Dh, a new atheist, wrote this post on FB today - opinions?

[hornblower]

I'm puzzled.

How is it kind to say that those who have left Christianity were never real Christians?

How is it kind to say that those who follow a different god are not really called by god?

[Joanne]

My belief is that if you are a Christian, you cannot "unbelieve" and not become one. You just weren't one to begin with. Those who God calls are His for eternity.

 

 

 

 

40 years of active service, study, various spiritual disciplines, prayer, leadership (which included the prayerful choices of church members and leaders), ordained as a Deacon and an Elder.

 

Your post is 1) beyond insulting and 2) represents another reason I had to leave the faith.

 

If I can *will* faith, it's works that saves.

If we can't save ourselves, he chooses, and it's an arbitrary god.

 

Contrary to Christian rhetoric around that, those ARE the choices. If god exists, he chose to not give me faith. There is no other way around that.

[Joanne]

No, it is humbling.  I don't deserve it.  I prove that every day.  

 

I question your premise about being left in the crib--did not the criminal on the cross next to Jesus receive eternal life in his last hour?  We do not know when we may come to faith. Therefore we can never say we have been abandoned.  

 

Also, my belief is grounded in God's Word. If you don't believe in the Bible, so be it. I am willing to respect that others don't believe. Are you willing to be kind with your words? 

 

 

You just invalidated the self-stated and self-disclosed Christianity of millions of deconverted. Those persons represent countless hours of "Christian values" and following the commands of your Jesus.

 

How is THAT kind?

[plath]

Comments like that are just more proof that I never will be a Christian ever again. Insulting.

[cintinative]

I am very sorry. I should not have engaged since it is off topic and I clearly can't explain it well. I can only say I am very sorry to have hurt your feelings. 

[Guest]

I posted something here that was poorly worded and hurt people. I am sorry that I did that.

 

Um...yea....so did I.

 

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((Mary))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

 

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((Mary's DH)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

[creekmom]

I hear and read that comment a lot - "If you were a true Christian, you would never lose faith." Maybe you didn't realize how hurtful it is to hear comments like that. Or maybe you think that it's your job to spread the truth of God regardless of how offensive it is. You know, it used to really baffle me that anyone would turn their back on God. Why would you walk away from eternal life and a savior who died for you and loves you? I assumed they just decided that living for God was too demanding or required too great of a sacrifice. Looking back, I'm sure I wondered if they ever had a true relationship with Christ. I think those thoughts helped me cope with the reality that Christians stop believing sometimes.

I want you to understand that almost every Christian I've ever spoken to or read about who has left the faith didn't want to leave. Most left kicking and screaming. Dan Barker (former evangelical preacher) described it this way:

 

"Faith and reason began a war within me. And it kept escalating. I would cry out to God for answers, and none would come. Like the lonely heart who keeps waiting for the phone to ring, I kept trusting that God would some day come through. He never did.

 

The only proposed answer was faith, and I gradually grew to dislike the smell of that word. I finally realized that faith is a cop-

out, a defeat- an admission that the truths of religion are unknowable through evidence and reason. It is only indemonstrable assertions that require the suspension of reason, and weak ideas that require faith. Biblical contradictions became more and more discrepant, and apologist arguments became more and more absurd. When I finally discarded faith, things became more and more clear.

 

But don't imagine that this was an easy process. It was like tearing my whole frame of reality to pieces, ripping to shreds the fabric of meaning and hope, betraying the values of existence. It hurt badly. It was like spitting on my mother, or like throwing one of my children out the window. It was sacrilege. All of my bases for thinking and values had to be restructured. Adding to that inner conflict was the outer conflict of reputation. Did I really want to discard the respect I had so carefully built over so many years with so many important people? But even so, I couldn't be distracted from the questions that had come to the forefront. ...... I did not lose my faith – I gave it up purposely. The motivation that drove me into the ministry – to know and speak the truth – is the same that drove me out.

 

I lost faith in faith.

 

I was forced to admit that the Bible is not a reliable source of truth: it is unscientific, irrational, contradictory, absurd, unhistorical, uninspiring and morally unsatisfying.. ...Beliefs that used to be so precious were melting away, one by one. It was like peeling back the layers of an onion, eliminating the nonessential doctrines to see what was at the core, and I just kept peeling and peeling until there was nothing left. ....I threw out all the bathwater and discovered there was no baby there."

[Carol in Cal.]

This is in response to the idea that those who deconvert did not believe in the first place. FWIW, although I am a fairly Biblically conservative Christian, this is not my view at all.  I don't debate denominational stuff on the internet generally, so I'm going to present this for awareness but not defend it.  I am Confessional Lutheran.

