Things I Like About No Longer Being a Christian

When I saw Matthew's post this morning it made me think of the post I just wrote on my blog Frasch Ideas a couple of days ago. I got to thinking about all the reasons I like about not being a Christian and wrote them down. I agree with Matthew that Christian's seem to think they have a monopoly on Love and Joy and Peace. But I feel ever so much better (relieved, even) since I left first the church, then Christianity and then God. As much as they might hate to admit it, even the Christian side of my family would have to say I am a much happier person now. So, here for your pleasure is: Things I like about no longer being a Christian (or as Matthew says: The Joy of Being a Heathen).


This is all there is; make the most of it.

I like this thought better than thinking about spending eternity in heaven. This makes life more exciting and enjoyable. I know I can't just laze around because I've got something better coming. I appreciate my world more now and want to take care of it because this is all there is, and all those who come after me are going to have.

There is no fear of punishment.

No more do I have to worry if god is going to punish me or my kids or my friends because we did something wrong, or chose an alternative lifestyle, or because of the sin of the world. I no longer have to view tsunamis and AIDS as punishent sent by God.

My relatives are no longer in hell.

This is a feeling not like any other. Imagine being told by the scriptures and your pastors that anyone not believing on the Lord Jesus Christ would go to hell when they died. I was sure my grandfathers were in hell. It is amazing to me how much this is preached except at a funeral. Then the unbelievers (or rather their families) are given a hope that maybe there was a deathbed conversion. I've never heard a pastor say, "Sorry Mrs Jones, we know your husband was an unbeliever and he is hell right now." If they really believed that unrepentant sinners go to hell, then they should say so right in the face of the mourning. It is easy to say when speaking in generalities, but hard to say to Mrs Jones if she asks you where her husband is.

There are no taboo questions.

As a matter of fact, questions are encouraged. Searching is encouraged. Coming up with different ways of looking at things are encouraged.

There is no more guesing God's will.

What a farce that always was, trying to figure out god's will. How do you figure it out when he won't say anything? If you are lucky the Bible says something about it, but if not you are left with trying to discern the will of god on your own, through your feelings.

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."
- Susan B. Anthony

No more thinking I must be sinning because of adversity.

Here is what I know now - bad things happen to good people, bad things happen to bad people, good things happen to good people, and good things happen to bad people. That's life; shit happens. Most people are good most of the time and most of the time life is good. That's what I look for now.

I can take credit for what I do.

If something good happens in my life and I worked hard for it, I can say it is because I worked hard for it. I don't have to give god the credit. By the same token,if I mess up I have to take responsibility and not say the devil made me do it.

I don't have to mess with the problem of unanswered prayer.

This is such a relief. One, I don't have to pray anymore and two, I don't have try to figure out the right way, the way to make things work, the way to make things happen. I don't have to have the convoluted mess of scripures in my head that contradict each other or that show the way alongside another one that shows the way. I don't have to have answers as to why my prayer isn't working, why god didn't heal so and so even though we followed all of the rules.

I don't have to witness or feel guilty for not witnessing.

I used to hate witnessing. I never was very good at it. I didn't like butting into people's personal lives, especially uninvited. Instead, I indoctrinated little children in Sunday School and Good News Bears for which I repent.

I don't have to fear for my unsaved friends and family members souls.

And even when I did witness, it didn't mean that they accepted Jesus. And then I felt guilt for not convincing them and fear that they would end up in hell because I didn't do enough. I spent hours and hours praying for my dad to be saved so he could be in heaven with us. God never answered, or maybe he said no.

I have every Sunday completely free.

I can sleep in every Sunday now and have my whole day free, no Sunday night services, no practice sessions, no Wednesday nights, no council meetings, no special meetings, no offerings, no tithing. Sundays are my own (along with the rest of my week)

">

94 comments:

Hacksaw Duck said...

Hello,

I enjoy this blog. But I'm always struck with how you guys equate "Christianity" with "conservative evangelicalism" -- as if that's the one, valid template of the faith (a point on which you and the fundies seem to agree). Christianity really is a bigger tent than the Christianity of your own past.

Most of the junk you're now free of is junk that I, as a Christian, dropped ages ago. So other than sleeping late on Sunday, what advantage does your philosophy have over mine?

Anonymous said...

This is a brilliant post Theresa, thanks so much for sharing this. I'm definitely saving that one.

Anonymous said...

I found your site yesterday after I Googled "Christianity is Bad" (nice isn't it) XD
I like how you let others post their arguments and you counter it as well. That's what debate is.

What I especially like is that you practice what you believe, you don't tell anyone that thats what you believe and they should too.
It can be safely said that all belief systems are flawed, and you just point out the flaws and people tend to read between the lines to counter what is found. I like that. Because we all know that if they so heavily believed what they did and were logical like they say always claim they are, they wouldn't argue with you, they would dismiss you as a "heathen" and just ignore you and move on.

Bottom line: I like this post. I like this one as much as your other post about the joy of being a heathen.

Anonymous said...

I almost forgot, theres more than one of you, thank you all for your time and effort.
It's nice to see theres more who think alike

Anonymous said...

SteveJ said:

"I enjoy this blog. But I'm always struck with how you guys equate "Christianity" with "conservative evangelicalism" -- as if that's the one, valid template of the faith (a point on which you and the fundies seem to agree). Christianity really is a bigger tent than the Christianity of your own past.

Most of the junk you're now free of is junk that I, as a Christian, dropped ages ago. So other than sleeping late on Sunday, what advantage does your philosophy have over mine?"

Saying that you dropped "most of the junk" that we're just now dropping isn't saying much. What do you believe now as a Christian? Are you a moderate, a liberal, or what?

What exactly is your "philosophy" and what difference would it make if we believed our philosophy was better than yours? I don't see Theresa as trying to convert you to hers so I am not sure why it matters.

Just my two cents..

Matthew

Hacksaw Duck said...

> What exactly is your "philosophy" and what difference would it make if we believed our philosophy was better than yours? I don't see Theresa as trying to convert you to hers so I am not sure why it matters.

I thought this was a place where people debate one another. Was I out of line to challenge this post?

> What do you believe now as a Christian? Are you a moderate, a liberal, or what?

I'm out on the fringe of Christianity. Like you, I'm skeptical concerning much of orthodoxy's doctrinal content. But the experience of faith seems to be real enough -- at least to me.

Anonymous said...

"I thought this was a place where people debate one another. Was I out of line to challenge this post?"

Well we can and do engage in debates. I just didn't see any indication that Theresa was out to convert anyone. You are not in the least out of line to challenge this post. I guess I didn't understand the nature of your comment and why you felt it was necessary.

"I'm out on the fringe of Christianity. Like you, I'm skeptical concerning much of orthodoxy's doctrinal content. But the experience of faith seems to be real enough -- at least to me."

Alrighty. Anyhow, feel free to challenge anyone's post on here. If our views aren't killed in the process, we can all use some refining. Fire away!

Matthew

Anonymous said...

I like the last point about having Sundays free.
I've never understood it. You get up early on your day off (for you regular 9-5 types), you put on your most uncomfortable clothes (didn't Jesus wear a robe?), you drive to a place where you're told how miserable and full of sin you are and how horrible you are. Then, you are told to ask for forgiveness from the very thing that made you miserable and full of sin.
Then they pass around a plate and charge you for the honor of being told how crappy you are!
Hmmmm...
Intead, I choose to sleep in, ride my motorcycle, play golf, watch the NFL with my pals, go to the baseball or hockey game, or just get out and about, enjoying life. And, I don't live in fear of the Sky Daddy. Sounds like a winning plan to me!

Why I Don't Believe said...

Reply to SteveJ

Steve, at the very tippy-top of this blog it says, "This Blog has been created for the express purpose of debunking Evangelical Christianity." Sorry if you misunderstood and were somehow offended in the process.

Glad to see you jetisoned (sp?) all the same 'junk'. It did suck to carry that around no?

Tommykey said...

When I abandoned Catholicism, I was happy about eating meat on Fridays. During the waning period of my religious belief, I started thinking "why would God care whether or not we ate meat on Fridays. If I want to eat a pizza with meatballs on it, why shouldn't I?"

Anonymous said...

Hi Steven,

I was a Deist, not a Xian. But I relate to a lot of what Theresa posted here. As a Deist, I still worried what god wanted, prayed often, believed in an afterlife, and so on.

As an atheist, I value life much more. I know I only have this one go-round and I want to make the most of it.

Sure it's scary to cut the apron strings, but I feel both stronger and more responsible having given up the god delusion.

Anonymous said...

Proverbs 31:10
1 Corinthians 7:2

Leann said...

yes enjoy your self while you can.we all lie to our selves at times.and pertend we are happy.and its funny we go about our lives as if we have forever to live.but then one day like everyone else we dont wake up.and only then can we know for sure if we were right or not.if we werent its our own fault.we cant blame God for what we did our selves.the truth is that no one can honestly stand out side and look at the stars and the creation around him or her and say there is no God.like it says in the bible "the Fool says in his heart there is no God."if the believers are wrong then they have nothing to lose.but if their right then you have alot to lose.only time will tell who is right or wrong.me I believe in the one who gave me peace and forgiveness.who changed my life healed me of cancer.and has been my friend for a long time.His name is Jesus and He is real.if in fact you were realy a christain you would not have walked away.but you didnt really meet the Lord you only knew of Him.there is a big diffrence.and Im not a christain.Iam a child of God.a follower of Jesus.the name christain has no meaning anymore because of people like you and others.I know some of the churchs are not fit to be called that.but its no diffrent now then it was in Jesus day.the church leaders of His day were playing church to.they didnt really know God eather.that is why they didnt know who Jesus was when he came.so you see you are only doing the same thing they did.one thing I love about Jesus.is He lets you have your own free will.He loves you enough to let you go to hell if that is what you want.He doesnt want you to.but if you choose that He will not forse Himself on you.He payed the full price to save you from your sins.but if you want to hold unto them its your right.why you would want to is beyond me but there are alot of waco,s in this world.and getting odder all the time.I have seen other blogs like this one before.and I just blog right by them.but for some reason I desided to stop.maybe its your last call to the truth before its too late who knows?but what ever the reason I left a commment.do with it what you wish.only the will of God will be done on earth as it is in heaven anyway.Gods will is that none parish,but that all come to the truth of the saving of Jesus christ.but if you turned away of your own free will.then you would have to trun back of your own free will.it talks about people like you in the bible.it says we who believe are to reason with you out of Love to try to get you to return to the Lord before its to late.well I care and I have told you what the Lord layed on my heart.you cant say you were not told.I hope you think long and hard about this.cause the signs of the times are all around.and Jesus said to look up when we seen those things.cause soon we would be seeing him.your going to live forever some place at lest make it the right place.

Why I Don't Believe said...

Reply to Leann:

You know, I was beginning to think that maybe I should listen to you and maybe you had some insight. Then I visited your Blogger profile and saw that you listed Celine Dion under favourite music and 'Men in Black' and 'Twister' under favourite movies. Now I am sure you are misled and in need of some serious help. ;P

Hacksaw Duck said...

> Steve, at the very tippy-top of this blog it says, "This Blog has been created for the express purpose of debunking Evangelical Christianity." Sorry if you misunderstood and were somehow offended in the process.

Troy,

You're right about that. I stand corrected. (I guess I should read the fine print more often.)

Anonymous said...

reply to Leann:

You talk about the wonders of the stars and the universe, and then you talk of the bible as if it was the holy truth. There is a big dichotomy here, as that very bible tells you that those stars are only 6,000 years old. How can you trust anything such a book says?

Anonymous said...

This is a warning to all readers such as "Leann". If you have something to say in the way of questions, comments, or criticisms, by all means, leave a comment. This is not a blog for sermonettes about how we all need to repent and think it over again before it's all too late. I will not tolerate preaching in the future. I am not going to allow any more preaching on here and if I find it again, I will delete it along with responses to it.

Just a mild warning here,

Carry on...

Matthew

Anonymous said...

