Impossible to Believe
I write this post after having read J.E. Holman's excellent post "Now what, Christian?" I want to share a simple and profound truth, a realization that I have come to grips with: faith is impossible for me. Many Christians, upon hearing this, might blink at me with disbelief, protest in denial, or simply try and dialouge with me in hopes of showing me that I have a faulty conception of what faith is. I recall talking with a fellow apostate, Robin, and telling her that it's impossible for me to believe.
First of all, I tried to believe. I sincerely did believe for a decade that the Bible was God's word, that Jesus Christ was his Son, and that Christ was crucified to atone for our sins and that he rose from the dead. I sincerely did believe in creationism, in biblical inerrancy, in the loving providence of God. But now I cannot. I cannot go back to believing in any of that again. I cannot go back through the agony of second-guessing God's motives with each passing prayer, wondering if this or that is a yes-or-no sign. I cannot muster the intellectual gymnastics needed to make creationism or inerrancy work. I cannot work consciously to edit my thoughts and make sure that they confirm to the will of God. For me, it's impossible for me to do that all again. Even if I absolutely wanted to, I don't have the energy, the willpower, or the mental gymnastics. I have seen inerrancy and creationism refuted and I am extremely confident that the resurrection never happened.
Some believers argue that I was never saved to begin with. Even if that's so, why didn't God save me at the age I sincerely thought I was saved.?Why did God let me go groping around in the dark suffering under the honest delusion that I really was saved? What kind of God of love would allow for that? How long was God determined to let me undergo the delusion before having me snap out of it? Why did God let me labor under this delusion for 10 years? This is what I don't understand. I wanted to believe. I wanted the closeness I sincerely believed that others had with God. I wanted God to speak to my heart the way other Christians said that God did to theirs. I wanted so desperately to hear the voice of God, just some indication that he was there and that he loved me.
I wonder the same of other members who left the fold. Why didn't God really save John Loftus to begin with and never let him go? Why did God keep his eternal arms around Ed Babinski or JE Holman? I also think of Robert M Price and Charles Templeton. Both Price and Templeton really did believe that they were saved. Biblical criticism hit Price's faith and withered at it until there was nothing left and the problem of pain and suffering hit Templeton's heart until his faith eroded. If both men were unsaved, why didn't God save them to begin with? If both men were, indeed, saved, then why didn't God work harder to keep them into the fold?
All I can think of is that the biblical God must be a cruel beast if he really does exist. These honest men, including myself, absolutely wanting to believe. And yet we cannot believe. It's impossible for me. I am sure it's the case for Price and it was for Templeton. I will gladly let Loftus and Babinski speak for themselves. If God saved us, why didn't he keep us? Or, why didn't God save us to begin with so we would never leave the fold? I ask the question for many Christians: why does God make faith impossible?
Matthew
Some believers argue that I was never saved to begin with. Even if that's so, why didn't God save me at the age I sincerely thought I was saved.?Why did God let me go groping around in the dark suffering under the honest delusion that I really was saved? What kind of God of love would allow for that? How long was God determined to let me undergo the delusion before having me snap out of it? Why did God let me labor under this delusion for 10 years? This is what I don't understand. I wanted to believe. I wanted the closeness I sincerely believed that others had with God. I wanted God to speak to my heart the way other Christians said that God did to theirs. I wanted so desperately to hear the voice of God, just some indication that he was there and that he loved me.
I wonder the same of other members who left the fold. Why didn't God really save John Loftus to begin with and never let him go? Why did God keep his eternal arms around Ed Babinski or JE Holman? I also think of Robert M Price and Charles Templeton. Both Price and Templeton really did believe that they were saved. Biblical criticism hit Price's faith and withered at it until there was nothing left and the problem of pain and suffering hit Templeton's heart until his faith eroded. If both men were unsaved, why didn't God save them to begin with? If both men were, indeed, saved, then why didn't God work harder to keep them into the fold?
All I can think of is that the biblical God must be a cruel beast if he really does exist. These honest men, including myself, absolutely wanting to believe. And yet we cannot believe. It's impossible for me. I am sure it's the case for Price and it was for Templeton. I will gladly let Loftus and Babinski speak for themselves. If God saved us, why didn't he keep us? Or, why didn't God save us to begin with so we would never leave the fold? I ask the question for many Christians: why does God make faith impossible?
Matthew
15 comments:
To some extent I agree with Vynette. The Christian faith is very far from the teachings and values of Jesus, insofar as we can deduce them from the synoptic gospels. Of course, we have to recognize that the "stampede from [that particular] traditional Christianity" began between AD 50 and AD 65. Paul invented the religion we now call Christianity, and in doing so pointedly ignored everything Jesus taught and did. His was a religion based on a concept of a God using Jesus as a sort of theological hat rack. There may have been a few scattered groups who kept to Jesus' teachings in the 2 or 3 centuries after Jesus' death, but they were considered heretical and died out (probably with assistance from the orthodox).