 

Jesus in the parable of the sower I interpret as saying quite plainly that there are those who believe and then fall away.  There are enough other passages about enduring to the end that this is a fairly robust view. 

 

Regarding predestination, CL's take all the stuff about election and gather it up and believe it.  Generally these indicate that Jesus died for all, that He covered all sin with His victory--not just the sin of believers--,and that God elected those to be saved from before the beginning of time.

 

However, CL's take all the stuff about damnation and gather it up and believe it, too.  Generally these indicate that those who are not right with God have rejected Him in some way, either by acting in a way inconsistent with the morals that they know to be right, or by rejecting belief in Him.  The book of Romans covers this at length.

 

We don't rationalize the two together.  We say that the good is attributable to God, and the bad to us, and that we won't thoroughly understand this in this world, but that that is OK.  We don't expect God to be completely and utterly understandable.  After all, He's God--He's a lot bigger than us in ways that we don't even see.  Forcing our logic onto Him would be very much like a 2 dimensional piece of paper trying to describe a sphere.  It can only experience a cut through the sphere.  It can't perceive how the sphere has three dimensions because that is beyond its comprehension.  And yet it can detect the sphere, but it can't encompass a full description of it.  This only makes us recognize Him as even more awesome and powerful and capable, and more appreciative that He came to us.  Why would He do that at all?  It's really quite remarkable.

[albeto.]

Jesus in the parable of the sower I interpret as saying quite plainly that there are those who believe and then fall away.  There are enough other passages about enduring to the end that this is a fairly robust view. 

 

So too is what cintinative mentioned. That presents a problem, the kind of problem the OP's bringing up. The kind of problem that's being glossed over in this answer with an "it doesn't make sense but don't worry about it, just go along" kind of answer. Why do you think people assume that argument is valid only insofar as it is used to support their own religion? Have you ever tried this approach with another religion?

 

We don't rationalize the two together.  We say that the good is attributable to God, and the bad to us, and that we won't thoroughly understand this in this world, but that that is OK.  

 

Not okay for people who need to know they can trust those who say they've got their backs.

 

We don't expect God to be completely and utterly understandable.  

 

Being an omnipotent god, surely he can provide a reliable answer for those who ask. I mean, he can do anything, right? Including breaking the laws of mysticism to allow understanding at least that he exists, if not the hows and whys of what he does?

 

 We don't expect God to be completely and utterly understandable.  After all, He's God--He's a lot bigger than us in ways that we don't even see.  Forcing our logic onto Him would be very much like a 2 dimensional piece of paper trying to describe a sphere.  It can only experience a cut through the sphere.  It can't perceive how the sphere has three dimensions because that is beyond its comprehension.  And yet it can detect the sphere, but it can't encompass a full description of it.  This only makes us recognize Him as even more awesome and powerful and capable, and more appreciative that He came to us. 

 

We don't know this. People like you trust other people who say this to be accurate. The OP and her husband have taken God at his word, assumed that he's trustworthy, and watched him fail. 

 

Why would He do that at all?  It's really quite remarkable.

 

The logical answer is that he doesn't exist. The bible exists as a compilation of dozens of pieces of written work written throughout many centuries by a religious culture (mythology, law, pretend history, poetry, Paul's visions, and euhemerization of the god/man Jesus), and these works don't agree with each other in fundamental details. Those differences have inspired competing theologies along the way as people just like the OP and her husband have tried to make sense out of a god who cannot be seen, heard, touched, or communicated with. In a world where gods and spirits and magic were assumed by everyone to exist, reshaping the character and nature of the god of the bible into a character that made sense was the logical approach. In a world where explanations of the natural world need not be believed in faith but can be explored and recognized to work or not work by virtue of evidence, reshaping the god of the bible again gets harder and harder. Some simply refuse to acknowledge evidence that conflicts with deeply held belief. Some soften his character and existence to a modern hero deity. Softening the identity even more by approaching the god of the bible as an allegory for life even breaks down when one pays attention to the bronze aged moral code being superimposed on an ethically superior moral code. Might makes right makes way for mutual conflict resolution with respect for all parties.

 

What I find remarkable is to set aside one's feelings for the faith, one's attachment for the character they understand their god to be, and look at the faith objectively, academically. What I find remarkable is accepting a likely onslaught of shunning and social punishment by loving Christians . I think it's more remarkable and honorable than a god who is considered really quite nice for taking the time to drop us bread crumbs of insight here and there, torturing us for eternity if we don't love [and subsequently serve] him for it. In any other context that's not remarkable, that's extortion. 

 

[Carol in Cal.]

It's not reasonable to have *expectations* of an infinite Being.  It's not reasonable to define Him.  To the extent that He is defined, it is because He has chosen to define Himself.  To the extent that He is knowable, it is because He has revealed Himeslf.  Making yourself into a god or into a judge of God is hubris.  Clay, meet Potter.