Matthew posted,

" I will not tolerate preaching in the future. I am not going to allow any more preaching on here and if I find it again, I will delete it along with responses to it."

Preach- to advocate earnestly.

Why is voicing what she advocates any different than the others voicing what they advocate? Could it be that the truth hurts?

Anonymous said...

Pat spews forth:

"Preach- to advocate earnestly."

Why is voicing what she advocates any different than the others voicing what they advocate? Could it be that the truth hurts?"

Pat, she is doing far more than voicing her opinion here. She is trying to "save" us before it's too late. As for comment about the "truth" hurting- what "truth" hurts?

Get this into your damned thick skull- nothing you or any other Christian will ever say anything that could ever make me want to spend "eternity" with folks like you. And Christians like you probably wonder why infidels like me find you so damned repugnant to be around. Maybe if you stopped preaching to us and tried to "save" us, maybe we'd have a higher opinion of Christians like yourself, Pat.

It hurts to hear this, perhaps, but I have no interest in spending eternity with people like you personally!! Now make like a fly and buzz off!

Matthew

Anonymous said...

Whoa... "spews forth", "damned thick skull", "find you so damned repugnant to be around", "make like a fly and buzz off"... why all the hostility Matthew? I posted a dictionary definition of the word preach and then asked two legitimate questions in relation to it... when did I say I was a Christian in any of that? Or when did I preach? You seem to make a lot of assumptions. Are people allowed to only post here if they believe exactly like you Matthew?

Anonymous said...

heh, I am just gonna add to the list.

additions are small in comparison(although I agree with the sunday sleeping-in most thoroughly)

I can do the three major sins of fundamentalist christianity: have sex, drink, and smoke - in moderation. Now, I am aware that most churches teach of other sins, but after 22 years of being a christian, I know from experience that they are the ones everyone focuses on.

Now that item was just for me, the rest are as follows:

I can talk and socialize with anyone. They don't have to believe the same way I do, because I don't care.

Not to say I'd walk all over their beliefs or anything, but I don't have to be afraid of hanging out with say a hindu friend of mine because he doesn't believe in the "right" God.


hmmm short list... ah well

anywho,

Troy - don't knock Men in Black

Leann - exactly how did God heal you of cancer? Was it just by prayer or did you go to a doctor too? (Not meaning to offend at all. I seriously want to know.)
Also, was it an all at once deal, or was it over time?

Anonymous said...

"Whoa... "spews forth", "damned thick skull", "find you so damned repugnant to be around", "make like a fly and buzz off"... why all the hostility Matthew? I posted a dictionary definition of the word preach and then asked two legitimate questions in relation to it... when did I say I was a Christian in any of that? Or when did I preach? You seem to make a lot of assumptions. Are people allowed to only post here if they believe exactly like you Matthew?"

Pat,

Pat I only assume what people will give me reasons to assume. I am opposed to preaching as a means of evangelism on here and Leann's post struck me as just that. If Leann wants to share her views fine. If they are opposed to my views, that's fine as well. I don't care. But if she's trying to "save" us all- forget it.

The reason I seem so hostile is because I don't like it when people try to preach to me in order to "save" me and then people defending these preaching self-styled evangelists. If you want to disagree with me, that's fine. I gracefully accept opposing views but not when someone is trying to "save" me or anyone else.

I cannot be "saved" because I too revealed religion too repugnant to consider giving it another thought. Period. If you are not a Christian, that's fine with me Pat although I am not sure why you would chose to defend Leann. I sincerely wish folks like Leann would learn that not everyone is going to be "saved".

Do you understand why I wrote what I did?

Matthew

DagoodS said...

**walking very gingerly out on thin ice**

Matthew, I, too, would support Leann’s opportunity to post a comment, including “preaching.”

I do not think there is much question as to my bona fides as to whether I am a Christian or not!

I see you said, “I will not tolerate preaching in the future. I am not going to allow any more preaching on here and if I find it again, I will delete it along with responses to it.”

Now, if this was your blog entry, I would fully support you choosing what types of comments, and moderating them in line with that direction. If Theresa Frasch equally desires these comments not be made in her blog entry (a fact I do not know) then equally I would support your comment as well.

However, I enjoy discussing with Christians. Liberals, Mormons, Catholics—you name it. And, I understand that some preaching will come with the territory. Shoot, I have had so many sermons in my life; I can’t see how a few more will hurt.

While I can appreciate you tire of it, others of us do not mind as much. Within my blog entries—preach away!

(And before some bloke gets all excited about “dissension in the ranks” be aware that we are all humans. We all view life, even discussing God-beliefs, in different fashions. Again, if Matthew does not want preaching, I would hope Christians would have enough sense to realize the futility of doing so. All I am saying is that we are different.)

Anonymous said...

All I can say is that this is the policy I'd like enforced and Matthew or DagoodS both have the power to enforce it, even if we may disagree with how it is to be enforced.

José Solano said...

Hi Matthew,

I too have problems with the eternal damnation scenario and I see myself in league with Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Barth, Brunner and a great many others who share the apocatastasis perspective. There are probably three or four eschatological interpretations that can be justifiably derived from the Bible. It's possible that the varied authors did not know what the final judgment would be but recognized that they needed to warn people of the great danger of opposing the will of God.

Adherents of the revealed religions see God as sovereign and recognize his wrathful side. Just about all religions have a belief in some sort of wrathful God or gods. I must say that you yourself seem to have a pretty wrathful side judging from the way you came down on Leann for her trying to "save" you. I'd hate to come across someone with your temperament at judgment time as you might dispatch me as quickly and as rudely as you dispatched Leanne and Pat. "Now make like a fly and bug off." They are human beings. You certainly didn't sound too kind and gentle nor merciful, not even respectful. I see goodness in those people even when I don't fully agree with what they are saying. I thank them for their good intentions. They're trying to save people. They make excellent neighbors in times of emergency whereas your neighborliness is highly questionable. Did you become angry and bitter when you turned from Christ? This also may sound like preaching, and so it is.

Ponder a sovereign God who does not necessarily conform to our rules, ideas or our reasoning; a God who suffered and continues to suffer for us. How long will He suffer for us? Eternally? Hmmm. Omm.

Peace.

Anonymous said...

I am on Matthew's side here.

Preachers don't realize that we have heard it all before.

Misguided advocacy is still misguided.

I don't usually tell people to bug off, but I can understand completely why Matthew does so. And so he should, if it is his honest opinion.

Anonymous said...

Leann, if you have specific criticisms of specific claims, please make them. I’m not too proud to learn.

However, a long, unparagraphed, misspelt, poorly punctuated, question-begging spiel makes my eyes glaze. As Yosei said, we’ve heard it all and I can’t be bothered to skim-read your contribution for any buried gems.

One telling, correct/well-argued detail is worth 10 doubtful claims.

Anonymous said...

Yosei... so what if you heard it a million times, how many times have you heard your philosopher's or your big bang theory? We all hear things more than once but refrain from chastising someone when they repeat something we've heard before... at least reasonable people do that is. If only I had a nickel for every time I've heard an atheist compare Yahweh to santa, the tooth fairy, or the flying spaghetti monster then I'd be ... you know the rest.

Kiwi Dave... do you feel better now that you belittled Leann? You said you can't be bothered to skim-read her contribution... why not look over it and just move on?

So far I'm not convinced of the blissfulness of being atheist.

José Solano said...


So what are you talking about? Is it the preaching or the style of preaching that you oppose. Are the anti-fundamentalists concerned that the preacher have the fundamentals of writing mastered. You probably have trouble reading e e cummings. It seems to me that we have here a number secular fundamentalists with a degree of “fire and brimstone” ranting or preaching of their own. And totally unapologetic about their merely insulting comments. No apology whatsoever to Pat whom Matthew mercilessly denigrates. How can anyone side with that attitude and behavior? Might this have something to do with removing the beam from one’s own eye first or with “Physician heal thyself?”

I just reread Leann’s comment and find that with all of her mispelling and punctuation problems there is something rather poetic about her exhortation and her sincere concern for your well-being.

It seems rather naive to create a blog for debunking Christianity and then censor preachers from commenting. And just how do you propose to differentiate between preaching and lecturing? It will inevitably fall on your subjective interests or likings. This entire post is a long sermon with certain theatrics against a particular understanding of hell and a preposterous analogy with secular court procedures to “debunk” the Scriptural testimony. (We can say that the Scriptural testimony is presented to convince a “jury” and there are many different jury compositions. Obviously the jury of this blog is not convinced but millions of others throughout the centuries were. The testimony, the kerygma, was and is indeed believable to them.)

But of course, like God with the universe, this blog is your domain to control as you wish. But the fairness and justice and kindness that you fail to see in God, try it yourself.

Sermon: From the ML “sermo,” speech, conversation, fr. “serere” to link together.

Preach: From LL “praedicare,” fr. L, to proclaim, make known.

Peace.

Anonymous said...

Just speaking for myself, i don't mind preaching so much as hearing any of the following things:

1. "You'll go to hell for not believing."
2. "I hope you will return to the grace of God before it's too late."
3. "I will pray for you."

I recognize that most of the time, the theist says these things with only the best of intentions. But to me, these 3 utterances are offensive. All 3 are based on the notions that that the disbeliever faces eternal punishment for not believing in God. But that's exactly what the disagreement is between theists and atheists/agnostics. So to say those things to an atheist/agnostic is the same as saying, "You're wrong, you're going to be punished forever for being wrong, and you can only escape that punishment if you listen to me."

José Solano said...


So, what is the big offence? Some theists will say, “You’re wrong, you are going to hell forever for being wrong, and you can only escape that punishment if you listen to me.” The Christian of course will say listen to Christ.

And the atheist will say to theists, “You’re wrong and you are going to be snuffed out eternally, and you cannot escape this finale no matter what you do? In fact, this is the eternal end for everyone, theist, atheist, agnostic, your mother, your children, everyone.”

The theist offers hope and the atheist removes all hope. The former offends you Benny but the latter does not? This is quite fascinating.

Anonymous said...

I think you've missed my point.

What I find offensive is the implicit belief that the other side is wrong, and so wrong that they face eternal damnation. The atheist equivalent would be "I sincerely hope that you eventually stop being delusional!" Even that doesn't fully capture the spirit of things, since atheists don't think people who get things wrong are destined for eternal punishment in the afterlife.

It's also interesting how you framed the situation as one of hope vs. no hope. Atheists doubt God because they see little support for His existence, not because they're out to remove all hope. Doubting something due to insufficient evidence is something we do everyday. I guess it does have the consequence of removing hope in things like the afterlife, which has little support. But no, I don't find that offensive, as I don't generally find it offensive to remove false hopes.

Anonymous said...

Jose says:

"Adherents of the revealed religions see God as sovereign and recognize his wrathful side. Just about all religions have a belief in some sort of wrathful God or gods. I must say that you yourself seem to have a pretty wrathful side judging from the way you came down on Leann for her trying to "save" you. I'd hate to come across someone with your temperament at judgment time as you might dispatch me as quickly and as rudely as you dispatched Leanne and Pat. "Now make like a fly and bug off." They are human beings. You certainly didn't sound too kind and gentle nor merciful, not even respectful. I see goodness in those people even when I don't fully agree with what they are saying. I thank them for their good intentions. They're trying to save people. They make excellent neighbors in times of emergency whereas your neighborliness is highly questionable. Did you become angry and bitter when you turned from Christ? This also may sound like preaching, and so it is."

Jose,

I don't see where I was rude to Leann at all. I gave her a mild warning that I wouldn't tolerate preaching here. If she wants to understand why it is that we left the faith- I'd be happy to engage in dialouge with her. But I don't like it when people try to preach at me. I have heard it more times than I care to.

Now, I admit to being curt with Pat on the other hand because of his statement "Could it be the truth hurts". I have very little patience or respect for those who sound like they're impugn on my character by suggesting that the reason why I told her I didn't want any more sermons here was because "the truth hurts"- I take offense at such a statement!

