I fail (which I do often) I am able to confess my sin because Jesus Christ has already taken care of it.  When I look to the future, I have hope based on his resurrection and my own future resurrection.  When I suffer I have comfort that Jesus Christ knows me individually and is involved in my life.  I don't know that he directly helps me find lost keys but I do believe that if I settle down and respond to things with a relaxed attitude that he helps me to have, that I'm more likely to find those keys.  I also think that anyone of any religion can find those keys if they go methodically enough.  I do have one piece of empirical evidence - I do see God the Holy Spirit changing me and making me more like God in my thinking.  What is referred to as the fruit of the Spirit is not natural to the way I think esp. as it is not tied to my own morality and self righteousness.  If you were my friend in real life  you would see  me at times acting in accordance to God's way of thinking.  And you would still see

me at times acting in accordance with my own way of thinking that follows general society's way of thinking.  My understanding of the Bible is that only that done while under God the Holy Spirit's power reflects my relationship to Him.  Anything else is me trying to lift myself up by my own bootstraps, so to speak, and God can see through that.  

 

So for what it's worth, that is how I see this whole issue of having a relationship with God.

[LucyStoner]

Google '2 feet of love social justice charity.'

I was raised by very liberal social justice Catholics in a very observant Catholic family and as such am fairly familiar with Catholic social teaching, though this campaign is from after I left the church as an adult. But clearly, my idealism came from somewhere, right. :P

[albeto.]

The phrase, "...a RELATIONSHIP with God..." Drives me batty. Even in my Uber Serious days, I never understood how a person can say (feel, believe) they have a "personal relationship" with God. I have a personal relationship with Dh. How do I verify this? I talk to him and he talks to me. He raises eyebrows, or smiles, or knits his brows, or throws up his hands, or laughs out loud when we communicate. I can sit beside him. I can touch his back. I can make cookies and see that he enjoys them. I can feel the warm spot where he was lying in bed. I can tell he walked in the door without even seeing him because I recognize the sound of his footfalls. I continually get feedback that WE are in a personal relationship. So I never understood how someone can know,/feel/believe they have a personal relationship with God when there is no such feedback.

 

After I realized I no longer believed, I came to notice that this "relationship" looked more like me looking for communication in otherwise random events. Something would come up in a movie and I would attribute profound speeches to address a complication I'd been praying about. Beautiful music came up and I would attribute that to a god who wanted me to know he put beauty in the world. Circumstances would be favorable and I would attribute that to a loving care-giver organizing events to unfold favorably for me. Circumstances would be unfavorable and I would attribute that to a reminder of the virtue of humility. In everything, it was me - me praying, and then me watching for hidden clues in my life as a potential response. That's not a relationship, but at the time it felt very much like it. Of course, how can you know what a relationship is supposed to be like with a supernatural being who exists beyond all our ability to comprehend? You can't, so you apply what you can know against what you experience. I think a lot of what I knew came from assurances from others during times of doubt. I think that's why stories like this can be hard for some.

[flyingiguana]

Wait a sec.  You mean you know people who have gone to seminary to become pastors, became atheists in seminary, but went ahead and became pastors anyway?   Like, everyone you know who has gone to seminary has done this? 

 

I am not doubting you or your experience or perception, just clarifying, because that makes no sense to me.

 

I can understand someone becoming an atheist through study.  (Well, sort of.)  But I can't imagine someone becoming an atheist in seminary and then going on to become a pastor.    How unethical.   How can they preach, pray for people, exhort people in their faith?  Their lives would be a complete lie.

...

 

It was a big surprise to me too.

 

I've seen different ways of dealing with it.  Some come to see God as, maybe, I don't know... metaphor?  A single being (in concept only) who represents the world, our place in it, the community of the church etc.  So it's not really a lie when they "go through the motions" of believing in God with their congregation.  They just have a slightly different concept of what God is.  He's not an actual being but a representation of everything that a religion and a church community are.

 

Some pastors that I've talked to about this may still have a belief in a vague "God" but not the one that's specifically described in the Bible.  There are too many inconsistencies in the Bible (once they've studied it and all the scholarship that goes with it) for them to take the Bible on faith anymore.  So while they may still spend a lot of time thinking about what Bible passages mean, they're more open to disagreeing with a passage because they don't necessarily see it as the firm word of God.

 

And still others went in to the ministry because they saw it as a good way to help people -- through therapy and good works in the community.  So even if they became atheists this wouldn't have changed any of their commitment to social change or helping people through difficult times.  The original reason behind their commitment (to please God perhaps) might have changed to something else (for the good of humanity maybe), but they may still see the church as a means to mobilize the change that their congregation believes the Bible and God want them to work for.

 

And a few leave the ministry.

 

One of these pastors who I think had probably come to an atheist view of the world (although he never spoke about it with me) taught the Bible to the confirmation classes.  He was very upfront about telling the kids that he thought the Bible was mostly lies -- but it was still true.  In other words, it had a lot of truthful things to say about the world, but it was all mythology.  It was his way, I think, of trying to give these kids a way to approach the Bible (and probably God as well) as something meaningful even if these kids didn't believe in God or the truth of the Bible -- because a lot of kids don't.  But he still thought religion was something people could get something out of -- even if they didn't believe in the God as presented in the Bible.