[albeto.]

It's not reasonable to have *expectations* of an infinite Being.  It's not reasonable to define Him.  To the extent that He is defined, it is because He has chosen to define Himself.  To the extent that He is knowable, it is because He has revealed Himeslf.  Making yourself into a god or into a judge of God is hubris.  Clay, meet Potter.

 

It's absolutely reasonable to have expectations that a claim made is accurate. In what other context does the argument "it doesn't make sense, but do it anyway" get a pass? 

[Carol in Cal.]

I saw the original post that you made and erased.  And it was a decent question.

This one, however, is a straw man.  Not going there.

[albeto.]

I saw the original post that you made and erased.  And it was a decent question.

This one, however, is a straw man.  Not going there.

 

I'm not sure how this is a straw man. It goes to the very argument you're making, as I understand it: One can trust the god of the bible, because even though he's completely incomprehensible, he's trustworthy. I ask, in what other context is that considered a reasonable suggestion? Instead of asking the details, I decided to cut to the chase. 

 

My earlier question is, how does one determine that the invisible god of the bible is trustworthy despite his complete incomprehensibility? How does one know the god of the Christians and not the god of the Jews is the right invisible deity to be trusted, the one worthy of attention, affection, and worship? How does one know it can't be the god of the Muslims, or the Hindus, or Pagans? How does one know if accountability is impossible? I suspect you'll answer something about feeling it, letting God show that he is trustworthy, that he does listen and communicate to those with an open heart, or some kind of appeal to interpreting personal experiences in the light of the Christian faith. The reason I edited is because that kind of answer brings me back to the first one. If personal experiences confirm the existence and trustworthiness of the Christian god, then by what standard does one reject that same personal experience to confirm the existence and trustworthiness of the Muslim god, or the Pagan god? If one method is not reliable with regard to all religions, why is it reliable for one? And how does one know which one? 

 

I think the answer is clear, but not popular, and certainly not comforting to those who wish to maintain their faith. There exists no evidence. One cannot reasonably expect accountability from the god of the bible because any theology bumps up against evidence that reveals a different reality. The only way to maintain a faith in today's world is to choose to maintain it, to chose to believe, to ignore the reasons not to believe. 

[Bluegoat]

This post was on his own FB page and not in response to someone else's post. I was curious to see what responses you had about what he posted. I think most of you thought I wanted to know if you think he should have posted it in the first place. I agree with those of you who said it's his page and he can post what he wants- you can unfriend him or simply choose not to read his posts if you find them offensive.

 

As far as why I posted, I'd like to know your views on the following:

 

-Is it wrong to challenge someone else's cherished beliefs? (My dh would say you respect people - not opinions.)

-How is his argument weak (as some of you have posted). If Jesus never performed miracles (magic), would you still believe he was God's son?

-The tough question (I thought) was "How could such an elaborate con evolve to fool so many people? You already know of a few. Look at Islam. Look at Hinduism. Look at Mormonism. Why is it so difficult to imagine that your particular faith evolved similarly?"

Dan Barker put it like this - "Where did we get the idea that words on a page speak truth? Shouldn't truth be the result of investigation and analysis? If I think it is so easy for millions of people to be misled into a false religion because of a tendency to believe error, what makes me exempt?"

 

 

This is what I personally am grappling with right now - For 40 years, Jesus was my best friend. I saw God as all powerful, merciful and loving (my "father"). I knew he was holy and could not tolerate sin, sacrificed his son for us and so on. Recently, my husband asked me to stand outside the "bubble" of Christianity and see it for what it really is. It's taken more courage than I ever thought I had to put everything I believed aside and evaluate the claims of my religion.

 

What I've discovered is that the God of the Bible, if he does exist, is a monster. It's easy to miss that if you cherry pick your way through, ignoring the mass murders he commits. How could a "loving" God kill all the first born children of the Egyptians in order to convince the pharaoh to do what he wanted? How could he command the Israelites to kill every man, woman, child, nursing baby, animal - but divide up the virgins for yourselves? Really?!! I know these ancient people thought of women as property, but why would God view them that way? How could God see young girls as "spoils of war"? Why would God tell them they could beat their slaves for days as long as they didn't kill them? Why wouldn't he even mention that owning another person was wrong? Could it be because the people who wrote the Books didn't think it was wrong? How could a loving God send 2 bears out of the woods to maul 42 children for making fun of a bald man (2 kings 2: 23-24). Did you know he commanded girls to marry their rapists?! And the punishment for the rapist was a small fine and a new wife to care for. This is insane!! (I've heard some people say that he did this bc no one would marry her after that, and she would be forced to find a way to care for herself. So, God can provide for his people wandering in the desert for decades, but he can't manage to take care of a girl who's been raped?).