When people say "Oh you don't like hearing the gospel because deep down inside you know how guilty before a righteous God you are"- I feel that such people are impugning on my character and you're right- my response is going to be curt. I don't like it when people say to me "deep down inside you know i's true!" That is impugning on my honesty by suggesting that I am being dishonest with myself and I am living a lie to myself and others.

It wasn't my intention to "denigrate" Leann for preaching but there is a time, place, and an audience for preaching. I am not a part of that audience and when people try include me in their audience, I am giong to protest that. How am I supposed to act?

Jose, the more I read from Christians such as yourself, the more I come away with honest impressions that some Christians have quite a persecution complex. They get obnoxiously preachy and pushy with their evangelism and when people react sourly to it they are the first ones to cry "Persecution! I am so hated!" I don't hate Leann but how much am I supposed to stomach people who are preachy and sometimes even obnoxiously so?

The fact of the matter is that I am neither angry or bitter- just tired and quite often irritable. If you don't think I would make a good neighbor, to be painfully honest, I couldn't care less. This isn't something I lose much sleep over, you know.

Matthew

Anonymous said...

"So what are you talking about? Is it the preaching or the style of preaching that you oppose. Are the anti-fundamentalists concerned that the preacher have the fundamentals of writing mastered. You probably have trouble reading e e cummings. It seems to me that we have here a number secular fundamentalists with a degree of “fire and brimstone” ranting or preaching of their own. And totally unapologetic about their merely insulting comments. No apology whatsoever to Pat whom Matthew mercilessly denigrates. How can anyone side with that attitude and behavior? Might this have something to do with removing the beam from one’s own eye first or with “Physician heal thyself?”"

Jose,

Just so that you know- I take no pleasure in being curt or rude to people. I came across curt to Pat because I thought he was a bit rude himself. If I was out of place, I will apologize to him. In the meantime I would appreciate if people refrained from making remarks such as "Could it be that you know I am right?" "Maybe deep down inside the truth hurts" I find those statements offensive. My statements only become curt or rude when I feel that they're necessary and I honestly thought that Pat was in need of it. If I am in the wrong about this, as I have said, I will apologize to Pat.

I reiterate my statement, I do not want to be preached at, lectured to, or have my motives or character impugned on or have any statements implying intellectual dishonesty on my part. If people want to me to be polite and gentle, I'd be happy to oblige but I ask that they treat me the same. I just didn't feel that way with Pat's posting.

Matthew

Anonymous said...

Jose Solano The theist offers hope and the atheist removes all hope.

Fascinating statement. Mind if we unpack it a bit?

You did not indicate “what” the theist offers hope as compared to the atheist’s removal of the same. If we inspected the hopes of a variety of individuals, I sincerely doubt you would be able to determine their god-belief based upon what humans hope about from day-to-day.

We all hope our children stay healthy, our portfolio grows and that we might get lucky tonight. We all hope for a cure for cancer, that our charitable contributions do not go to waste, and that we are not wasting our time. Each person shares many, if not all of the same hopes. Being a Christian makes little difference in that regard.

I surmise you are talking about hope in an afterlife. True (although no one knows exactly what an afterlife looks like) it seems on its face that the Christian offer of a utopia, where there is no more disease, no sadness, where wrongs are righted, and rights are rewarded and everything is happy-happy would be “better” than a death and return to the elements. (I say “better” in quotes, since no one has every returned from billions and billions of years of existence. It is entirely possible that one could eventually crave oblivion rather than face the prospect of eternity.)

Unfortunately it is a false hope. There is no afterlife. Christianity may provide a hope, but at a cost of expenditure of time and effort on something that does not exist. The question this raises is; “Is it better to have hope in something that will not happen, or know the truth of what is to come?”

Indulge me, if you would be so kind, to engage your imagination for a thought experiment. Imagine I hand you an envelope, and in that envelope is the answer to one question—“Is there an afterlife?” It does not tell you what kind of afterlife. It does not tell you what kind of God actually exists, nor even if there is a God. It is a simply “yes” or “no.” “Is there an afterlife?”

Do you open the envelope?

I would suspect most people would. Most people want to know the truth of reality. As wonderful and powerful as hope can be, people want to be assured there are hoping in the correct thing. People do not want to spend their life worrying about “getting it right” or doing the right thing, or saying the right words, or believing the right way in order to work up a hope inside on something that does not even exist.

Does a Christian offer more “hope” when it comes to an afterlife? Probably. But an atheist offers more hope in what is real. What is real is that there is no God. No afterlife. After death, our bodies decompose and we go back to the same state of non-existence we were in prior to birth.

While for you that may seem like no hope, for us it provides us a chance to spend our time and energy in hoping for what is real. Here. Now. Our families, our friends, our environments.

Do you open the envelope? Because if you do, you are just as interested as us in what is real as compared to hoping for what is not.

(Oh, and by the way. While you do not subscribe to it, I might also not that this “hope” of many Christians is part-and-parcel with the “hope” that I will be burned, tortured and maimed for all eternity simply for having the audacity to be born human. An event over which I had no control whatsoever. Not so pretty from this end.)

Anonymous said...

Matthew wrote, "I don't see where I was rude to Leann at all. I gave her a mild warning that I wouldn't tolerate preaching here. If she wants to understand why it is that we left the faith- I'd be happy to engage in dialouge with her. But I don't like it when people try to preach at me. I have heard it more times than I care to."
This is a warning to all readers such as "Leann". If you have something to say in the way of questions, comments, or criticisms, by all means, leave a comment. This is not a blog for sermonettes about how we all need to repent and think it over again before it's all too late. I will not tolerate preaching in the future. I am not going to allow any more preaching on here and if I find it again, I will delete it along with responses to it.

Just a mild warning here,"

Interesting dichotomy, you say to comment,question, or criticize and then "warn" and say "you will not tolerate" and "will delete" Leann's or anyone else's comments and criticisms.

Matthew said, "Now, I admit to being curt with Pat on the other hand because of his statement "Could it be the truth hurts". I have very little patience or respect for those who sound like they're impugn on my character by suggesting that the reason why I told her I didn't want any more sermons here was because "the truth hurts"- I take offense at such a statement!"

I apologize if that sounded like I was questioning your character. Something Leann said seemed to cause you to over-react and that usually indicates that there is an element of truth in that expression. I did feel like you were playing a power-trip though.

Matthew said, "I don't hate Leann but how much am I supposed to stomach people who are preachy and sometimes even obnoxiously so?"

Isn't every blog entry here preachy(earnest advocacy)?

Dagoods said, "Unfortunately it is a false hope. There is no afterlife. Christianity may provide a hope, but at a cost of expenditure of time and effort on something that does not exist. The question this raises is; “Is it better to have hope in something that will not happen, or know the truth of what is to come?”"

My father died 10 years ago, considered clinically dead, the medical staff resuscitated him longer than what is legally allowed... he came back from the afterlife. He witnessed hell and then heaven and stood before our Maker.

Peace

Anonymous said...

"how many times have you heard your philosopher's or your big bang theory?"

The thing is that while science constantly evolves, Christianity is literally stagnant. Advocates can do nothing but parrot the same thing, literally over and over again. and here lies the weakness of dogma. Whereas science has no problem with throwing out old ideas that are outdated. They have no problem with saying "oops, we were wrong. let's start again." I doubt most apologist advocates are willing to do that.

This might be why there are no scientist missionaries.

Anonymous said...

"The theist offers hope and the atheist removes all hope."

LOL! Jose, no matter how much hope something gives you doesn't mean it's true.

It doesn't matter if all atheists are cranky, suicidal pricks. if something is true it's true. If there is a problem with an eternal Hell there is a problem with an eternal Hell.

José Solano said...


Hi Benny,

I did not miss your point nor is there anything particularly complicated about what you are saying.

I am happy you found interesting how I framed the situation as one of hope vs. no hope and you agree that is the consequence of the two positions. You just like your position more and so do not find it offensive. After all you are the realist and the theists are delusional. The other position is offensive to you so you do not mind if someone silences it and insults its proponent, as Matthew has done. How realistic, practical and considerate of you. I do thank you for wanting to remove delusions.

Hi Matthew,

I will accept that you do not see how you were rude to Leann. Why should anyone imagine that you could have been rude just because you threatened to silence her for preaching to you? It is good of you to recognize that you were curt to Pat. And I think you might have even made some sort of apology to Pat. Enough said on this matter.

(Please excuse me as I’m going to try and avoid using quotation marks, etc. as they produce a lot of gibberish symbols on this blog.)

As with your response with Leann perhaps you simply do not see when you are being rude. You say to me, Jose, the more I read from Christians such as yourself, the more I come away with honest impressions that some Christians have a persecution complex. This is not rude and insulting? You then continue about Christians like me, They get so obnoxiously preachy and pushy . . . they are the first to cry out Persecution! I am so hated!

My dear Matthew, you know nothing about Christians like me yet you slander me with the wild accusation of having a persecution complex and assert I am obnoxiously preachy and pushy. I must say this sure sounds like a projection and it seems you are caught up in some sort of shadow boxing. I do not feel hated or persecuted. I am far, far away from your world. As you say, you must be tired and quite often irritable. I am sorry to hear that and I do wish you rest and peace. Maybe it’s time to take a break from this debunking Christianity mission you are on or try some other more loving approach.

I did read much of what you wrote in A New Direction and think you should work harder on that approach. I have nothing against you for being an atheist. That is where you are at and I do believe that you do want to be honest and kind and helpful to humanity, probably every bit as much as Leann.

I have a lot more to share with you regarding your comments, particularly about all the things you do not wish to hear, but if you keep on censoring perspectives and views you’ll just end up talking to yourself.

I’ll let these few words settle in as I do want to say something to DagoodS.

Hi Dagoods,

Rather than unpack my very clear observation on offering hope and removing hope, you saddled it with all sorts of baggage. Once or twice a year a take people on long journeys through foreign lands and I always advise them to travel light and not pack too much.

You took a detour into talking about hope during our earthly pursuits and eventually surmised that I am talking about hope in an afterlife. You then went on to lecture about Christian utopian views and so forth. And then you make your ex cathedra pronouncement (I’m still avoiding quotation marks): Unfortunately it is a false hope. There is no afterlife. Boy, that sure sounds as dogmatic as anything I’ve heard from the Pope. And all God’s people said Amen, ehh, rather that should be, And all debunkers of Christianity said Amen.

Now I did indulge you with your envelope story but didn’t really find that it went anywhere. Perhaps it was too profound for me. Of course I’m interested in reality.

You end with your commentary about this hope being part and parcel of many Christians hoping that you will burn, be tortured and maimed for all eternity simply for having the audacity to be born human. Wow. I don’t know who you have been hanging around with but I certainly don’t know any of those many Christians you talk about. Maybe you should try finding some Christians that don’t want you to burn in hell eternally.

I wish you nothing but peace.

Anonymous said...

Pat,

Just because your Father had a near death experience and supposedly saw heaven and hell, is no proof that either exist. If you do some research, you will find people from all belief systems had such experiences. Whether it is Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Christian, Pagan and so on. People of these faiths reported seeing places and people that correspond to their belief system. It really depends on your belief system. Furthermore, many people report not seeing any of these places or people at all. So what does that tell you? There is no conclusive proof at all....and your father's experience may be just what he was expecting, and his mind created it for him.

Anonymous said...

Jose,

To quote from a favorite movie of mine, "... and sarcasm is like a second language to me. So, I'm right there with ya."

You're still trying to frame the situation as hope vs. no hope. I disagreed with that in my previous post, and I disagree with that now. It's one of *false* hope vs. no *false* hope.

You say that I just like my position more, and therefore do not find it offensive. Welp, you got me there. I admit, I find the removal of false hope not at all offensive.

You say that because I find the opposition offensive, I therefore allow Matthew to silence and insult its proponents. Matthew found some posts insulting, and responded by explaining what he found insulting and saying that he will tolerate no further insults. How could he be so mean!?!

Come to think of it, "you just like your position and so do not find it offensive" applies equally well to you, doesn't it? You agree with Leann and pat's position, and therefore hand-wave away what Matthew and I found offensive in their words. We appear to have much in common!

José Solano said...