 

[marbel]

This thread and especially Jean's post above have inspired me   I've been having a lot of struggles with regard to God's hand in my/my family's life over the past couple of years.  Not a faith crisis exactly - more a question of, how much is God really involved.  I should know better, because I have seen active involvement and help in my life before.  But I am forgetful, and impatient.

 

So this year I am going to try to live as if God not only exists but is active in my life.  I'm going to attempt to throw all my cares at him for him to solve.  Not expecting miracles: for example, financial troubles won't be resolved by a long-lost wealthy relative leaving us a pile of money, or a mysterious check from a stranger (yeah, I've heard those stories).  But, by asking God specifically and persistently to show me how to spend more wisely, be more creative in finding solutions (for example my horrid run-down kitchen that I can't afford to re-do - maybe IKEA isn't the best answer), perhaps find a part-time job at my advanced age now that my kids are getting somewhat more independent.  

 

Sorry if this is a derail.  But, if a person can decide to live like an atheist and become one, maybe I can decide to live like a "true Christian"  (yeah, I know) and will become one. 

 

 

 

 

[marbel]

It was a big surprise to me too.

 

 

<snip>

 

 

Thanks for your response.  Interesting... really something I've never thought of before.   Not sure I agree with all the conclusions people came to, about how they could still be active in the church despite their atheism.   It still seems dishonest to me, but it would be hard for me to be in that place to understand it.  Worth pondering!

[Pam in CT]

This thread and especially Jean's post above have inspired me   I've been having a lot of struggles with regard to God's hand in my/my family's life over the past couple of years.  Not a faith crisis exactly - more a question of, how much is God really involved.  I should know better, because I have seen active involvement and help in my life before.  But I am forgetful, and impatient.

 

So this year I am going to try to live as if God not only exists but is active in my life.  I'm going to attempt to throw all my cares at him for him to solve.  Not expecting miracles: for example, financial troubles won't be resolved by a long-lost wealthy relative leaving us a pile of money, or a mysterious check from a stranger (yeah, I've heard those stories).  But, by asking God specifically and persistently to show me how to spend more wisely, be more creative in finding solutions (for example my horrid run-down kitchen that I can't afford to re-do - maybe IKEA isn't the best answer), perhaps find a part-time job at my advanced age now that my kids are getting somewhat more independent.  

 

Sorry if this is a derail.  But, if a person can decide to live like an atheist and become one, maybe I can decide to live like a "true Christian"  (yeah, I know) and will become one. 

 

marbel, over on Jenny's thread she and I swapped notes about Shelby Spong, former Episcopal bishop of Newark -- she and I both have found great wisdom in his writings and examples, though we've approached him from quite different angles... you might as well...

 

 

 

Also probably a derail, and almost certainly TMI, but... Twenty or more years ago, I spent a month conducting an experiment that Spong proposed in one of his books (I regret that I don't know which one; I read a pile of them within a short interval and they've sort of fused together in my mind).  Every single time I witnessed an act of compassion or love between human beings, I named it: "That is God."

 

A tender moment between mother and child: That is God.  A colleague brings an unasked-for cup of coffee: That is God. A pedestrian gives a homeless man a dollar: That is God.  and so on...

 

... for the first few days I felt ridiculous.  Like it was a cheap linguistic trick, devoid of meaning, since I didn't then (or now) actually believe that belief in God, or the actual existence of God, was necessary to explain compassion and love.

 

But over the weeks, it dawned on me that however artificial the exercise, and however arbitrary the naming exercise, the experiment had the interesting effect of rendering God visible (God now being (arguably, re-)defined as compassion and love)... and there was something about this... an observer effect, perhaps... that enabled me to find a kind of clarity and simplicity from which I had previously been blocked.  I dunno what I believe about metaphysics and theology and the origins of the Bible and yada yada yada, but I do believe in this.  

 

From this, I could proceed with bedrock beneath my feet.  (In my own case, I proceeded with a fairly significant attachment to a particular faith tradition, which has increased and deepened over time... But ym will surely v...  :001_smile: )

[SparklyUnicorn]

A year without married life leads to... Being single?

 

A year without paying rent leads to... Eviction?

 

A year without ___ usually leads to not having (or having a lot less of) whatever in that ____.

 

No big news worthy surprise there.

 

I don't think these are quite the same though.  Really one can spend an entire year not thinking about something they thought about probably every single day prior?  I'm not able to shut thoughts out of my mind that easily. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Thanks for your response.  Interesting... really something I've never thought of before.   Not sure I agree with all the conclusions people came to, about how they could still be active in the church despite their atheism.   It still seems dishonest to me, but it would be hard for me to be in that place to understand it.  Worth pondering!