I have seen some modern attempts to return to the teaching of Jesus and strip the religion of the trappings of "the gentile church fathers" - John Shelby Spong's work is a good example. While certainly far better than traditional Christianity, it falls flat as a religion IMHO. Possibly the reason is that Jesus never intended to start a new religion or to become an object of devotion.
I would suggest to Vynette that she confine her reading to Matthew, Mark and Luke and review some of the scholarship of those who are trying to determine what Jesus actually did and said and what was added by authors and editors. The rest of the canon really describes different Gods (or at least very different concepts of the same God idea) so if a return to Jesus' teaching is the goal, there's little to be gained from confusing oneself with the other 63 books.
Why did God let me go groping around in the dark suffering under the honest delusion that I really was saved? What kind of God of love would allow for that?
Vynette,
God makes the unbeliever unable to come to repentance, according to Reformed theologians. What would you say to them?
One stupid Christian commenter, whose attempt at self-aggrandizement via a link back to his own blog (stop even trying) was deleted (and will continue to be deleted in the future), and who will remain nameless, is so stupid they don't realize that their own Calvinistic doctrine not only would have no problem with you not believing because of God, but predicts that God causes your unbelief and hardens your heart.
Praise Gawd!
"if a return to Jesus' teaching is the goal, there's little to be gained from confusing oneself with the other 63 books."
Sounds like something for the Jesus Seminar.
There is quite a bit of support for god controlling your belief, both in the old testament and the new testament. I think the biggest example that comes to mind is Pharoah during the Exodus, where god hardened his heart many times in order to continue torturing him.
And then there is the verse in the new testament about god's predestined.
Geisler in "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" suggests the following question for an unbeliever when one is trying to convert them:
If you die and find your self standing before god, what are you going to say when you are asked to defend yourself in order to get into heaven? (My wording from memory, the gist is the same)
I will say this: I acted in a manner completely inline with how you created me. Do with me what you will.
Not that that will ever happen...
It is not so much a question of 'faith' as it is a question of 'loyalty'. Faith is not soemthing that comes from God; the Holy Spirit does not descend upon you giving the gift of some magical knowingness called 'faith'. Faith is not something only Christians have, and non Christians have not.
According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word Belief developed in 15c. Belief meant to "trust in God", while the word Faith meant "loyalty to a person based on promise of duty". We still use the word in this manner (faithful, unfaithful etc). The word Faith took on a relgious meaning in 14c translations.
So the question is, why does God make loyalty impossible? God doesn't. We choose our loyalties on the basis of their character and credibility. You can be loyal to Scientology, to Charles Manson, to the Green Party. You can be loyal to peace, humanity, reason, education and logic.
Faith is not mystical. Faith is not difficult to acquire. Every marriage requires faith. Every business partnership, every contract requires faith.
If you lost your faith, does that mean you never had it? No, of course not, it means your loyalties shifted.
The majority of Americans were 100% loyal to President Bush, until they were able to see the fruits of his labor. So as it is with the non believer and God.
Hi Mattie,
"Faith is not mystical."
Well...yes and no. I don't think we can live without faith since there's nothing absolute but math. I would agree that every marriage requires faith, etc. But then, in a marriage, the spouse is usually in evidence, i.e., you don't have to take anyones word for it that your mate exists.
There are some who believe:
"By grace you are saved through faith, AND THAT NOT OF YOUR SELF, IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD, LEST ANY MAN SHOULD BOAST." (caps for emphasis). "Faith is the SUBSTANCE of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen."
sounds kinda mystical to me.
The Church would do well to distance itself as far away from the immoral teachings of Jesus as possible--but they'd have to throw out the rest of scripture.
Again, where are these great teachings of Jesus I keep hearing about? I've read the ones from the bible, and they make me sick. Racism, generational curses, the advocacy of the irrational and immoral laws of the old testament, Hell, the sacrifice of one's own moral judgement, Suffering as inherent value, and no speaking out against the worst crime of humanity--slavery. This is what you want the church to teach? That would be fine with me--it should lead people away from the religion more than any logical arguments against the existence of one or more gods.
"why didn't God save me at the age I sincerely thought I was saved.?Why did God let me go groping around in the dark suffering under the honest delusion that I really was saved?"
Because God doesn't exist! And you are obviously not very good at self-delusion!
Josh paraphrased the following:
"If you die and find your self standing before god, what are you going to say when you are asked to defend yourself in order to get into heaven?"
Bertrand Russell was allegedly asked the same question. His response paraphrased from my memory:
"Dear Lord, you didn't give me sufficient evidence to believe."
Great post Matthew. My de-conversion story "Here I Stand...I Can Do No Other" runs along these lines and asks the question "is belief a choice?"