(I’m returning to using quotation marks because I noticed that when you click "Post a Comment" the gibberish symbols are removed.)

Hi Benny,

I have no problem with your adding the words "false" and "no false" to the two hopes I was talking about. That doesn’t change the fact that one removes a form of hope while the other gives hope. Your asserting the word "false" only emphasizes your dogmatic ex cathedra posture. There does seem to be a lot of gnostic type posturing among the "debunkers." I do find more humility among the agnostics that facilitates friendlier more rational communication. Maybe there should be a challenging posting for the agnostic and gnostic debunkers to question each other. Hmm. Wouldn’t that be interesting?

Now, I wasn’t really agreeing with Leann’s position and her style of communication is certainly not my style. In fact, I had mentioned that I lean towards the apocatastasis school of thought. My comment related to vituperative remarks that I think hinder wholesome communication and demean the human being.

Have a beautiful day.

Anonymous said...

Jose Solano,

I apologize if the point I was making with the envelope was not clear. I will attempt to clarify.

We use methodology to make determinations. “What is the shorter route?” (for your trip) for example may be asking for distance, or time. Depending on the methodology, we obtain two completely different answers. The question of which is the “better” methodology would be focused on which is the higher priority. If it is time, then “One hour” is the better answer. If distance, perhaps “200 Miles” is the better answer.

You appeared to be using the methodology of “who provides more hope?” when making the determination of whether an afterlife exists. I questioned whether that was the appropriate methodology when making such a determination.

The illustration of the envelope was that more people prefer a methodology of “What actually is” as compared to “What gives more hope.”

What would you have said, if, using the methodology of “what is reality” I said, “The atheist offers the truth, whereas the theist removes the truth.”? Would you have replied, “What is true or not is not important. What is more important is who offers more hope?” I doubt it.

By opening the envelope you show that you do not believe the method of “who offers more hope” is as good a method of “what actually is.”

Jose Solano: And then you make your ex cathedra pronouncement (I’m still avoiding quotation marks): Unfortunately it is a false hope. There is no afterlife. Boy, that sure sounds as dogmatic as anything I’ve heard from the Pope.

*shrug* Question—which statement is more dogmatic?

“There is an afterlife.”
“There is no afterlife.”

If you find my statement dogmatic, (which is fine), I assume you equally hold that every person who claims there is an afterlife is also dogmatic.

Isn’t it curious? We have absolutely no evidence (other than NDE’s which are EXTREMELY unreliable, as pointed out by Kim) there is any such thing as an afterlife. Most times when we have no evidence whatsoever, it is the person claiming the existence of a thing in light of that absence as appearing as dogmatic. Not the person that sees no evidence and shrugs with a “Hm. Doesn’t exist.”

“Aliens did not land in my yard last night.” I have no evidence whatsoever they did so. Is that a dogmatic statement, or am I denied the ability to be dogmatic about that truth, too?

Rather than worry about my dogmatism, how about you proffer some proof of this afterlife? If you are interested in reality, can you show us what facts, what evidence, what arguments, and what proof you have in the reality of an afterlife?

Anonymous said...

But I didn't disagree that one position removes a form of hope while the other gives it, did I? I just don't agree with giving, or living by, false hope. Do you think one should live one's life by false beliefs just because it gives one hope?

Is it a "dogmatic ex cathedra" posture to posit that something is false in the absence of proof? Does that mean you have a dogmatic ex cathedra posture towards all religions other than Christianity? Or do you have conclusive evidence that proves all other religions to be wrong?

One man's reasonable response is another's vituperative remarks, I guess.

Anonymous said...

My previous post, which was addressed to Jose, sure looks redundant in light of DagoodS's post :)

Anonymous said...

Pat said:

"I apologize if that sounded like I was questioning your character. Something Leann said seemed to cause you to over-react and that usually indicates that there is an element of truth in that expression. I did feel like you were playing a power-trip though.

Matthew said, "I don't hate Leann but how much am I supposed to stomach people who are preachy and sometimes even obnoxiously so?"

Isn't every blog entry here preachy(earnest advocacy)?"

Pat, I thank you that you didn't intend to sound like you were and I, too, apologize for my subsequent curtness. It seems that we had a misunderstanding here and it resulted in some unnecessary heat. You seem to have posted a definition of preaching as "earnest advocating". I have never encountered such a definition (I'd have to apologize for any ignorance here) before.

I was thinking hard yesterday after work about what was said on this blog and I realized what it was about Leann's post that just irked me. It was the fact that I thought her post sounded a least bit like she was pitying us as though she had to look down her nose at us from heaven to reach us.

I want to qualify a statement of mine here. I realize I should've done it earlier but hadn't so let me take the opportunity to do just that. I don't mind personal evangelism as long as it's done in a spirit of love, concern, and humility.

What I do not like is impersonal evangelism/preaching which is done out of pity- I regard that as pretty rude and a bit offensive. Even when people mean well it can still come across as rude. It's like people reacting negatively to bad body odor and the person who stinks doens't seem to know what some folks find so foul and doesn't understand the expression on some folks' face.)

I realize that it may be this cold, impersonal, dumping-in-the-lap sort of evangelism which is usually done out of some self-righteous pity (I am not suggesting that Leann meant to be self-righteous or condescending but rather she may have simply been oblivious to how her presentation was coming across and not realizing that it sounds rude or could be a bit offensive.

Well, Pat, I am glad that this has been clear up. I hope that there aren't any hard feelings between us now and we can exchange on friendlier terms.

Matthew

Anonymous said...

"Hi Matthew,

I will accept that you do not see how you were rude to Leann. Why should anyone imagine that you could have been rude just because you threatened to silence her for preaching to you?"

I found her preaching/evangelism a bit rude and offensive and so I wanted to warn folks not to do it in the future or else I will delete it. I felt that it was rude just to dump her message in our laps the way I thought she was doing so and so I felt irked by it.

"It is good of you to recognize that you were curt to Pat. And I think you might have even made some sort of apology to Pat. Enough said on this matter."

Pat and I had a misunderstanding and it resulted in some unnecessary heat between us. He apologized and I apologized and so I hope we can have friendlier exchanges in the future.

"As with your response with Leann perhaps you simply do not see when you are being rude. You say to me, Jose, the more I read from Christians such as yourself, the more I come away with honest impressions that some Christians have a persecution complex."

This was an opinion of mine. I have the opinion so far that you do suffer from a bit of a persecution complex. I'm sorry if you find that insulting but am I supposed to lie and try to tip-toe around eggshells just so that you don't get your feelings hurt?

"This is not rude and insulting?"

It was my opinion. There are people who even find the fact that others have an opinion that is different from there's to be insulting, offensive, and even threatening. I sincerely hope that you're not one of them. I regret that such people feel this way and it is my sincere hope that they are inspired to get some professional help for this problem. I don't know how to state it more politely than I have just written it.

"You then continue about Christians like me, They get so obnoxiously preachy and pushy . . . they are the first to cry out Persecution! I am so hated!"

This was part of my opinion. I was merely stating my impression/opinion. Sometimes I get a false and misleading impression and I often strive to correct it.

"My dear Matthew, you know nothing about Christians like me yet you slander me with the wild accusation of having a persecution complex and assert I am obnoxiously preachy and pushy."

I slandered you? Huh? I stated my honest impression and you consider that to be slander? My opinion is slander? I didn't accuse you personally of being obnoxiously preachy and pushy- I said that my impression so far is that you fall into this category. This isn't an accusation, just my opinion. I didn't intend slap an accusation on you. But I do think that you have some very serious issues here.

"I must say this sure sounds like a projection and it seems you are caught up in some sort of shadow boxing. I do not feel hated or persecuted. I am far, far away from your world."

Well I have no problem with you thinking that this sounds like a projection of some sort. Personally I am not concerned with any psychologizing from you. You're welcome to your opinions and if you conclude that I am a loose canon- that's up to you.

"As you say, you must be tired and quite often irritable. I am sorry to hear that and I do wish you rest and peace. Maybe it’s time to take a break from this debunking Christianity mission you are on or try some other more loving approach."

I ask that you not make any unsoclicited suggestions as they will simply be discarded without any serious consideration.

"I did read much of what you wrote in A New Direction and think you should work harder on that approach."

I very much intend to. I appreciate any encouragement from you.

"I have nothing against you for being an atheist."

Thank you. The feeling is mutual actually. I have nothing against you for being a Christian. I don't sound like such a bad neighbor, now, do I?

"That is where you are at and I do believe that you do want to be honest and kind and helpful to humanity, probably every bit as much as Leann."

I don't doubt Leann wants to be honst, kind, and helpful to humanity. I just think she might want to take a different approach that will not result in her stepping on people's toes when she doens't have to. She can start by actually trying to befriend us, get to know us on here, and then share the gospel message with us if we are open and receptive. I think this is the biggest reason I thought she was being rude- especially since she struck me as a stranger who just rudely dumped her message into our laps like that. If she had chosen to befriend us and learned to dialouge with us and then started witnessing to us- honestly, I would have no problem with it. I would politely decline her offer of the gospel and I would graciously accept her declining my invitation to become a philosophical naturalist/atheist/Secular Humanist.

"I have a lot more to share with you regarding your comments, particularly about all the things you do not wish to hear, but if you keep on censoring perspectives and views you’ll just end up talking to yourself."

If you want to share more, go ahead and share. But I wasn't out to censor a different perspective because I felt that Leann wasn't offering that. I felt that she was trying to get preachy/evangelistic and I felt a bit insulted by it. This is not abnout censoring comments I don't like. There is a time, place, and audience for that kind of preaching and it's in a church.

This seems to be a misunderstanding on Pat's part also. He commented about an interesting dichotomy he thinks I have set up. I didn't see Leann's remarks as being "commentary" but as being a sermonette, designed to save us because she pities us. If she tried to befriend us, understand us, and explain her perspective to us, I would have no problem with what she's saying.

I hope this is clear now, Jose.

Matthew

José Solano said...


Hello again Benny and DagoodS,

As there is some redundancy in your responses I’ll try to address them together, though not as directly and itemized as you might wish..

First let me say that I do not know if there is some way to provide absolute evidence or proof for the existence of God or an afterlife to absolute atheists. There may be a better chance with agnostics but even then I am not sure I know how. Fundamentalist efforts to use Scripture to convince atheists are just about useless, especially if the atheists have some dialectical skills. Fire and brimstone rants are also just about useless and they open themselves to mockery and insults from atheists stuck in word manipulation games rather than having real concern for human beings; the communication becoming some sort of ruthless chess game with quick declarations of "checkmate, get lost."

Both sides are essentially fundamentalists. Both get some sort of pleasure in the "Aha, I got you" game from which proceed ad hominem attacks: "Ah, you perverse sinner!" "Ah, you delusional fool!" The psychology of this problem is not one that I wish to get into here as it too would probably lead nowhere.

My approach is not to try and proof a point but rather to bring about a condition of harmony that will help establish a rapport that leads to understanding. This is not always possible.

Now, let’s see if I can state something that you may already know. There is a huge discussion that has been going on for thousands of years. It relates to "faith" and "knowledge." Some faiths are founded on knowledge and others are not. There is also lots of knowledge that is without faith. There are also a variety of combinations on this issue: faith seeking support from false knowledge, blind faith, faith in knowledge that does not bring about faith in God, faith in knowledge to undermine faith in God, false knowledge to undermine false faith, etc.

Much of the faith that this blog opposes seems to be faith that either seeks support from false knowledge or faith that is inarticulate on the grounds of its being, that is, cannot explain itself. The simple faith of the not well-educated is thereby sometimes threatened. The "debunkers" here also try to go after faith that seeks support from Scripture. The "debunkers" challenge rational faith or at least faith based on thinking processes.

But though there are levels in the thinking processes that may support faith, faith at its essential core is not determined by rational processes but by a transformational experience that alters one’s life at the ground of one’s being. Something happens to the person that thoroughly convinces him of God’s existence and the need to follow God’s calling. You cannot argue with that in the hope of having the person think it did not happen. You can convince those or "decomvert" those to whom it has not happened but not those who "have seen the light," to use a common metaphor.