 

I would be surprised if this isn't somewhat common.  The people in my life who go (or went) to church regularly I had my doubts about in terms of their belief.  I think some went because they were brought up to believe they are supposed to.  Or they just liked the people there.  It was something to do and some place to go.  I sort of miss that aspect of it.  It's nice to belong somewhere.  But my lack of belief is too much for me to be able to sit through that regularly.  I feel like they are talking about very weird mythical things when I'm there and it's almost embarrassing for lack of a better way to put it. 

 

My MIL is dismayed not because we don't believe in it, but because we lack, in her opinion, the culture and tradition surrounding it.  She could give two squats about it otherwise. 

[Pam in CT]

LucyStoner, I just put in a request that my library get Bridging the Class Divide -- thank you.

 

 

 

re: giving a man a fish, vs. teaching him to fish...

... I'm hesitant to address the rest of it because it's just so far removed from the OP. I'm happy to participate in another thread, however. Of course, I'm happy to address it here, too (I like bunny trails, I think they're the spice of forum life, but I think mine is a minority opinion at that).
 

:lol:

 

Another big fan here, of both bunny trails, and spice... but perhaps the subject of charity vs. social change warrants its own thread?

[Pawz4me]

This thread reminds me of a conversation I had with a young man in Target several years ago.  We were both looking at the yoga accessories and DVDs and started chatting.  He told me he was working on becoming a yoga instructor and I made some comment about how that would be a fun career if he could make a living at it.  He told me he had a degree in religious studies from a local university, but it wasn't exactly a degree that led to many job opportunities.  And then he went on to say that it was a waste in other ways, too.  Because the more he learned about religion (I assumed he was mostly referring to Christianity) and how politics had played such a huge role in shaping it, the harder it was for him to believe in any of it.  He seemed very sad about it, and I felt a great deal of sympathy and empathy for him.

[SparklyUnicorn]

This thread reminds me of a conversation I had with a young man in Target several years ago.  We were both looking at the yoga accessories and DVDs and started chatting.  He told me he was working on becoming a yoga instructor and I made some comment about how that would be a fun career if he could make a living at it.  He told me he had a degree in religious studies from a local university, but it wasn't exactly a degree that led to many job opportunities.  And then he went on to say that it was a waste in other ways, too.  Because the more he learned about religion (I assumed he was mostly referring to Christianity) and how politics had played such a huge role in shaping it, the harder it was for him to believe in any of it.  He seemed very sad about it, and I felt a great deal of sympathy and empathy for him.

 

Yeah he didn't come to those conclusions over night.  Some people here are acting like the guy flicked a switch and just turned it all off so no wonder after a year he wasn't religious anymore.  I'd say for most people that is impossible.  Either you are or you are not.  Anything in between you are contemplating it.  There is no on/off switch.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Just a few words on the whole seminary / pastor thing from someone who has completed most of her Masters of Divinity (I ran out of money right at the end and didn't finish) and who is married to a pastor.  

 

IF  you come from a faith community that believes certain things about the Bible (ie. that it is absolute Truth) then you follow the teaching in the Bible that being a pastor is not a career choice.  It is a spiritual gift that goes beyond having compassion for people and the gift of gab.  It is just one spiritual gift in a church where everyone else has their spiritual gift as well.  In some churches who believe this, they don't go to seminary but do self study.  We happened to believe in the value of an education that goes beyond that.  I went to seminary, not because I wanted to be a pastor but because I wanted to do fulltime Christian ministry and then got very interested in learning to study the Bible in it's original languages.  (Dh was my Greek study buddy, but that's a whole 'nother thread. . . )  In my faith community I don't know of any pastors who have become atheist but I do know a lot who have burned out, who have gotten divorces and been estranged from their kids and have become disillusioned.  It is a spiritual gift that can put you in the line of fire spiritually and if you don't keep yourself grounded in the Bible and the Holy Spirit, you can be ground up and spit out.  I know I'm probably speaking woo-woo stuff for a lot of you but that is where at least a certain segment of Christians and Christian churches are coming from.  

[albeto.]

honestly - it doesn't surprise me that he lives as an atheist for a year, and decides he's not religious anymore. what did he think would happen?   same concept of "use it or lose it".  I'd be interested in an atheist living a sincerely religious lifestyle for a year and seeing what happens.

 

my mother used to be able to play chopin nocturnes as written.  but she stopped playing.  then she'd sit down, and wanted to play, but couldn't do it anymore.  she lost the ability.

 

marbel's post reminded me that I did this after I realized my belief was gone, and it wasn't a "dark night of the soul" thing (a Catholic concept about god removing the sense of his presence from your life, a kind of removal of spiritual training wheels, only much more frightening). I pledged myself to him, I acknowledged that while I didn't "feel" his presence any more, still I cast my lot with him, with the whole thing, and would faithfully go through the motions. It wasn't for me, it was, I figured, but for him. It was because I trusted he would be faithful, even if it wasn't on my time line of expectations (ie, it would all come to make sense after I died). I went to mass, I prayed, I trusted, I looked for evidence. I recognized I may not see evidence (ever again? eep!). But I did hold on because I felt loyal, because I felt I could trust him to hang on to me even if I could no longer hang on to him. I did everything I knew to keep my body in the rhythm of faith, even if my mind was loosing that rhythm.