 

Moving on to the New Testament - Jesus is the "New God", which is a good thing bc he seems a whole lot more loving. The problem is that he starts talking about hell. So, why keep people alive forever to be tortured? Why not just obliterate them into nonexistence? Can you even imagine a man who kidnaps people and keeps them alive just so he can torture them day after day for the rest of their lives? This is what the Bible tells us we deserve for eternity for being the sinful people we are. ***Of course we can avoid all that if we can pass his test where he puts us in a world full of liars and makes us guess which priest is telling the truth!**

 

You know what really doesn't make sense? God created galaxies, but he can't write the Bible? The very fact that men wrote the Bible is HIGHLY suspicious!! He makes the eternal salvation of our souls dependent on whether or not we "believe in" Jesus, but he doesn't bother to have Jesus write any of it down or leave even a shred of evidence. He doesn't even have any eyewitnesses write it down. He waits 40 years and has some anonymous people (who don't even claim to be eyewitnesses) write it down -for every generation to come. It just doesn't. make. sense.

 

 

**Sorry if I rambled! It's late!

 

These are all good questions, and ones I think that most people ask about their belief system at some point if they are not very dull indeed.  But I think one thing I would suggest, which I alluded to earlier, is that these specific questions are in some ways predicated on a way of understanding the Bible that comes out of a particular subset of CHristianity, and in particular a particular way of looking at the Bible.  From my own perspective, it isn't a robust way to understand it, and it is a historically anachronistic way to understand it - it isn't the way for example the early Christians understood how religious texts worked.

 

To put it another way, it isn't just in the modern period that these kinds of things about Scripture - a good God behaving in what seem like evil or simply inexplicable ways, a Bible written over a period of time - came to exist.  And it isn't that in the past, people did not know these things were there, or they just thought they were ok or whatever.  In some cases they were not problems because they did not read them the way you are, or in other cases because they never considered that Scripture was meant to stand alone, or for other reasons.

 

I don't want to put too fine a point on it, but this sort of Christian teaching is not well known for its scholarship.  If you really want to at least get a sense of another way of looking at it, I think you will have to simply look at another kind of Christianity.  I would say that even apart from your own beliefs, that is a worthwhile project, because it is an important part of the history of the west.

 

Just for some brief examples of what I mean: from my perspective coming from orthdox Anglicanism, to say that people in all other religions have been conned just isn't true in the first place, though any religion could of course be a con job wholly or in part.  Many are good examples of natural religion.  I think Christianity is true on its merits, not because someone told me I had to.

 

The OT is understood as a record of the Hebrew's encounters with God, often from the perspective of the Hebrews.  There are many places where it is clearly not recording God's perspective on events - for example when God is described as changing his mind, which is clearly impossible from any kind of philosophical perspective.  This is an important as an indicator of how to undrstand the text as a whole.  (It is also what an understanding of apophatic theology tells us to expect - anything of God put into human language is going to be a kind of approximation.  This is a large but important topic, and I think it is worthwhile to point out that modern Protestantism almost totally ignores apophatic theology.)  Also - historically the OT is always studied through the lens of the NT - in fact the traditional liturgical usage makes it clear that there is a hierarchy within Scripture, it isn't all equal.

 

As far as hell - my Church would say that by nature, human beings are immortal, and human souls are immortal.  All, after death, are in a sense in the presence of God and experience God's love.  But God is truth, and untruth cannot stand in the face of that.  If people are determined to hold on to untruth, or have in fact become nothing but a kind of lie, they will experence that love as a kind of ramped up existential angst.  That is, this is not some kind of desire to torture people being indulged by God, it is just a more pure form of what we experience when we insist of living out of accord with reality in this life.  Certainly it is not considered what God wants, and arbirary tests would be seen as not involved.  Nor are people who get the "wrong" answer considered to be doomed. (Dante, in the context of medieval Catholicism, has a pagan in heaven in The Divine Comedy.  Check box answers were not the point.)

 

It also isn't clear that this goes on eternally - one of the things that is often a huge difference between traditional CHristianity and modern evangelical Protestantism is the stuff about the afterlife - a lot would be considered just made up or even heretical.  Pretty much anything to do with dispensationalism, for example, is just not even on the radar.  I mention this because I've found a lot of people are not aware that there is a significantly different set of beliefs about this.

 

As for writing the Bible - I am not sure why it is considered a problem that it was written by the Christian community.  That is rather the point, in ,y view.  I mean, I understand what you are getting at, but from my perspective what you are describing really wouldn't be any better or a sure thing.  Scripture is the product of the Christian community, that is what it has always been.