Nor can those who have had this transformational experience, this true metanoia, necessarily convince you of its reality. You will easily respond that they are hallucinating or extremely gullible, or irrational and delusional.

But you see, if there is a God, God can do such things. God does not have to buy into your restrictions and terms for revealing Himself. If He is God He is sovereign. His modus operandi does not have to succumb to or be reduced to your scientific method of attestation. You say, "prove it to me like 3x = 12 therefore x = 4." God responds, "Who the hell do you think you are? Where were YOU when I laid the foundations of the earth?"

The little child who has tasted the delicious mango may have no way of convincing you of how real and delicious the mango is if you have not tasted it for yourself, and the child cannot simply offer it to you. The one whose life has been changed by drinking the most refreshing water cannot necessarily transfer this experience to you.

People search the Scriptures and after some time, sometimes something happens to them and their lives are transformed. Not necessarily because chap. 6:8 matched smoothly with v. 9-12 but because the totality of the writings or certain particular verses coincided with something that created a transformational upheaval in them.

There is a faith that comes from this knowledge, this experience, that cannot be shaken, anymore than you can convince that child that the mango does not exist and that what he tasted was a delusion, though he may stop trying to convince you. And there are other equally valid faiths.

I don’t know how this works. I’m sorry you have not experienced it.

If you take this as "preaching" well, so it is. Hopefully it is not "pushy."

We can move on from the Leann/Matthew, "offensive" discussion. I think that episode has been sufficiently addressed.

Anonymous said...

Kim, I expected to get that typical denigrating response you gave. Matthew gave an explanation on how it urked him that Leann didn't inquire or establish a relationship before posting what she posted, but it's interesting that so far, I haven't read anything from the atheist here that shows genuine interest in knowing more about the Believer's... no "hey, tell me about your experience of healing" or "hey, tell me more about your father's heaven, hell, meeting the Maker experience" or "tell me why you were agnostic now turned Believer". You're very quick to discredit any and all personal stories that people share with you. It would be great if a mutual respect could be established here.

Jose, thankyou for your input here... you explained faith beautifully.

Matthew, thankyou for your apology... I too hope we can move forward and onto friendly exchanges. No hard feelings.

Peace to all.

Anonymous said...

Pat says

“Kiwi Dave... do you feel better now that you belittled Leann? You said you can't be bothered to skim-read her contribution... why not look over it and just move on?.”

Clear, concise, careful correct writing is a necessary courtesy by the writer to the reader. Leann’s contribution lacked this courtesy in part.

She wrote her piece (I presume, as I still haven’t read most of it) to persuade us heathens to believe. It’s a reasonable guess that believers and unbelievers who frequent this blog are familiar with the general points she made – there was nothing in the bit I read which I hadn’t encountered 40 years ago when I dropped out of Christianity precisely because I found the standard Christian creed recited in church so bizarre.

Theists and atheists approach these issues with such widely different assumptions that merely repeating general points of faith (or unfaith – atheists take note) is quite futile. To engage the other side in this blog, contributors need to engage at the level of specific detail. DagoodS does this when he unpacks ‘The theist offers hope and the atheist removes all hope.’ Pat does this with the anecdote of his father’s experience.

And since Pat says no one is genuinely interested in his father’s experience, here’s Steven Pinker, Time, January 19, http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1580394,00.html,
explaining why:

“.… near death experiences are not the eyewitness reports of a soul parting company from the body but symptoms of oxygen starvation in the eyes and brain. In September, a team of Swiss neuroscientists reported that they could turn out-of-body experiences on and off by stimulating the part of the brain in which vision and bodily sensations converge.”

Why should brain states, at a time when the body is proving extremely unreliable and undergoing severe physiological stress, be regarded as reliable evidence, however intense? Nor should we be surprised that such experiences are consistent with individual or widespread cultural beliefs.

Anonymous said...

Jose Solano,

I am uncertain as to how your long response was directed. Perhaps I was unclear.

Jose Solano: First let me say that I do not know if there is some way to provide absolute evidence or proof for the existence of God or an afterlife to absolute atheists.

I never asked for “absolute proof.” All I want is some evidence. Some argument. Some something upon which we can review. This is not uncommon.

Skeptic: Can I have some evidence or proof?
Christian: You guys want absolute proof before you believe in God! Since we can’t absolutely prove God, I won’t provide you any proof at all!
Skeptic wanders away, wondering why it must be this all-or-nothing, and where the Christian can’t be bothered to even provide one itsy-bitsy teensy-weensy item of evidence.

Look, Jose Solano, if you have absolutely no evidence there is an afterlife—just say so. No reason to boost the argument to these lofty heights of “absolute proof.”

(Oh, and if you think agnostics are easier—you haven’t debated the agnostics that I deal with. I find them much more stringent on their requirements for reasonable proof before believing. An agnostic is not an agnostic because they don’t know—they are agnostic because they are unconvinced.)

You then utilize an extremely broad brush and spend some time painting Christian fundamentalists as a certain way (which I would disagree) and atheists as a certain way (which I would also disagree), but you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I would defend your right to say your opinion.

I can’t help but note, though, that if we are “seeking faith” from “false knowledge”—you haven’t really pointed out any knowledge regarding an afterlife—false or otherwise. If we are using “false knowledge” it would be helpful for you to point out some (Note: “SOME”) evidence, proof or argumentation for that position.

Interestingly, the only basis you indicate, regarding faith, is either “searching the scripture” or “God performing some transcendental experience.”

As to the second, I am uncertain how the theist offers any hope. If God chooses to provide this experience or not, is not really up to the person. The only “Hope” the theist can say, is “If God desires to, He can give you a blissful after-life. If not, you are screwed.” Seems like it is pretty much a coin toss.

As to the first, we have searched the scriptures. If you peruse many of my previous posts, you will see that I have a fairly extensive knowledge of the Bible. No bragging, just my history. And after searching them, I came across some questions. But apparently to you, if I dare ask a Loving, Benevolent God, who may or may not provide me a transcendental experience, a question about my searching, I am to expect an answer of (and I quote) “Who the hell do you think you are? Where were YOU when I laid the foundations of the earth?”

So, apparently I am to search the scriptures, but not have any questions. I am to wait, and hope, that God might provide some transcendental experience. But if I have a question, or God chooses to not—I am to be pleased that a Christian has kindly informed me that I will be going to hell?

Frankly, I am retaining my ambivalence. If God didn’t want me to ask questions—why make me a human? If God is going to magically appear—I can neither stop him nor force him to do so. That is abundantly clear.

Back to my original question—do you have some evidence, proof or argumentation for the reality of an afterlife? Or is it a hope based on no evidence, no proof and no argumentation?

José Solano said...


I thought Leann’s comment was thoroughly clear and concise albeit with grammar and punctuation problems. It must have been clear to you Kiwi Dave because you describe its content and state you heard it 40 years ago.

I think it is rather absurd to equate a lack of clarity, conciseness and good grammar with lack of courtesy. If I believed such nonsense I would have to think that a great many of my college students are thoroughly discourteous. They are not.

And so to "unpack" what you have said, it must be the content and the method of delivery that truly disturbs you. In sermon style she pleads that you change before it’s too late.

If you could unpack your negative knee-jerk reaction to her message, examine its cause, its complex, and rise above it, you might actually find lovely, even profound things in what she stated. It is like an aria from some grand opera pouring concern and caring from the depths of her heart to you. Someone could compose a beautiful musical score to go along with it. I can actually hear it now.

My, I would certainly thank her for her love and concern for me. Alas, it might be just wasted on those for whom she sang so sensitively.

But who knows what seeds she may have replanted that may yet find fertile soil, replenishing those that originally fell upon the thorns or stony ground.

After all, see how much fascinating discussion her little sermon has inspired, even while I was hoping to move on to other things. God truly works in mysterious ways.

And this is my little homily dear reader.

Peace.

PS As for your quest, Kiwi Dave, for evidence and proof, do reread what I wrote earlier. It is nice to know your search for God continues.

Anonymous said...

Jose Solano,

DagoodS has already responded to much of what you wrote, so in the interest of not being redundant, I'll stick to what I feel he hasn't addressed.

You're right, I have not experienced the transformational experience you described. Perhaps I would feel differently about subjects such as the afterlife if I had. Then again, perhaps not.

I do not deny the existence of these experiences. But people belonging to many different religions have accounts of such experiences. Are all such religions true, then?

If these experiences are the ultimate evidence of a particular religion, then why preach or sermonize? To those who do not welcome it, preaching or sermonizing does little to bring them close to God. Why not simply let God come to those He chooses to? There are other actions that would do much more to bring people closer to God. Controlling the excesses of religious fundamentalists, for instance.

Anonymous said...

To elaborate a bit more on the observation that people belonging to many different religions have accounts of transformational experiences:

A transformational experience involving God would support the existence of God only if the existence of God was the most plausible explanation. Another viable explanation is that such experiences are constructs of our minds, which are then filtered and interpreted according to our beliefs. I find this a more plausible explanation given that people belonging to religions with contradicting claims all have accounts of such experiences.

Anonymous said...

I read a really nice piece on being charitable toward one another in our debates here. I hope to do that, but many times I fail. It's a good reminder to us all, I think.

Anonymous said...

It seems Leanne's admonition was nothing but a drive-by attempt at preaching.

Not impressive...

Anonymous said...

I've been lurking on this website for a while, and have been really enjoying the discussions. But I did want to comment on one thing Jose made, in terms of the post Leeann made.

**If you could unpack your negative knee-jerk reaction to her message, examine its cause, its complex, and rise above it, you might actually find lovely, even profound things in what she stated.**

In reading Leeann's response, I came across with the whole reason why one should convert is due to a fear of hell -- she's basically asking where do people think they'll be after they die. And that is a horrible reason to approach God. I very rarely see someone from that viewpoint asking, "If you're alive tomorrow, who are you going to live for?"

I didn't see anything beautiful in Leeann's message. I just saw fearful concern. Jesus did speak of heaven and hell -- but he also spoke a great deal of the present day, and living in the *now.* He went to people and said that they could experience this overwhelming love of God on a daily basis and watch it transform their lives. However, when approaching conversion, how can we possibly approach God free from fear if we have the threat of hell hanging over us? How can the approach be honest if we're told we have to follow certain steps if we don't want to eternally be in hell?

That's why there's such a negative response to messages like Leeann's -- because it comes across as stemming from fear. If there is a God, I truly don't believe He would punish one for not believing if they couldn't comprehend a certain system in the first place. Like the problem of evil: if someone can't logically equate the existence of evil with an all-loving, all-good God, how can they be punished for that? Wouldn't God rather want an honest atheist than a hypocritical, fearful religious person?

For me, I get stuck on the concept that if God is the only creator of people, then He allowed them to be created inherently sinful, or He created them to be inherently sinful. How can I then be punished for behaving in a way that's inherent to me? How can I be held accountable for being more attracted to sin than holiness? That's one of the many reasons why I can't follow evangelical Christianity -- and, should there be a God, I believe He understands my dilemma.

I know the reponse to this is that once you're "saved," you don't view God in a fearful fashion. But someone from the outside, who never followed that belief system or left it, sees a lot of fear. They don't see beauty in that.

Anyway, thanks for letting me post. :)

Anonymous said...

Yosei said, "The thing is that while science constantly evolves, Christianity is literally stagnant."

What I hear... your god(psuedo-science)is unstable and inaccurate, Christianity is stable.

Yosei said, "Advocates can do nothing but parrot the same thing, literally over and over again. and here lies the weakness of dogma."

Atheists never "parrot" philosopher's, fellow atheist, and psuedo-scientist?

Yosei said, "Whereas science has no problem with throwing out old ideas that are outdated. They have no problem with saying "oops, we were wrong. let's start again."

You admit that it is inconsistent and inaccurate?

Yosei said, "I doubt most apologist advocates are willing to do that."

What? Be inconsistent, unstable, inaccurate, and unreliable?

Anonymous said...