 

I can still recall the moment I asked myself, "what's the worst that could happen if you acknowledge to yourself you just don't believe it?" And that was it. I couldn't go through the motions any more because their purpose had changed in my mind. Church wasn't about communing with god, it wasn't about the eucharist, it wasn't about community, it was a place where habits are instilled into children and kept throughout life, habits that remind the person the church is there, the church has a place in their lives, the church needs them to help it continue to exist. And when you see churches closing their doors forever, you can see it's true. Without people, the whole church infrastructure falls apart. The ministers need to go elsewhere. The choir directors need to find new jobs. The sunday school teachers find other ways to volunteer their time and efforts to the community. The church needs people to keep coming or it ceases to exist. Vibrant services, profound services, and the community keep people coming. This pastor walked away from that and found the church needs him, but he doesn't need the church. At least, that's what it looks like from my perspective. I didn't keep it up for a year, though, maybe 5 or 6 months? But it wasn't an experiment for me. It was a trust fall.

 

 

So this year I am going to try to live as if God not only exists but is active in my life....

[albeto.]

re: giving a man a fish, vs. teaching him to fish...

:lol:

 

Another big fan here, of both bunny trails, and spice... but perhaps the subject of charity vs. social change warrants its own thread?

 

Good idea. My thread s/o would have been something like,

 

Mother Teresa: Mother of Charity or Monster of Madness?

 

Not sure that would go over so well around here.

 

:ph34r:

[albeto.]

His decisions don't impact my faith in the slightest and says *nothing* about any theological arguments. I have a different personal relationship with Christ, just as any other person does.

 

 

Just because he isn't listening doesn't mean the Shepherd isn't speaking. It isn't a failure for Christianity that he chose a different path.

 

I know people draw different theological arguments from the bible, but the ones I were thinking followed along the lines of such claims that Jesus won't abandon you, will hear the voice of the faithful, will give if asked, and things like that. The pastor turned off his receiver for a year figuring if these claims are true and trustworthy, then god doesn't need him (the pastor) to flatter him (god) with worship, prayer, and supplication because god would know what's in his heart of hearts - love and a sincere desire for this relationship assumed to be real. For me, these theological arguments were not supported. It puts the burden of proof on the one making the claim to, well, support the claim. Personal assurances work wonders for individual persons, but these same, genuine, sincere, inspiring assurances are found when you read stories of those Christians who converted to Islam, or astrology, or following The Secret. So... what good is a personal assurance if it's potentially unreliable? It only is accurate when it supports the favorable outcome? That's a bit devious in my opinion.

 

[Guest]

Quill, is it okay to ask what your relationship with God looked like in your Uber Serious days?

I was a devout Evangelical Christian. I wanted to learn everything. I read heaps of books, went to small group every Wednesday, attended Women of Faith. I played tapes (no CDs at the time) in the car constantly. I did reading programs designed to read the whole Bible in a year, or three years, depending. I went to the church retreats. I bought the materials for my kids: Leading Little Ones to God, Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation, Apologia science. Spent hours on online forums. My username was "Servant of God." I gave my children names loaded with meaning, "Grace" and "Christian." I walked around with index cards in my back pocket so I could constantly meditate on a given scripture. I thought continuously, "make me like Jesus. Fill me with Divine Love, so that it radiates out from me." (This was a worthwhile activity regardless, as I still believe Love is the point of it all.)

 

So...essentially, when things worked out well, that was God. When remarkable things happened, that was also God. If my paths were straight, I believed it was God making the paths straight, just as the scripture said He would do. This belief began to collapse when the path got crooked. My life is still heavily circumscribed around a Christian construct, so I keep the label and go to church knowing I'm one of those much-derided nominal Christians. But I keep this part for specific reasons: a) I do not want to hurt and confuse my growing kids; b) I do believe in God, if only in the most general way; c) I like the church we attend and I like the people there; d) I'd rather be around people who want to do some good in the world and, ATM, that means a faith community. The atheists i know IRL are not happy people and not doing much good in the world. Surely there are atheists who devote themselves to loving others, however, I do not personally know any.

[hornblower]

A year without married life leads to... Being single?

 

A year without paying rent leads to... Eviction?

 

A year without ___ usually leads to not having (or having a lot less of) whatever in that ____.

 

No big news worthy surprise there.

 

but that's not what he did at all. I would wager that he thought about god & the existence or lack thereof daily. In fact, his blogs & writings on his journey demonstrate that it wasn't something he just put out of his mind at all.

 

What he said he'd do was live for a year AS IF there was not god.

 

"I will not pray, read the Bible for inspiration, refer to God as the cause of things or hope that God might intervene and change my own or someone else's circumstances. (I trust that if there really is a God that God will not be too flummoxed by my foolish experiment and allow others to suffer as a result)."

Bell also pledged to read "atheist 'sacred texts'" written by key authors such as Hobbes, Nietzsche, Hitchens and Dawkins.