 

Anyway - these aren't really answers and I can't prove in this forum that this is in fact closer to the "real" view of the Church.  I think I am more trying to suggest the kind of direction I might take in your position to get a wider perspective on the questions.  I'm not sure what you like to read, but you might find it useful to look at something like writings or biographies of educated Christians who knew about these questions but still considered Christianity the strongest worldview from a rational perspective - that isn't at all uncommon.  Lewis is probably the most accesible, his area of scholarship meant he was very aware of how textual cristisim works and he understood how historians evaluate historical claims.

[Bluegoat]

It must be all kinds of special to think God chose YOU as a baby to be part of his crew, and all those who 'fell away' just were left in the crib to start with. 

 

From the outside, it's a fairly narcissistic belief.

 

I think it might actually come from a confusion about how to talk about a being that exists outside of time.

 

In their minds, people think, "well, if So and So fails as a Christian, God knew about it all along even when he seemed to be a good Christian, so he never really was a CHristian.

 

There is sometimes an assumption too that someone is kind of a bad Christian is the same as someone who is apostate.

 

I also suspect that when people say this, by "true Christian" what they mean is something like what people used to mean by "saint" which is to say someone who achieves union with God.

 

So they are saying, "if so and so never gets to heaven, he obviously never finished the process of divinization."  So its kind of a tautology.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Carol in Cal.  - thank you for your posts.  You have helped me.

 

Albeto and Creekmom - I don't think you intended to help me in this way (in making my faith stronger) but you have helped me too.  I'm not sure if you want my thanks though.  

[LucyStoner]

To be fair, freethinker does have a different meaning from atheism so I can understand that some would have issues with it.

Oh, I know what it means. The dogma I found though isn't any less dogmatic that other varieties. Not my scene.

[plath]

Oh, I know what it means. The dogma I found though isn't any less dogmatic that other varieties. Not my scene.

I wasn't trying to insinuate that you didn't understand what it means, only pointing out that it isn't synonymous with atheism, so a person can be an atheist and not be a freethinker. It's definitely not for everyone and I understand that.

[LucyStoner]

I wasn't trying to insinuate that you didn't understand what it means, only pointing out that it isn't synonymous with atheism, so a person can be an atheist and not be a freethinker. It's definitely not for everyone and I understand that.

I think I left round about the time there was a string of people trying to arbitrate what is and isn't a feminist. That and the fact the group I was in had a vocal mod who said highly inappropriate things about her son all the time and all these freethinkers were fawning over her every, creeptastic word. No thank you. Life is too short to make yourself subject to self appointed arbitrators of thought.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Life is too short to make yourself subject to self appointed arbitrators of thought.

 

I love this. It's so true.

[LucyStoner]

One group does not a movement make. I am not a freethinker, particularly, but I'm pretty sure there will be good and bad freethinker groups, just as there are for everything else under the sun.

Yet still I laugh when there develops an orthodoxy around challenging orthodoxy. It's deliciously hypocritical. I've seen the same tendancy crop up in many such groups. The militancy and rigidity of it forsakes the movement's actual roots. I think is makes a mockery of the spirit of the ideas.

 

I don't think DuBois, Ingersoll, or Stanton themselves would be accepted by some of today's self proclaimed freethinkers.

[HRAAB]

I literally do not understand what you and Carol have tried to communicate here.

 

It gets to a point where you are addressing believers, not a general audience. Which is OK. But unconvincing, if your aim is to convince.

 

I really find the word 'apostate' quite chilling.

 

I'm glad you said this.  After reading the explanations, my brain felt contorted.  Of course, I'm having a Long Island Iced Tea, but it is my first.

[Carol in Cal.]

I literally do not understand what you and Carol have tried to communicate here.

 

 

Sadie, if you have a specific question, here or in PM's, I will take another shot.  I am not sure which part is confusing is all.

[plath]

I think I left round about the time there was a string of people trying to arbitrate what is and isn't a feminist. That and the fact the group I was in had a vocal mod who said highly inappropriate things about her son all the time and all these freethinkers were fawning over her every, creeptastic word. No thank you. Life is too short to make yourself subject to self appointed arbitrators of thought.

I think I know who you are speaking of, and know that there are other homeschooling freethinker groups out there ;)

[Tsuga]

I wish I'd never have been a Christian in the first place. Would have saved me some stupid decisions such as a career in the public service and getting married as a virgin (and therefore having no idea how bad it really was) and all that.

 

Unfortunately, I think I actually did believe Jesus was the son of God, that God was the eternal creator, and all kinds of things related to that. I feel kind of foolish now.

 

I'd like to go back and say, "No, i never really believed."