"What I hear... your god(psuedo-science)is unstable and inaccurate, Christianity is stable."

What you hear is wrong. I'm not a scientist. I just favour science more than Christianity.

Stable, to what cost? Dogma, persecution, closed minds, endless preaching? That's the very reason why it's unstable.

"Atheists never "parrot" philosopher's, fellow atheist, and psuedo-scientist?"

Some do. But at least they are views coherent with the modern world, not just Revelation that terminated 2000 years ago.

"You admit that it is inconsistent and inaccurate?"

I admit that science is more reliable than Christianity.

"What? Be inconsistent, unstable, inaccurate, and unreliable?"

Of course they're not willing to be. But they are. As well as annoying, repetitive, boring, superstitious, drive-by fearmongering, scared, and most certainly unreliable.

Anonymous said...

Heather,
I just wanted to say that I know exactly what you mean with the issue of fear. I myself have recently left Christianity, and all other religions, for that matter-- and I do not remember a time that I've felt more free and secure inmy world.

A thought that came to me recently is that all religion, come to exist due to fear. Fear of death, fear of hell....Christians themselves only accept Jesus because it saves them from hell. There is no other reason to believe in him, as I see it. He supposedly dies to save us from our sins, and thus save us from hell...and we are supposed to accept that he did this for us...fear abounds in this perspective.

And I know that many Christians will claim that they are not afraid anymore, now that they are saved...but this doesn't hold water to me.

I think that when you accept a religion based on fear, the fear always follows you around...even if it's just on a subconscious level. You always know that you are only 'safe' as long as you adhere to Jesus' standards. You know that should you disagree with anything Jesus said, you are in danger of eternity of burning. I say this from a personal perspective, as well as a logical one. When I was a Christian, I always had this hint of fear and guilt following me around...and I think this is true of more Christians than care to admit it.

Anyway...I'm new to this place, and I am really enjoying the conversations that are going on. I hope my comments are not too redundant or off topic...

José Solano said...


Hi Benny,

I think our conversation is coming around to things of more substance and significance. Your thoughts and questions appear honest and deserving of a rational response. I will attempt to offer one but I do try to communicate with different aspects of one’s being. You see, there are valuable components of our being that are not addressed through thought processes. We might refer to them as living contents of an affective domain. These may need to be activated for thought processes to flow more easily or perhaps even be suspended for a time.

Let’s see. There are, as you recognize, any number of so-called transformational experiences and even more non-transformational experiences that are very gripping. The former tends to open the person to more productive and creative activities, the latter tends to enclose or reduce the field of vision as we observe among neurotics and particularly psychotics. The quality of the experience can be simply measured by the degree of productive and creative activity and principally by the degree of harmonious interrelationships with people.

So, you make the astute observation that if people of all sorts of religions are claiming such experiences can they all be true? And this is followed with another excellent question, "If these experiences are the ultimate evidence of a particular religion, then why preach or sermonize?"

My understanding is that these experiences, to the extent that they are of the truly transformational kind, are merely the beginning of a new life, a life with meaning, purpose and direction but also fraught with dangers and many possible pitfalls after the initial transformational experience. The sermons, the preaching are to help you along in what Christians often call the sanctification process. Other religions and philosophies also nurture and instruct the neophyte along a path towards a particular goal, as they understand it. It is a spiritual growth process. I do believe that these other religions and philosophies have their God-given function and place.

I must now close and begin rehearsing a play I’ve written that opens in about three weeks. I hope to return and discuss where the uniqueness and indispensability of Jesus Christ comes into all this and why we must preach in one way or another.

Thanks for your good questions.

Peace.

Oh, thanks John W. Loftus for your helpful reference. And many thanks to you Pat for your sobriety and clear headedness.

José Solano said...


Hi Benny,

I think our conversation is coming around to things of more substance and significance. Your thoughts and questions appear honest and deserving of a rational response. I will attempt to offer one but I do try to communicate with different aspects of one’s being. You see, there are valuable components of our being that are not addressed through thought processes. We might refer to them as living contents of an affective domain. These may need to be activated for thought processes to flow more easily or perhaps even be suspended for a time.

Let’s see. There are, as you recognize, any number of so-called transformational experiences and even more non-transformational experiences that are very gripping. The former tends to open the person to more productive and creative activities, the latter tends to enclose or reduce the field of vision as we observe among neurotics and particularly psychotics. The quality of the experience can be simply measured by the degree of productive and creative activity and principally by the degree of harmonious interrelationships with people.

So, you make the astute observation that if people of all sorts of religions are claiming such experiences can they all be true? And this is followed with another excellent question, "If these experiences are the ultimate evidence of a particular religion, then why preach or sermonize?"

My understanding is that these experiences, to the extent that they are of the truly transformational kind, are merely the beginning of a new life, a life with meaning, purpose and direction but also fraught with dangers and many possible pitfalls after the initial transformational experience. The sermons, the preaching are to help you along in what Christians often call the sanctification process. Other religions and philosophies also nurture and instruct the neophyte along a path towards a particular goal, as they understand it. It is a spiritual growth process. I do believe that these other religions and philosophies have their God-given function and place.

I must now close and begin rehearsing a play I’ve written that opens in about three weeks. I hope to return and discuss where the uniqueness and indispensability of Jesus Christ comes into all this and why we must preach in one way or another.

Thanks for your good questions.

Peace.

Oh, thanks John W. Loftus for your helpful reference. And many thanks to you Pat for your sobriety and clear headedness.

José Solano said...

Sorry. I have no idea why my comment came out twice.

Anonymous said...

Jose Solano,

Thank you for your compliments. Though I must say I do not feel I am any more deserving of a response than other commenters here. I definitely agree about the limitations of this method of exchange, but since this is all we have available at the moment, we'll just have to make do :)

If I understand you correctly, you see the preaching and sermonizing as ways to guide a person in their spiritual growth. I have no problems with that. The problem I see is that preaching and sermonizing to those who are not seeking guidance does far more harm than good. Quite often it turns them away from the very path you intend to guide them along. The most receptive audience for preaching and sermonizing, I think, would be those who come to it of their own accord.

We appear to agree that many different religions have accounts of transformational experiences. Your view, if I understand it correctly, is that these other religions are alternate methods of guidance created by God. But many other religions have claims that directly contradict those of Christianity. Why would God create such alternatives, rather than simply revealing Himself to all people, as he did to Christians? Also, your view pre-supposes that Christiantiy is correct, and that other religions are incorrect. As an outsider, I can find little support for this. From my perspective, no religions looks to be more valid than another.

Congratulations on your play! I have little experience with theater, but I understand that the weeks preceeding an opening is a very busy time. I wish you the best of luck, and look forward to your next post.

Anonymous said...

Okay, so this apparently ate the first time I commented. If this later appears twice, I apologize.

Wendy -- I hope that your transition from evangelical Christianty has been relatively painless.

I do agree with you on the matter of fear. I have evangelical Christian friends who are so scared about my eternal fate, because I haven't accepted Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior. And this fear seems to be a fundamental part of their religion -- how could you ever be entierly without fear if you're worried about where your loved ones will end up? Even though, "there is no fear in love, a perfect love casts out fear."

I feel that one should approach God out of awe or reverence or love or hope -- but it usually boils down to fear. Under this system, man is wretched, filthy, depraved, and nothing on his own. The only way to approach this Deity is to admit all these things about yourself, and then say you are nothing without God and need Him to be a complete person. Under this system, you beat yourself up everytime you fail, even though failure is inevitable, and run back to God, apologizing for not being good enough, and thanking Him for loving you anyways. To me, this looks like a cycle of abuse: if we put this system on purely human terms, we'd be horrified.

Perhaps I'm looking at this wrong -- I only have the outsider's perspective.

José Solano said...


Hi Benny,

I’ll try and pick up from where I left off in my last comment with reference to the indispensability and centrality of Jesus Christ.

To continue I may need to quote some Scripture. Hopefully this is not too offensive to anyone.

There is an interesting understanding expressed by Paul in Acts 17:22-23. He says, "Men of Athens, I perceice that in all things you are very religious . . . ." Paul then goes on to say that he will proclaim to them the "Unknown God" mentioned on one of their altar inscriptions. Paul speaks of the unifying features within all of humanity and of predetermined and preappointed times "so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us . . . " (v. 27)

There are other passages that might be used to clarify what I am trying to explain which is that outside of the Judeo-Christian understanding people may come to some realization and acceptance of God’s existence, and that this realization is valuable for their further spiritual growth, for their sanctification process. This is where the Christian proclamation and instruction comes in because something truly stupendous has happened through God’s salvation history plan and people who "have ears to hear" must be told. "And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, ‘We will hear you again on this matter." (V. 32)

Nevertheless, it is important to understand that not everyone should become a teacher of God’s oracles, of Scripture.

(PS Since the above was written new comments have come out and though some of the issues may be addressed above others may need further commenting. I’ll see what I can do later. I am very pleased that the communication is now proceeding with a tone that is more conducive to such discussions. Thank you.)

José Solano said...


Dear Wendy and Heather,

I hear you. I have mentioned that my personal leaning is towards the heresy that everyone will eventually go to heaven. I could be dead wrong. I don’t approach this teaching as if I am inventing it and that God should do things the way I say he should because, as I mentioned earlier, He could just respond "Who the hell do you think you are?" God does not necessarily apply a Dr Spock approach to child rearing. God does seem to suffer a great deal when His path to heaven is consciously and deliberately rejected and He may well use forms of retributive and/or expiatory punishments in the administration of Justice as He understands it and as any judge would do.

If God is truly God we must acknowledge His authority in making up His own mind. He does not have to bring us in for consultation.

I believe that God is both sovereign and merciful. He will not condemn anyone for being ignorant. The baby, the child is not condemned whether baptized or not. The ignorant adult is not condemned. Condemnation is brought about by the individual’s willful opposition to the will of God. The individual obstinately removes himself from the grace of God yet God lovingly pursues that individual to change all the days of his life.

God discerns whether or not the adult is ignorant or simply rebellious. God has granted us this freedom to accept or reject, for better or for worse. Maybe the willful rebel is simply wiped out and returns to nothingness. There are many passages that allow for this interpretation and the Seventh Day Adventists have made that conclusion. This would be no worse than the atheist imagines to be the case anyway. Maybe there will be a long stay in a sort of purgatory in which individuals are put through a cleansing process. I really do not know and I suspect no one really knows.

So Heather and Wendy, if repulsion over a dogma that warns of a possible eternal perdition in a pit of unquenchable fire or other endless torment, is what prevents you from being Christians consider the problem solved. Don’t join a congregation that teaches this. I’m not saying that they are wrong but even they may recognize that not adhering to that particular eschatological theology will not condemn you to hell. Even within congregations that have the eternal damnation dogma there are individuals that do not subscribe to it. The emphasis in all the major Christian churches is on believing in and willingness to follow Christ. Find a congregation in which you feel comfortable and get together with a few people to examine these issues. Blogs are not the best places for this communication.

Later I may address the problem of fundamentalism that many "fundamentalists" are aware of.

It’s hard to explain these things in soundbytes.

Peace.

Anonymous said...

Hi, Jose.

Thank you for your comment. I'm curious as to why you phrase the belief that everyone getting to heaven is 'heresy.' I understand that mainline and liberal Christian churches also believe this in some form or another -- although I could be wrong. I do see support for that position in the Bible. Although what one gets out of the Bible depends a great deal on one's paradigm.

**God has granted us this freedom to accept or reject, for better or for worse** It depends on how you define 'reject.' The argument has been is that God wants us to choose to love Him. The problem I have with that is that one does not choose to love someone -- a parent simply loves their child, a child loves their parent, a spouse loves their spouse. You don't wake up one day and say, "Hey, I'm going to choose to love so-and-so." You wake up and realize that, somehow, you do love that person. I also know the argument is that one chooses to demonstrate one's love through actions -- but again, it's not a matter of choice. If I'm doing to do something nice for my parents, I don't say, "I choose to do this because I love them." Rather, my actions are the natural result of that love. Choice was never a factor.