"I will also attempt to speak to as many actual atheists as possible - scholars, writers and ordinary unbelievers - to learn how they have come to their non-faith and what it means to them. I will visit atheist gatherings and try it on," he added (source)

[marbel]

I would be surprised if this isn't somewhat common.  The people in my life who go (or went) to church regularly I had my doubts about in terms of their belief.  I think some went because they were brought up to believe they are supposed to.  Or they just liked the people there.  It was something to do and some place to go.  I sort of miss that aspect of it.  It's nice to belong somewhere.  But my lack of belief is too much for me to be able to sit through that regularly.  I feel like they are talking about very weird mythical things when I'm there and it's almost embarrassing for lack of a better way to put it. 

 

My MIL is dismayed not because we don't believe in it, but because we lack, in her opinion, the culture and tradition surrounding it.  She could give two squats about it otherwise. 

 

I was unclear, sorry.   I was thinking only of pastors, ministers, etc. who lose their faith but keep their job as a pastor. 

 

The church is full of people who are questioning, seeking, no doubt about that.  Also full of people who are there for cultural, family, and even business reasons.  This is not a problem.  The church is not for the perfect, but for the sinners and the lost.

 

That is different to me.   The church leaders need to believe what they're preaching, or they need to stop.  I've been thinking about this a lot the last couple of days, and I've read the posts (Rosie's, a couple others) that don't agree with that position, and/or bring up the difficulty of a pastor quitting his/her job and finding new employment.  I get that it would be so difficult, but I can't step away from the notion that the person in the pulpit has to believe what he's saying, and if he can't, he needs to step down - not only for the sake of the congregation but for his own sanity and personal feelings of integrity.   No matter how hard I try, I can't see how it can be OK for a nonbeliever to hold a position as a leader/pastor/teacher in a church setting.   I can't imagine it for any religion.  Would Muslims accept an imam who was an atheist?   (Sincere question though I don't necessarily expect an answer.)

[SparklyUnicorn]

I was unclear, sorry.   I was thinking only of pastors, ministers, etc. who lose their faith but keep their job as a pastor. 

 

The church is full of people who are questioning, seeking, no doubt about that.  Also full of people who are there for cultural, family, and even business reasons.  This is not a problem.  The church is not for the perfect, but for the sinners and the lost.

 

That is different to me.   The church leaders need to believe what they're preaching, or they need to stop.  I've been thinking about this a lot the last couple of days, and I've read the posts (Rosie's, a couple others) that don't agree with that position, and/or bring up the difficulty of a pastor quitting his/her job and finding new employment.  I get that it would be so difficult, but I can't step away from the notion that the person in the pulpit has to believe what he's saying, and if he can't, he needs to step down - not only for the sake of the congregation but for his own sanity and personal feelings of integrity.   No matter how hard I try, I can't see how it can be OK for a nonbeliever to hold a position as a leader/pastor/teacher in a church setting.   I can't imagine it for any religion.  Would Muslims accept an imam who was an atheist?   (Sincere question though I don't necessarily expect an answer.)

 

Ah ok.  Well, I know some people in that category too.  Not priests though.  Although I don't think they lack faith.  I think they are simply not always happy with the path they chose, but they've done it so long that there aren't really any reasonable options so they just go along with it.

 

It would be odd to have a religious leader who didn't believe in what he/she were preaching about. 

[Pam in CT]

re: charity vs. social change:

Good idea. My thread s/o would have been something like,

 

Mother Teresa: Mother of Charity or Monster of Madness?

 

Not sure that would go over so well around here.

 

:ph34r:

 

:lol: Now now.  I do believe that would represent "personalizing" an issue which is (imo, at least) greater than MT.

[Artichoke]

I was a devout Evangelical Christian. I wanted to learn everything. I read heaps of books, went to small group every Wednesday, attended Women of Faith. I played tapes (no CDs at the time) in the car constantly. I did reading programs designed to read the whole Bible in a year, or three years, depending. I went to the church retreats. I bought the materials for my kids: Leading Little Ones to God, Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation, Apologia science. Spent hours on online forums. My username was "Servant of God." I gave my children names loaded with meaning, "Grace" and "Christian." I walked around with index cards in my back pocket so I could constantly meditate on a given scripture. I thought continuously, "make me like Jesus. Fill me with Divine Love, so that it radiates out from me." (This was a worthwhile activity regardless, as I still believe Love is the point of it all.)

 

So...essentially, when things worked out well, that was God. When remarkable things happened, that was also God. If my paths were straight, I believed it was God making the paths straight, just as the scripture said He would do. This belief began to collapse when the path got crooked. My life is still heavily circumscribed around a Christian construct, so I keep the label and go to church knowing I'm one of those much-derided nominal Christians. But I keep this part for specific reasons: a) I do not want to hurt and confuse my growing kids; b) I do believe in God, if only in the most general way; c) I like the church we attend and I like the people there; d) I'd rather be around people who want to do some good in the world and, ATM, that means a faith community. The atheists i know IRL are not happy people and not doing much good in the world. Surely there are atheists who devote themselves to loving others, however, I do not personally know any.