 

But it would be a lie. I totally bought that line, hook, line and sinker.

[Ipsey]

I wish I'd never have been a Christian in the first place. Would have saved me some stupid decisions such as a career in the public service and getting married as a virgin (and therefore having no idea how bad it really was) and all that.

 

Unfortunately, I think I actually did believe Jesus was the son of God, that God was the eternal creator, and all kinds of things related to that. I feel kind of foolish now.

 

I'd like to go back and say, "No, i never really believed."

 

But it would be a lie. I totally bought that line, hook, line and sinker.

 

Oh, god, me too! My husband and I would probably both have good retirement plans. We wouldn't be under the poverty line. We would have put our good educations to work in fields that meant something instead of wasting our best income building years in the ministry.

 

I believed it. I was totally sucked in. And it was no one's fault but my own.

 

I do regret it. 

 

The wasted, wasted years. It makes me want to weep.

[Tsuga]

Oh, god, me too! My husband and I would probably both have good retirement plans. We wouldn't be under the poverty line. We would have put our good educations to work in fields that meant something instead of wasting our best income building years in the ministry.

 

I believed it. I was totally sucked in. And it was no one's fault but my own.

 

I do regret it. 

 

The wasted, wasted years. It makes me want to weep.

 

So glad I am not alone but I have done my share of weeping. Sorry. :(

[Bluegoat]

I literally do not understand what you and Carol have tried to communicate here.

 

It gets to a point where you are addressing believers, not a general audience. Which is OK. But unconvincing, if your aim is to convince.

 

I really find the word 'apostate' quite chilling.

 

I'll try again.  You'll have to forgive my explanation if its a bit fast and loose because this isn't part of the theology of my tradition.

 

There is this idea among some groups of Christians that if someone who appeared to be "saved"  later rejects Christianity - what they condider as rejecting it may vary depending on the group - that person was never really a Christian. 

 

This idea, speaking historically, relates to a number of different theological ideas.  One of these is what Calvinists sometimes call eternal security.  It does, I agree, tend to come off as I am a special snowflake, and I suspect it has that appeal for some,but the reasons it developed were theological.  Fundamentally it relates to the idea that God, being outside of time, knows at the very moment of creation what choices will be made by every person. So if someone will, in the final tally, make it to heaven, that was known from the moment of their exietnence.  If they are lucky enough to be one of those people, the elect, they supposedly have this eternal security.

 

So - seeing someone who seemed to be part of the elect who has now shown himself to not be part of the elect, there is a sense in which it could be said "well, God must have known that person wasn't really elect all the time."

 

This isn't really how it was talked about before the Reformation - prior to that is was usually thought about in different terms, and it is that particular brand of Reformation thinking that also tends to reject the idea of free will which is related.  There are some other concerns that motivated their thinking in this way - not making God, who is a First Principle, dependant on the actions of something contingent was another - as if God's knowledge depended on a contingent person's free decision to act - that seemed to them like a logical contradiction.

 

Most of the examples of this you see day to day where someone says "well, if he backslides he was never saved" are far less sophiticated in their thinking that the people who originally were talking about them.  You can see for example that they are using the word "Christian" very broadly to mean something like "the elect" which is an inexact way of speaking.

 

 

All of this is to say - that type of language ultimatly comes from theological questions, not just people's emotions.

 

ETA - I think apostate is probably supposed to be a chilling word - it is supposed to be a much stronger indictment than something even like heretic which moderns tend to see as strong language, essentially it means a kind of traitor, and a traitor not just to a person but a principle.  Pretty much ever human society ever, and even the most banal depths of pop culture today, sees that as about the worst of the worst.

[Catwoman]

Oh, god, me too! My husband and I would probably both have good retirement plans. We wouldn't be under the poverty line. We would have put our good educations to work in fields that meant something instead of wasting our best income building years in the ministry.

 

I believed it. I was totally sucked in. And it was no one's fault but my own.

 

I do regret it.

 

The wasted, wasted years. It makes me want to weep.

I sympathize with you, but there are plenty of very religious people who have also become financially successful.

 

I do understand your regret at having spent years working at something that was ultimately unfulfilling, though, and wishing you had made different choices. :grouphug:

[Ipsey]

I sympathize with you, but there are plenty of very religious people who have also become financially successful.

 

 

That was not at all my point, but it was a fact of my choices made because of a bogus belief system.

Many people follow that belief system and do well, but it was my downfall.

 

My poverty is my own damn fault.  Is that the point?

 

 

 

[LucyStoner]

I sympathize with you, but there are plenty of very religious people who have also become financially successful.