Same with rejection -- first, to reject God, what kind of God is one rejecting? I reject the God that evangelical Christianity presents to me, but I don't see myself rejecting the God Jesus demonstrated. So I don't see myself as saying God must do things the way I see fit. I also don't think that most people do reject God. If one repents from a sinful act and chooses to behave in a more loving/gracious way, why can't they be following God? Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father but through me." But is that only literal? Or is it following 'the way' he laid out in the New Testament?

I guess I'm saying that in order for one to willfully reject God, the definition of God must be clearly addressed.

Anonymous said...

Hello Jose,

I can't speak for others, but I don't find the quoting of Scripture at all offensive. But because we are discussing whether Christianity is true, with all due respect, I do feel that quoting Scripture has little weight in this discussion. It just seems circular to use Scripture to prove Christianity.

You believe that all transformational experiences, whether experienced by a Christian or non-Christian, are caused by the Christian God. But Jews could argue that they are caused by the Jewish God, Muslims could argue they are caused by Allah. A Buddhist could argue that they are near-enlightenments that have been mis-interpreted. What is it that shows one to be right and all the others to be wrong?

Of course, one could also ask this of the atheist explanation (that these experiences are constructs of our mind). But there is one crucial difference between the atheist position and the religious positions: the atheist explanation doesn't involve unverifiable supernatural beliefs. To me, that makes it the most plausible explanation.

If I may, I'd like to ask a personal question, which I think might shed some light on this issue. I presume that you've experienced a transformational experience, and that it was one of the factors that led to your embrace of Christianity. What is it that led you to choose Christianity, rather than another religion or atheism, as the explanation of your experience?

José Solano said...


Hello Heather,

I think you are much closer than you might even imagine. I don’t think that to be a Christian one must have the answers to all sorts of highly complex questions.

You say, “I reject the God that evangelical Christianity presents to me, but I don’t see myself rejecting the God Jesus demonstrated.”

Well, don’t be alarmed but I must exclaim, “Hallelujah, Amen!” I now proclaim you a bona fide Christian with a real Christian calling. Hang on to what you have stated here because very soon a legion of forces will assail you to shake you from this foundation and proclamation. It will happen swiftly, maybe even as you are reading this and your best defense is to immediately pray for help, for reinforcement from the “God Jesus demonstrated.” You don’t have to do it in front of anyone. Walk into a quiet room and just thank God for life, for your being and for everything He has provided. Forget about proves and evidence and argumentations. We are talking FAITH here, “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” It is hard to even know what this means, it just strikes at a much deeper level and mysteriously steers us towards the highest expressions of love. It is the ineffable and miraculous working of the Holy Spirit.

You are completely correct, “in order for one to willfully reject God, the definition of God must be clearly addressed.” Rejection of false gods and idolatry is NOT the rejection of God. On the contrary, it is a cleansing of yourself, the temple of God, to make room for the reception of God.

Peace.

José Solano said...


Hi Heather,

I did not answer your first question. I talk about the apocatastasis (universal salvation) belief as “heresy” because that is what the major churches call it. I do not teach it but simply suspect that it is true.

José Solano said...

Hi Benny,

I’m not really using Scripture with you to “prove Christianity.” I’m trying to inform you how Christians have addressed the religions of other people. To do this I offer you an example of how Paul did it in a particular circumstance.

For me there is only one God and He is the same God of the Jews, the Muslims, and the Christians. He is the same God that moves the Buddhists, Hindus, etc. to do good works and inspires them to write things like the Dhammapada, and He is the same God that brings them different forms of real enlightenment. He is the same God who led sages from East to worship and pay homage to Immanuel in Bethlehem.

As for people arguing and disagreeing well, they do that all the time. I attribute it primarily to ignorance, prejudice and having been given very poor instruction. Outright rebellion is also a part of it. Some children are like that. It’s even more common among adults.

Certainly the atheist can say that the transformational experiences are “constructs of the mind.” They can say and opine whatever they want. I don’t think the Buddha would have been troubled by their opinions as his life appears to have been grounded on something much greater than the yak-yak of words.

You are impressed by the atheist’s explanation not involving “unverifiable beliefs.” But the atheist’s “explanation” is certainly unverifiable also. It’s much more objective to offer no explanation if you can’t verify it through the scientific materialism mode that the athiest depends on for verification. Much better to be an agnostic if you really want to be objective and have had no acceptable verification.

Spiritual verification comes closer to what I might call “artistic verification.” The appreciation of a true work of art generally takes some education, some cultural enrichment. Imagine trying to express or transfer the joy received from listening to Bach’s B Minor Mass or a Fritz Kreisler violin concerto, or from pondering a Marc Chagall painting. The vast majority of people would simply change the station or yawn and walk right past the painting. But then you come across a few that understand and appreciate such things. No need to convince them or give evidence. Now I am speaking of the experience and not the wrok of art in itself. The person who created it must have had an even greater experience that he could not “verify” or convey by any scientific means. The best he could do is give us the composition and hope that something of his experience would be received.

Scripture like great poetry has a similar influence, impact on those who can receive it.

You ask about my personal transformational experience and I confess that I certainly have had a life changing experience and continue to have enriching spiritual experiences. But these are not transferrable experiences so most people who have them do not say much about them. Even Paul hesitated to go into details as the focus must not be on us but on God.

Unknown said...

Hello Jose,

I respect your wish not to elaborate on personal spiritual experiences, and will not inquire further about them.

I apologize for having mis-spoke when I said that the atheist explanation involves no unverifiable beliefs. You're right, there is (as far as I know) no direct verification that all spiritual experiences are merely the product of our own minds. What I should've said instead is that it is the most plausible explanation because it involves nothing we do not already believe. We already believe that each of us have minds (or do you dispute this?). And we already believe that there are experiences that solely the product of our own minds (or do you dispute this?). Thus, attributing your transformational experiences as products of our own minds requires no belief in additional unverifiable claims. On the other hand, using a religion such as Christianity to explain such experiences necessarily requires belief in a great number of additional claims, such as the virgin birth, Jesus as the Son of God, the existence of God Himself. Why choose an explanation that involves MORE unverifiable claims?

And again, why did you choose Christianity as the explanation, rather than another belief system? My apologies for being repetitious, but I was not able to find an answer to that question in your last post. What made you decide that to disagree with Christianity is to be guilty of "ignorance, prejudice, and having been given very poor instruction"? How do you know you are not the one who is ignorant, prejudiced, or have been given very poor instruction? Harsh words, but that's how you described those who disagree with Christianity.

Anonymous said...

Hi, Jose.

Before you get too happy, I should warn you that while I follow the God Jesus presented, I don't believe in the Trinity, nor that Jesus was God. I don't believe that one must follow the "sinner's prayer" in order to achieve salvation. Nor, as you already know, do I believe in a literal hell. ;) I don't believe in a literal Satan. I havne't accepted Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior. For many, that disqualifies me as Christian. And, for most, that means I'm following a false god or idol -- a god made in my own image.

But I do pray to God. After all, the key is to repent and turn to God. But if one repents from selfish behavior and turns to loving behavior, has not one turned to God?

(Note -- I'm not here to convert anyone, or pray for anyone. You follow your way to God (if you believe in Him), I'll follow mine. But I like this website because it shows a high degree of critical thinking, which I appreciate. And it helps me define how/why I believe what I believe).

José Solano said...


Ah, shucks! For a moment I thought you really meant you followed “the God Jesus demonstrated.” As it turns out you appear to be following the god Heather demonstrates and rejecting the one Jesus demonstrated. Oh well. I am sorry I actually believed what you said.

Eh, by the way, where did you hear about the God that Jesus demonstrated? I’m also not familiar with the “sinners prayer.” Where did you get that from?

Adios.

Anonymous said...

Hi, Jose.

The God that Jesus demonstrated that must be worshiped in spirit and in truth? The God that is love? The one that says I'm the light of the world and the salt of the earth? The one that says if I pursue God's righteounsess, all else shall be added? The God that provides life for all, the one who destroys sin? The one that "I live and move and having my being in?" The one who is just? The one that says I don't do anything to earn God's love, but grace is already there? I've read the entire New Testament, many times. I'm working through the Old Testament. Please don't assume that simply because I don't believe in the Trinity or the literal existence of Satan means I haven't read the Bible. I have, and I've gone back to many of the Greek/Hebrew words. Which is one of the reasons why I reject a literal Satan and a literal Hell.

The problem with one person being able to say that another is not actually following the God Jesus demonstrated is that it confines God to a box -- which is exactly what the Pharisees had done.

The Sinner's Prayer seems to be a four-step thing that many evangelical Christians say you need in order to be saved, or provide in order to 'prove' that one is saved. Wikipedia provides an example:

"Father, I know that I have broken your laws and my sins have separated me from you. I am truly sorry, and now I want to turn away from my past sinful life toward you. Please forgive me, and help me avoid sinning again. I believe that your son, Jesus Christ, died for my sins, was resurrected from the dead, is alive, and hears my prayer. I invite Jesus to become the Lord of my life, to rule and reign in my heart from this day forward. Please send your Holy Spirit to help me obey you, and to do your will for the rest of my life. In Jesus' name I pray. Amen."

José Solano said...

Hi Benny,

Everything you are saying seems reasonable, from where you stand. You ask very honest questions. The answer to such questions can be very lengthy though. To try and keep it brief I return to my “artistic verification” analogy. I believe, indeed, I can say I know, that the music of Mendelsohn is infinitely superior to the sounds produced by rock and rollers. Some of those rock and roll sounds cannot even be decribed as music. They are just noise. But of course, to say this to someone who plays rock and roll or has taken a college course on the history of rock and roll could be enormously offensive and he would understandably respond with, “What makes you think Mendelsohn has composed “superior” music? Who is to say what superior music is?” And that could be followed with a barage of insults. It would be complicated and perhaps risky to try and explain it to him.

With respect to these other religions I can say that I spent many years studying them. I was practicing yoga long before I was a Christian. Hindu philosophers such as Sri Ramakrishna, Sri Aurobino, Vivekananda, Yogananda, etc., were my almost daily staple. I was immersed in Taoist and Zen teachings. The I Ching was my bedside companion. I could go on and on. I also delved into varied studies on the structure and dynamics of the psyche and the “occult.” I majored in anthropology and was fascinated by the customs of so-called primitive people. I long ago came to an understanding of the problems related to our contemporary religious syncretism phenomenon of "new age" thinking, which of course is very ancient.

So, based on my fairly extensive studies and experiences I realized how it is that Christianity is unique and indispensable, and that the crowning achievement of God’s work was His incarnation in Jesus Christ. There is so much more that can be said, but not here.

This has been only my experience, that is of course not transferable, nor does it necessarily make my faith any more valid or stronger than that of a twelve year old, the so-called evangelical’s, or Leann’s. It does perhaps give me some ability to compare and contrast diverse religions and to teach.

Peace.

José Solano said...


Thank you Heather for your further explanation. It appears you may indeed follow much of the God that Jesus demonstrated.

Thank you for explaining to me the “sinner’s prayer.” You may see I do not frequent these so-called “evangelical” churches. Neverthless, it’s a wonderful Christian confession. I’m a member of a Mennonite church.

I will repeat that you are very close but I’m afraid that with your further details I cannot say you are a Christian. The Lord and Savior part is imperative. It is the Person of Jesus Christ, Son of God, that Christians worship and the bottom line confession is “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.” The Trinity is a difficult cooncept so not believing or understanding it I don’t think disqualifies you. Nor do I think your conceptualization of Satan and hell matters that much. But obviously there must be some point where one can objectively say that someone is certainly not following the God Jesus demonstrated without placing God in a box.

We may yet have an opportunity to explore further the God Jesus demonstrated.

Peace.

Anonymous said...

Heather and Jose,
You have an interesting conversation going here, and i think I can't help but butt in.

Jose, you mentioned that you don't believe that god will condemn anyone for being ignorant....I'm curious of what you think of those who have not been given a sufficient reason to believe. Would god condemn a person that honestly saw no satisfactory evidence to believe in him?