Thanks for answering. As someone who does feel that people can have a personal relationship with God, i was was having a hard time understanding where you were coming from. Your reply helped a lot.

[hornblower]

The last few posts about clergy not believing reminded me of Father Ted.

 

"Father Dougal: Come on, Ted. Sure it's no more peculiar than all that stuff we learned in the seminary, you know, Heaven and Hell and everlasting life and all that type of thing. You're not meant to take it seriously, Ted!"

 

http://youtu.be/uXW5X1QNpNQ

[Pronghorn]

It seems to me that there is somewhat of a parallel between Bell and Mother Theresa in that they both went through a period of feeling far from God. It appears that Mother Theresa just carried on as usual. Bell, in contrast, did his experiment. Some would say that is where he went wrong. I am a Christian, but I am not so sure. Living a life of faith is hard and people handle things in different ways. I may be horribly liberal in many Christians'eyes, but it seems to me that if we take our faith seriously and do our best and nevertheless lose our faith that our Creator will have compassion on us -- probably a whole lot more compassion than our fellow Christians. The teachings of the Bible are not as simple as Christians like to make them. Reality may be more complex that any of us can understand, so I suggest we give other people a break and leave the judgment to God, if God exists. Perhaps you'll get to heaven and find a very surprised Bell there. Maybe some of your least favorite atheists too.

[Slartibartfast]

In his case, it does mean that the Shepherd wasn't speaking to him. I witnessed his pain-filled posts about crying out to empty space. At one point he blogged about the song "Say Something". He heard it as someone losing their faith but trying so hard to reach out one last time, and he talked about how much he identified with that.

 

He was listening so hard it hurt, through all the turmoil of his doubts. He finally decided to accept his doubts, stop trying so hard, and move on. Sometimes it's the healthiest thing to do. It's still hard to be told if you had just tried, it wouldn't have happened. The assumption is always that you didn't try hard enough, when in reality some of us, Ryan Bell included, tried so hard it was ridiculous. It just didn't work out. That's okay.

 

I disagree that it isn't a reflection on Christianity, or at least non-Calvinist Christianity, because his experience, and the experience of (edited to say "some") other former believers isn't that God will help those struggling with their faith and will meet you more than half way if you reach out. Our experience is that sometimes you reach out repeatedly and get nothing that helps you maintain your faith.

 

I am not a Calvinist.

 

IMO if something wasn't working for him then taking a year off and then trying the same things over again isn't going to give him different results. I don't believe if I am wailing for God to speak that I will hear anything. If I am in crisis I am more likely to lose myself in works or nature, I don't tend to go to church in crisis because some Christians can be jerks, and from some of what I have read that is part of what was bothering him to begin with. 

 

But as I said before, I don't want to place judgement on something that I don't consider to be a failing. Sometimes people don't believe and I agree, that's ok.

 

I am one of the least likely people to state, "well if you just tried harder blah blah blah" If people don't believe then they don't believe but if people *want* to believe but are struggling then that is someone I would be happy to talk to. If someone is happy with who they are then I don't want to get into a theological debate with someone who has much different beliefs than my own. I am not going to try to compel someone to believe something they do not. 

[albeto.]

re: charity vs. social change:

 

:lol: Now now.  I do believe that would represent "personalizing" an issue which is (imo, at least) greater than MT.

 

See, that's why I shouldn't start the thread myself. I'm not talking about charity or social change in general but responding to the image of a sweet, little old lady who defied convention and loved up the poorest of the poor. Arguably, it's not an accurate image, but it's a familiar, comforting image nevertheless. People don't like to see their heroes attacked, I get that. But I don't think it's any more "personalizing" than talking about Richard Nixon or Bill Cosby.

 

[Murphy101]

I don't think these are quite the same though. Really one can spend an entire year not thinking about something they thought about probably every single day prior? I'm not able to shut thoughts out of my mind that easily.

I never said it was a perfect analogy, but the principle of it still works the same.

 

If the mind, spirit, habits and heart are muscles to be worked and strengthened same as the body in general, then either not doing so or doing so in a negative manner will reasonably result is less strength. Call it strong faith or belief or relationship or whatever. Whatever it is, it needs nurturing same as most anything else in life.

 

I don't argue they don't have the right to choose not to nurture it. I simply argue that something dying to lack of nurturing isn't a shocking discovery.

 

Just talking about it isn't enough. In fact, purposely forming the habit of NOT nurturing seems a key way to cause damage as far as I can tell.

 

Imagine if every time you were approached or had a thought about something or someone, you purposely turned away from that thought or act what kind of impact it would have on your relationship and perspective of that something or someone? Most would reasonably think it wouldn't be good. Yes?

[SparklyUnicorn]

I never said it was a perfect analogy, but the principle of it still works the same.

 

If the mind, spirit, habits and heart are muscles to be worked and strengthened same as the body in general, then either not doing so or doing so in a negative manner will reasonably result is less strength. Call it strong faith or belief or relationship or whatever. Whatever it is, it needs nurturing same as most anything else in life.

 

I don't argue they don't have the right to choose not to nurture it. I simply argue that something dying to lack of nurturing isn't a shocking discovery.