 

I do understand your regret at having spent years working at something that was ultimately unfulfilling, though, and wishing you had made different choices. :grouphug:

Many in the ministry buy into certain teachings of the gospels about wealth and their religious traditions actively eschew wealth or even financial security. Because it's too worldly or too selfish. Because it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle and all that. Sell all that you own, give to the poor and come and follow me. My parents sure the heck took this approach to a rather extreme level at times.

 

I can see why if some people who leave the ministry or faith entirely would come to regret that sacrifice. There aren't that many Joel Osteens (thank Beezus for that!). A lot in the ministry are living worse than paycheck to paycheck and it's understandably hard.

[KungFuPanda]

I'm approaching done with the cat videos. It's starting to look like the same half dozen cats.

I feel this way about BBC :-)

[sbgrace]

I wish I'd never have been a Christian in the first place. Would have saved me some stupid decisions such as a career in the public service...

 

How would it have saved you from that? I know many public servants/helping oriented career people who aren't Christian. After all non-religious people aren't any less driven to care for others. Maybe I'm misreading you. But I am sorry you have regret in life choices. I have some too, though for different reasons! ETA: I see your explanation. re: poverty...we've got a broken system, and resulting unequal footing.

[Guest Hesentme]

Grow the heck up folks. This post was meant to stir up drama. Why do we care what dh posted on his own fb page??! Exactly! I'm a Christian and don't care about other people's closed mind to my belief I'm not going around searching for others belief to pick on or debate. It's pointless. Let every man work out their own salvation. That being said please know when you're playing puppet to other peoples post....

[Guest Hesentme]

That was not at all my point, but it was a fact of my choices made because of a bogus belief system.

Many people follow that belief system and do well, but it was my downfall.

 

My poverty is my own damn fault. Is that the point?

yup sounds like you tried to go the 5 fold way... Yes that's Your fault because that's not what Christianity is about! People twisting scriptures to collect money.... Don't blame that on the religion. Blame that on yourself for idolizing whoever sold you that..

[Guest Hesentme]

 

These are all good questions, and ones I think that most people ask about their belief system at some point if they are not very dull indeed. But I think one thing I would suggest, which I alluded to earlier, is that these specific questions are in some ways predicated on a way of understanding the Bible that comes out of a particular subset of CHristianity, and in particular a particular way of looking at the Bible. From my own perspective, it isn't a robust way to understand it, and it is a historically anachronistic way to understand it - it isn't the way for example the early Christians understood how religious texts worked.

 

To put it another way, it isn't just in the modern period that these kinds of things about Scripture - a good God behaving in what seem like evil or simply inexplicable ways, a Bible written over a period of time - came to exist. And it isn't that in the past, people did not know these things were there, or they just thought they were ok or whatever. In some cases they were not problems because they did not read them the way you are, or in other cases because they never considered that Scripture was meant to stand alone, or for other reasons.

 

I don't want to put too fine a point on it, but this sort of Christian teaching is not well known for its scholarship. If you really want to at least get a sense of another way of looking at it, I think you will have to simply look at another kind of Christianity. I would say that even apart from your own beliefs, that is a worthwhile project, because it is an important part of the history of the west.

 

Just for some brief examples of what I mean: from my perspective coming from orthdox Anglicanism, to say that people in all other religions have been conned just isn't true in the first place, though any religion could of course be a con job wholly or in part. Many are good examples of natural religion. I think Christianity is true on its merits, not because someone told me I had to.

 

The OT is understood as a record of the Hebrew's encounters with God, often from the perspective of the Hebrews. There are many places where it is clearly not recording God's perspective on events - for example when God is described as changing his mind, which is clearly impossible from any kind of philosophical perspective. This is an important as an indicator of how to undrstand the text as a whole. (It is also what an understanding of apophatic theology tells us to expect - anything of God put into human language is going to be a kind of approximation. This is a large but important topic, and I think it is worthwhile to point out that modern Protestantism almost totally ignores apophatic theology.) Also - historically the OT is always studied through the lens of the NT - in fact the traditional liturgical usage makes it clear that there is a hierarchy within Scripture, it isn't all equal.

 

As far as hell - my Church would say that by nature, human beings are immortal, and human souls are immortal. All, after death, are in a sense in the presence of God and experience God's love. But God is truth, and untruth cannot stand in the face of that. If people are determined to hold on to untruth, or have in fact become nothing but a kind of lie, they will experence that love as a kind of ramped up existential angst. That is, this is not some kind of desire to torture people being indulged by God, it is just a more pure form of what we experience when we insist of living out of accord with reality in this life. Certainly it is not considered what God wants, and arbirary tests would be seen as not involved. Nor are people who get the "wrong" answer considered to be doomed. (Dante, in the context of medieval Catholicism, has a pagan in heaven in The Divine Comedy. Check box answers were not the point.)