I feel like you--I didn't really choose to become an atheist, I just sort of...did. It's hard to explain, but it's good to know there's others out there who feel the same.
Zac,
I read your deconversion story from the Christian faith. All I can say is that I completely understand what you went through. I think one problem that many Christians have is that they have a hard time grasping that many of us who wanted to be Christians found out more and more that we just couldn't. We wanted to have faith and believe but it became impossible for us.
I am curious about something. Your wife (who is drop-dead gorgeous by the way- I very much salute you for great taste and good fortune!) went to a Christian college (apparently the same one that John Loftus went to) and she married you- did she deconvert as well? Is she still a Christian? How is the relationship between the two of you?
If she deconverted as well- was it because of anything you shared with her?
Once again, Zac, I am more than pleased to have you among us, my friend!
Matthew
Matthew,
Thanks for the compliments. Yes, we both went to Great Lakes Christian College.
It has taken my wife a long time to come to grips with all of this, but about 6-8 months after my de-conversion, my wife also discovered that she doesn't believe in Christianity either. While she can't say she's an atheist, she can say she's not a Christian.
It's been extremely difficult for her because she's not confrontational (unlike myself) and she finds herself really wanting to believe in a god. And so along with your post, she too just finds it "impossible" right now to beleive no matter how hard she is trying.
Best to you!
I think once you start questioning God and judging His motives, you put yourself in the place of God instead of the creation you are.
Faith is about accepting God for who He is as revealed in the Bible, not trying to interpret Him from your own feelings or experiences.
God is always good, always just, even if you can't see it. The evil in the world is the result of man and his choices, not God.
matthew - I find your testimony impossible to believe. The real God never turns anyone away from those who are willing to accept Him for who He is - hard truths and all.
vynette - what Jesus of Nazareth could you possible be referring to? You seem to be making one up that includes all the truths you like and dumping the rest. What a wise judge you are to know what parts of the Bible are true and what aren't!
democracy lover - you seem to have no problem taking the scriptures you want to believe and leaving out the others, now who is making up his own religion here?
Zac - you managed to lump all reformed theologians into one group and summarize their entire ministry and motives - you are truly god like!
All of you seem to have no problem judging God (He's cruel, He's this, He's that, He doesn't exist..) and others (hypocrites, self-serving editors, etc.) and at the same time excusing your pseudo-beliefs as "righteous" and your unbelief as "inevitable". If that isn't self-righteousness, I don't know what is.
As for me, I have no righteousness of my own, there is nothing good in me. I am a lousy, self-serving and prideful sinner that God somehow decided to have mercy upon because I NEEDED it and acknowledged it. I hope all of you can humble yourselves and ask God to show you your own lousy spiritual state and let God have His rightful place in your lives before it is too late for you.
Jim, why can't we judge the judge?
>why can't we judge the judge
"It’s not that I see myself actually judging the Judge as if he exists. Even if he does exist I don’t see why I can’t assess how he officiates in his court room, just like I do with any other judge in my society."
You can try, but your standard of judgment is from a humanist perspective rather than divine. In your post John, you are judging God's actions based on human standards and perceptions of morality which is inherently flawed.
The problem with all of us humans is we never think we deserve what we get. We think that all our actions (or the vast majority of them) are completely justified. We then take that line of thought and judge God by our flawed and selfish standards - we look at God's actions through our eyes rather than through His.
It is hard for us, admittedly, to understand how actions by Lot's wife or Uzzah's would cause a reaction/judgment of death from God. But remember, God gave both of them fair warning. The levitical priests were commanded never to touch the ark and only the high priest could go into God's holy presence after he went through God's ordained purification. Lot's wife and family were warned not to look back on the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah but she did anyway. This is my speculation, not mentioned in the biblical text, but I wonder if her heart secretly longed for that wicked society and the act of looking back was a reflection of that bringing judgment. However, no once can be sure.
Our problem is our minds do not understand complete holiness and goodness - our very nature is corrupt and tainted from the morally good beings we started out as. God's presence in the ark could not tolerate the presence of an unclean (unholy) presence of Uzzah touching the ark - the reaction was destructions of the unholy presence. If we throw paper into a fire, we don't blame the fire for burning the paper - that is the nature of fire. If God's holy presence destroys the presence of an unclean, sinful entity, we should not blame God for who He is.
Rather, we should rejoice that God has provided a way to enjoy all of eternity in His awesome holy presence, through the death of His son Jesus, He can transfer the holiness of Jesus Christ onto unworthy sinners and make them fit to stand in His presence forever.
You can look at Lot's wife and Uzzah and stand in horror, or you can look at all of the sinful human race and all our rebellion and be amazed at God's mercy at being as patient as He has with all of us for thousands of years. Depends who's eyes you choose to look through, ours or God's.
Post a Comment