 

Just talking about it isn't enough. In fact, purposely forming the habit of NOT nurturing seems a key way to cause damage as far as I can tell.

 

Imagine if every time you were approached or had a thought about something or someone, you purposely turned away from that thought or act what kind of impact it would have on your relationship and perspective of that something or someone? Most would reasonably think it wouldn't be good. Yes?

 

I always thought it meant more than that to people though.  Meaning if you really believe something, you aren't going to stop believing if you take a break from focusing on it for awhile.  It seems different to lose focus than to completely stop believing in something. 

 

I guess I don't want people to assume all atheists are atheists because they haven't nurtured their beliefs.  Most simply don't believe and that didn't take any sort of effort.  In fact I assume many atheists have thought quite a bit about stuff like belief and religion.  I have.  I don't live under a rock.  I know other people have a problem with my views, and I can't just go along with it to make other people feel more comfortable. 

[Murphy101]

I always thought it meant more than that to people though. Meaning if you really believe something, you aren't going to stop believing if you take a break from focusing on it for awhile. It seems different to lose focus than to completely stop believing in something.

 

I guess I don't want people to assume all atheists are atheists because they haven't nurtured their beliefs. Most simply don't believe and that didn't take any sort of effort. In fact I assume many atheists have thought quite a bit about stuff like belief and religion. I have. I don't live under a rock. I know other people have a problem with my views, and I can't just go along with it to make other people feel more comfortable.

I don't assume anything about atheists as someone raised that way. Well atheist/agnostic anyways.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by you "thought it meant more to people than that though". "If you really beleive.."

 

Honestly? This sounds idk... thoroughly unreasonable to me.

 

If I REALLY love my husband and I REALLY believe he loves me, then I can ____ (put just about anything in blank) and it'll be okay. Ya know. Because I REALLY believe in our love.

 

This is simply not true and not a reasonable (to me anyways) expectation of life, love, knowledge, or relationships.

 

These things take nurturing. Always. Maybe some people, not me obviously, think it is supposed to be different with God. That that doesn't need nurturing if it is REALLY believed. I'm willing to believe others think that way. I simply don't agree with them on it.

 

If nothing else, even if the whatever is still there, it is going to be damaged and need lots of time put into healing and reconnecting. And it might never be the same as before, much less better. And many just aren't going to do that for many reasons. Laziness could be one reason, but I'm not assuming it is. There's plenty of other reasons too. This is true about many things, not just God.

 

And I don't necessarily assume an athests has deeply struggled to believe nor do I assume they were too lazy to bother. I rather assume they run the full spectrum same as christians and anyone else. :)

[livetoread]

It seems to me that there is somewhat of a parallel between Bell and Mother Theresa in that they both went through a period of feeling far from God. It appears that Mother Theresa just carried on as usual. Bell, in contrast, did his experiment. Some would say that is where he went wrong. I am a Christian, but I am not so sure. Living a life of faith is hard and people handle things in different ways. I may be horribly liberal in many Christians'eyes, but it seems to me that if we take our faith seriously and do our best and nevertheless lose our faith that our Creator will have compassion on us -- probably a whole lot more compassion than our fellow Christians. The teachings of the Bible are not as simple as Christians like to make them. Reality may be more complex that any of us can understand, so I suggest we give other people a break and leave the judgment to God, if God exists. Perhaps you'll get to heaven and find a very surprised Bell there. Maybe some of your least favorite atheists too.

Ryan Bell and I had different journeys in many ways, but we shared this in common. Our doubts started as theological problems and they centered around two main issues: the problem of evil and the hiddenness of God. When I say the hiddenness of God, I'm not talking about emotional closeness but about the problem that the world is indistinguishable from one in which there is no deity intervening. It was these intellectual issues among others that grew the doubts as to God's existence, not feeling distant.

 

My issues with the distant feeling came as I was trying hard to hang onto my faith in light of these problems. I realized that the most likely answer given the evidence is that there isn't a benevolent, powerful deity that intervenes in the world, but I didn't want to realize that. I wanted to keep believing, and it was then, when I most needed help hanging on, when if that type of deity existed it would be most likely to help, that the feelings of distance are most destructive. It simply confirms what you already know, but don't want to admit.

 

I agree with your opinion that if a benevolent God exists and if heaven exists, we might be surprised who is there. I would be surprised that that type of deity actually existed, but not at all surprised to be in heaven. When I was still a believer I tended towards universalism anyway, just because I think belief is so complicated and we are all doing the best we can with what we've got.

[Murphy101]

The nurture thing makes sense to me. I obviously see stepping away from that self-conditioning in a different light than others.

I don't view it as stepping away from self-conditioning. It sounds to me like he was quite purposeful in just changing what self-conditioning he was going to do. And yes, I'm aware others view it differently.

 

What actually interests me more is when someone does nurture their less-than-a-mustard-seed faith - excuse the pun - religiously, and still finds themselves atheist.

 

It's like - you can lose the conditioning through an act of will, but for some people you just can't self-condition yourself into faith.