 

It also isn't clear that this goes on eternally - one of the things that is often a huge difference between traditional CHristianity and modern evangelical Protestantism is the stuff about the afterlife - a lot would be considered just made up or even heretical. Pretty much anything to do with dispensationalism, for example, is just not even on the radar. I mention this because I've found a lot of people are not aware that there is a significantly different set of beliefs about this.

 

As for writing the Bible - I am not sure why it is considered a problem that it was written by the Christian community. That is rather the point, in ,y view. I mean, I understand what you are getting at, but from my perspective what you are describing really wouldn't be any better or a sure thing. Scripture is the product of the Christian community, that is what it has always been.

 

Anyway - these aren't really answers and I can't prove in this forum that this is in fact closer to the "real" view of the Church. I think I am more trying to suggest the kind of direction I might take in your position to get a wider perspective on the questions. I'm not sure what you like to read, but you might find it useful to look at something like writings or biographies of educated Christians who knew about these questions but still considered Christianity the strongest worldview from a rational perspective - that isn't at all uncommon. Lewis is probably the most accesible, his area of scholarship meant he was very aware of how textual cristisim works and he understood how historians evaluate historical claims.[/quote

They will never get it, especially after blaspheming. God please bless their souls..]

[Rosie_0801]

Good heavens. Of all the threads to resurrect...

 

:zombie:  :zombie:  :zombie:  :zombie:  :zombie:  :zombie:

[Guest Hesentme]

 

Dh was a devoted Christian for decades but no longer "believes". Over 90% of his "friends" on FB are Christians, and he's been challenging their beliefs for awhile with different posts. He posted this one today, and I'd love to hear your opinions:

 

Suppose I did some magic tricks in class and convinced some of my students that I was really magic. Would you feel that I treated those kids rightly if I gave candy to the ones who wondered in awe and believed while I gave detention to those who didn't?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He can say what he wants but when I called on the Lord he saved me from various situations. Supernaturally in some. I'm not going to start on it.

But, even when I was weak in faith He arose in me and healed me when I had given up... So if it were a magic trick (metaphor) which is not, then he's not just the great physician, but also the great magician!! You were created by a miraculous Spirit not a fungus, etc there's more to you than that. Look deeper & please realize we only use about 10%of our brains, so of course there are things we can't fathom or understand! Life, love & peace my friend.

[kristi26]

Grow the heck up folks. This post was meant to stir up drama. Why do we care what dh posted on his own fb page??! Exactly! I'm a Christian and don't care about other people's closed mind to my belief I'm not going around searching for others belief to pick on or debate. It's pointless. Let every man work out their own salvation. That being said please know when you're playing puppet to other peoples post....

I find it incredibly ironic and somewhat hilarious that you say you aren't out searching for stuff like this though you obviously did in order to resurrect this thread. ;) hahaha.

 

Sent from my LG-LS970 using Tapatalk

[kristi26]

Grow the heck up folks. This post was meant to stir up drama. Why do we care what dh posted on his own fb page??! Exactly! I'm a Christian and don't care about other people's closed mind to my belief I'm not going around searching for others belief to pick on or debate. It's pointless. Let every man work out their own salvation. That being said please know when you're playing puppet to other peoples post....

I find it incredibly ironic and somewhat hilarious that you say you aren't out searching for stuff like this though you obviously did in order to resurrect this thread. ;) hahaha.

 

Sent from my LG-LS970 using Tapatalk

[trulycrabby]

:zombie: :zombie: :zombie:

[Abeille]

yup sounds like you tried to go the 5 fold way... Yes that's Your fault because that's not what Christianity is about! People twisting scriptures to collect money.... Don't blame that on the religion. Blame that on yourself for idolizing whoever sold you that..

 

Glad to see your faith has helped you be a kinder, gentler person. And yes, that's sarcasm.

[SparrowsNest]

n/m didn't realize this was an old post  :mellow:

[TranquilMind]

.

[Mimm]

.... why?

 

[Jean in Newcastle]

:zombie:  :zombiechase:  :zombie:  :zombiechase:  :zombie:  :zombiechase:

[mamiof5]

I am not too worried about what happens on Facebook... I left highschool drama way behind in my life, a long time ago. But, I do worry for his soul...that is worth worrying for. I'll pray for him :)

[mommymilkies]

nm old OP 

 

[momof4babes]

I find this just as annoying as " born again Christians" who feel it is their personal mission to convert everyone, or the person who started a new cult like fitness/diet program, and think everyone should do it.

 

I don't unfriend or unfollow someone for simply posting their views, but I always unfollow for aggressively bombarding/challenging me with it.

[mamiof5]

Didn't realize earlier this was so old...no idea how it got bumped