Or out of it. Why is that someone raised without faith somehow finds it without the conditioning?

 

I think it's a large part self-conditioning (in the developing who we are way, not the nutter cultish way) either way.

 

And maybe what we think "believing" looks like is the problem. I think far too many think it's like in fairy tales or tent revival stories. "Come feel the Spirit!"

 

Ime, which is obviously limited to me, it's rarely like that and the few times it is, it's brief in duration.

[Murphy101]

Yeah, i wasn't looking for a fairy tale :)

Me either. But yet we all walk in the doors with expectations, some we didn't even really know we had. Sometimes the ones we didn't know we had are the hardest to let go of.

 

I didn't mean it in a condescending manner. :)

[marbel]

Ryan Bell and I had different journeys in many ways, but we shared this in common. Our doubts started as theological problems and they centered around two main issues: the problem of evil and the hiddenness of God. When I say the hiddenness of God, I'm not talking about emotional closeness but about the problem that the world is indistinguishable from one in which there is no deity intervening. It was these intellectual issues among others that grew the doubts as to God's existence, not feeling distant.

<snip>

 

This statement fascinates me.   I can only interpret it as "there must not be a deity intervening because the world doesn't work the way I think it should."   I am not trying to be disrespectful or snarky, if it sounds that way.  But it is such a bold statement!  One could also say that the world would be complete and utter chaos if there were no deity intervening.    No one can know, either way.

 

 

[albeto.]

This statement fascinates me.   I can only interpret it as "there must not be a deity intervening because the world doesn't work the way I think it should."   I am not trying to be disrespectful or snarky, if it sounds that way.  But it is such a bold statement!  One could also say that the world would be complete and utter chaos if there were no deity intervening.    No one can know, either way.

 

It's no more bold a statement than saying the world is indistinguishable from one in which the position of the stars and planets do not affect your life in any way, shape, of form, ever, and events in the world can be explained without appealing to beliefs about astrology.

[ktgrok]

I don't view it as stepping away from self-conditioning. It sounds to me like he was quite purposeful in just changing what self-conditioning he was going to do. And yes, I'm aware others view it differently.

 

 

Or out of it. Why is that someone raised without faith somehow finds it without the conditioning?

 

I think it's a large part self-conditioning (in the developing who we are way, not the nutter cultish way) either way.

 

And maybe what we think "believing" looks like is the problem. I think far too many think it's like in fairy tales or tent revival stories. "Come feel the Spirit!"

 

Ime, which is obviously limited to me, it's rarely like that and the few times it is, it's brief in duration.

 

Agreed. I like how CS Lewis talks about believing that anesthesia works. On the one hand, he is convinced it does. You could call that belief. On the other hand, when about to go under the surgeons knife, he panics, he doubts, he starts thinking it won't work. He loses his 'belief". He has to use an act of will to remind himself of what he believes, to willfully make himself believe. Not against his own logical thought...when he was being logical he did believe. But in the heat of the moment, emotionally, he doubts. He has to work to nurture his belief, or it will vanish. This pastor had doubts, and chose not to nurture that belief. 

[fraidycat]

Agreed. I like how CS Lewis talks about believing that anesthesia works. On the one hand, he is convinced it does. You could call that belief. On the other hand, when about to go under the surgeons knife, he panics, he doubts, he starts thinking it won't work. He loses his 'belief". He has to use an act of will to remind himself of what he believes, to willfully make himself believe. Not against his own logical thought...when he was being logical he did believe. But in the heat of the moment, emotionally, he doubts. He has to work to nurture his belief, or it will vanish. This pastor had doubts, and chose not to nurture that belief.

??? What are you saying here?

 

Whether he believes or not, the anasthesia STILL works though. With actual scientifically measurable results, nurtured belief or no. The same can't be said re:the existence of a deity.

[ktgrok]

??? What are you saying here?

 

Whether he believes or not, the anasthesia STILL works though. With actual scientifically measurable results, nutured belief or no. The same can't be said re:the existence of a deity.

 

Are you missing the point on purpose? The topic being discussed was hte issue of nurturing belief by an act of will. I gave another example. Obviously AFTER the procedure he knows the anesthesia worked. But beforehand, laying on the table, he can choose to nurture his belief by an act of will, or not. It's obviously not a perfect analogy. 

[fraidycat]

No, I'm really not missing the point on purpose. I do not see any correlation between god and anesthesia. I asked for clarification. Thanks for the snark, though. Much appreciated.

[ktgrok]

No, I'm really not missing the point on purpose. I do not see any correlation between god and anesthesia. I asked for clarification. Thanks for the snark, though. Much appreciated.

 

Sorry, I'm tired. And it seemed obvious that there is zero correlation between god and anesthesia. the point wasn't to compare God to anything. The point was to discuss belief, and how it can be nurtured/willed/etc at times when you are doubting. I was using a non God example of such a situation. 

[fraidycat]

Ok. Thanks for the clarification. One cannot possibly be too careful when it comes to assuming "the obvious" on such a diverse board.

 

I could've been knocked over with a feather more than once after reading things on this board. And I am no lightweight! :D