This is where I am, at this point. I find myself unable to part with my reason and accept something I haven't been given sufficient evidence for. Can god punish someone who honestly doubts...if there is a god, I wouldn't think he would. The alternative to honest doubt is a false, self-imposed, and therefore, dishonest faith. I would think that god would rather have someone honestly doubt than pretend to believe?

I was raised in a ultra-fundamentalist church. Luckily the brainwashing indoctrination didn't affect me enough to make me completely unable to reason. Maybe, it was because I never honestly felt god speak to me, or guide me. I always felt that I was guessing his will....and I always felt that there was something...many things very wrong with the beliefs and dogmas of my church...with the concept of christianity and god in general.

I was extremely lucky to meet a man who helped bring me out of the cult I was trapped in...who encouraged me to start thinking again.

And I don't think I'll ever be able to go back to believing in any god...partly because my reason no longer allows me to; partly because of the atrocities I have personally experienced from those who claim to be 'saved.'

I think I've gone off on a tangent. The point I meant to make was that it's not only the fear aspect of religion that repulses me (though, as I said before, I don't think religion is possible to separate from fear)...It's the sheer absence of god that I've seen-- both in my personal life, and in my research into the issue. It's also the absurdity of the idea that a god would condemn anyone to eternal suffering.

Jose, I also want to clarify something you mentioned. What do you mean by someone 'rejecting' god? Is a Hindu who live a virtuous life condemned to hell? And why should god give a damn if we reject him or not?

Heather, I agree with you that love cannot be forced...the only thing that can be forced is respect. But god seems to want something beyond that.

Anyway, I hope I haven't rambled to much...I'm still getting used to the whole blog thing. Right now, I'm treating it kind of as having a face to face conversation, and I tend to ramble a lot in those too :P....

Unknown said...

Hello Jose,

Thanks again for your response. It sounds like you have had extensive experience with diverse religions. I greatly respect that.

However, you didn't give any concrete reasons for choosing Christianity over them. As best as I can tell, it was a subjective choice. I think I understand what you're trying to demonstrate with your Mendelsohn example, and therein lies the problem. The quality of a piece of music is entirely subjective. Many people may agree that a particular piece is "good", but that doesn't make the judgment any less subjective. And it doesn't make anyone who disagrees wrong. It's just a preference, where there is no right or wrong. Just like how there is no right or wrong answer to the question, "what is your favorite color?"

The problem with choosing religions based on subjective preference is that it's a much more serious choice. Unlike music, or colors, your choice of religion determines the lens with which you view the world. A religion is a whole set of claims about the world, whereas music or colors entail no such claims. It seems to me that the choice of religions (or to choose none at all), requires more than merely subjective preference! The fact that you find a system of beliefs more preferable says nothing at all about its truthfulness. And it certainly doesn't seem justified to say, as you did, that someone is guilty of "ignorance, prejudice, and having been given very poor instruction" just because they don't share your preference in religion.

I would like to clarify that I'm not trying to de-convert you, sir. I'm just pointing out that if you wish to convert others, you need to provide more convincing arguments than "I've sampled many religions, and Christianity is the one I found most compelling." That just means you prefer Christianity. That's no reason for us to share your preference. And it certainly doesn't mean Christianity is true.

Anonymous said...

Wendy,

Feel free to comment away. :) Because you do give an excellent point. What about those who aren't given a sufficient reason to believe a certain element of a religion? Take worshipping Jesus as one worships God -- that doesn't match what I see Jesus saying in the Synoptic gospels. So I can't logically make that fit, yet I still have faith in God -- the one that I see Jesus demonstrating in the Gospels.

Jose,

**But obviously there must be some point where one can objectively say that someone is certainly not following the God Jesus demonstrated without placing God in a box. **
Can any human truly be objective, though? Yes, I believe in a objective truth. But you would say I don't qualify as Christian due to not worshiping Jesus and the 'Lord and Savior' element (which would require clarifying the concept of "Lord" and "Savior." In saying that Jesus is Lord, I would use that expression to counteract that Caeser was Lord, or the world of Rome was the ultimate authority. Saying Jesus is Lord refuted the claim of worldly authority.

But I could just as easily argue that many Christians who follow that statement of 'Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner' don't actually meet the Christian requirements, because they don't follow Jesus's comment of we will know his disciples if they love.

The ultimate drawback to this whole thing is what's more important? Following a set of doctrines, or living with God fully in your life?

Anonymous said...

Heather said, "Take worshipping Jesus as one worships God -- that doesn't match what I see Jesus saying in the Synoptic gospels. So I can't logically make that fit, yet I still have faith in God -- the one that I see Jesus demonstrating in the Gospels."

He said He and YHWH are one. John 1:1&14 says YHWH became flesh. You don't have to accept some pagan trinity concept to believe that YHWH is able to be Spirit and Flesh.

Anonymous said...

Hi, Pat.

First -- I did say that worshipping Jesus as God didn't match what I saw in the Synoptic Gospels. So what I interpret from the Bible is in light of those Gospels -- and that includes John.

Yes, Jesus did say that he and his Father are one. But in terms of the context of that section, I see that as referring to quality, not quantity. As in, Jesus's link to his Father could never be severed. Later, in that same section, Jesus refers to Psalms 82 with God saying, "You people are Gods." And Jesus asks that if God called those he addressed 'gods' then how is Jesus doing differently by saying he's the son of God?

In terms of John 1: 1&14 -- the Word, which was Logos in Greek. Logos is a masculine noun, so the pronoun there could just as easily be 'it.' Another translation I read of that was, "What God was, the Word was." Which again refers to quality. So the Word made flesh -- becoming incarnate in Jesus. Again, that doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus was God. Rather, to see Jesus was to see God because what God was, Jesus was, in terms of quality.

I'm not sure if we should continue this discussion, because all we'd end up doing is throwing Bible verses back and forth. The end result would be a circular discussion, and that just leads to frustration. We aren't going to convince one another. :)

José Solano said...


Hi Wendy and welcome. Well, we are really engaging in a stimulating and respectful conversation at this point. I would like to put more time into it now but I’m shortly going with my family to see a Beauty and the Beast play.

Let me quickly comment that I’m getting the picture this blog attracts a variety of "recovering" fundamentalists as we sometimes also speak of "recovering" Catholics. Please no offence, just a little humor.

The Christian teaching is presented in many different ways and styles, just as it is presented through diverse languages and cultures. One style works well for some people while it confuses or frightens away others. One church sort of harps on an aspect, such as "fire and brimstone" while another stresses the sweet and the gentle. We can almost see this seeming dichotomy play itself out in the Gospel of John and the Revelation of Jesus to John.

I’ll try as time permits to focus on the "God Jesus demonstrated," to the best of my understanding. Distilling the truly essential, "fundamental" requirements may prove helpful to some at the entry level. A good and growing church is a school in which there are disciples, that is, students by definition. There is growth both in knowledge and in faithful practice. Pat, for instance, just weighed in referring to the Trinity as a pagan concept. I ain’t touching that one now.

Hi Benny,

I do not believe that musical and artistic appreciation is a merely subjective experience. I know it to have a most important objective understanding but I can’t get into this at this time. That art and beauty are merely "in the eye of the beholder" is unfortunately an all too common grave error. There is music and there is merely noise. There is a great painting and there is scribble. All of these things can become lengthy studies with detailed explanations. This study is not very feasible on a blog.

I hope to be back.

Peace.

José Solano said...


Hi Heather,

My comment came out before I read your last statement.

No one is obligated to continue this discussion. If someone can get something out of it fine.

Peace.

Anonymous said...

Hi, Jose.

I wouldn't mind continuing the discussion. I just know that conversations like this can get tricky when everyone brings out Bible verse after Bible verse. :) Because then you have one side yelling, "That Bible verse is so clear, you idiot!" and the other side going, "And you clearly never learned how to read properly!" That's what I'd like to avoid.

I'm not a recovering fundamentalist. I was raised in a religion that evangelical Christians refer to as a 'cult,' due to doctrinal differences. I just found the website interesting and decided to comment. If I decided to change, I'd go with the Quakers.

Unknown said...

Hi Jose,

I am greatly interested in why you think art and beauty is not just in the eye of the beholder; have you discovered a purely objective standard by which to judge art and beauty? But the greater question remains: by what objective standard can you claim that Christianity is true, and all other religions are false? I look forward to your response.

Anonymous said...

Hi all.
I don't have much time to comment, but I noticed that there has been mention of beauty, the way we perceive it, and our ability to perceive it.

I just wanted to say that there are, in fact, pretty workable theories that answer those questions from an evolutionary standpoint. I'm not overly familiar with them, but I'll try to expand a bit of what I know in a later post, as well as research the subject a bit myself...it is a very interesting topic....

José Solano said...


Hi Heather,

You’ll note that I don’t do any yelling. I speak what I understand to be true and gently admonish people that get up tight. Not that I don’t at times feel degrees of wrath swelling in me but through many years of specific practices I’ve learned, for the most part, to contain these, to absorb this negativity and sublimate its force, that is, make its expression sublime.

The early Quakers were wonderful Christians and masters at sublimating negativity through grasping and applying the teaching from the Sermon on the Mount. Many still are but now some have reduced themselves to relaxing mush groupings far from any understanding of Christianity. There used to be real elders that would keep an eye over the congregation so that their contemplation was Christ centered. Now it tends to often merely imitate yoga practices.

Hi Benny, and welcome again Wendy,

Your interest in art draws my attention. I would appreciate any information that you might come up with, Wendy, on "workable theories" regarding art.

As I see things just about everything is a question of degrees, of levels. Real spiritual growth, and by this I mean psychological, artistic, religious, etc., occurs through work efforts that bring about increased understanding and appreciation. It requires discipleship in the proper schools for each discipline.

My seven year old daughter is right this moment playing the violin. She just began violin lessons a few days ago. She has been playing the piano for about two years. My nine year old daughter has been playing the piano for about four years. They have a concert master and music professor for a teacher. They must be taught and guided in the right direction and be exposed to the best. So she is starting with Mozart, Twinkle, twinkle little star. At first we must bare with some scratchy noises on the strings but of course we give her full encouragement praising her wonderful progress in such a short time. Because we have gained some real understanding and appreciation of music and art we know what techniques and exposures will facilitate developing her greatest potential in the field. If we started with "Rock around the clock" we will have effectively stifled her potential for maximum growth, unless some realization woke her up later on, but she would have been introduced to some serious developmental impediments, bad habits and a myopic sense of music.

I can draw analogies from other fields demonstrating how some approaches are superior to others in providing better, more expansive results.

But as you can see these explanations easily become lengthy so you must try to understand what I am saying from just minimal intimations, The same approach to learning music applies to learning about religion or almost anything else. Why Christianity is superior to say Hinduism or Hinduism superior to the belief systems of the Amazonian Jibaro headhunters requires considerable time, patience learning, and demonstration. It is best to start them young with good instruction, wholesome community relationships and support that exemplifies a higher level of understanding and conduct. Otherwise they acquire a great deal of baggage that can only be unloaded with great difficulty because they become so attached to it.

How much can I offer on a blog? It would seem to me that the most I can do is just provide some examples and hope that by this something might click so that someone might see that what I’m saying sounds at least plausible. and perhaps meaningful. Maybe I can bring about perhaps a "Hmm. That sounds interesting. I’ll try and ponder things from this perspective somewhat more."

I’ll continue my efforts within the limitations of brief answers and time.

Peace.

Anonymous said...

Hello Jose,

You're doing it again. Bad-mouthing non-Christian beliefs without justifying Christianity's supposed superiority. Earlier, you said someone is guilty of "ignorance, prejudice, and having been given very poor instruction" if they disagree with Christianity. A statement I note you have yet to retract. Now, you seem to be saying that if someone does not grow up with Christianity, "they acquire a great deal of baggage that can only be unloaded with great difficulty because they become so attached to it." If you cannot justify Christianity's supposed superiority here, then please stop bad-mouthing those who don't believe in it. Actually, come to think of it, even if Christianity is truly superior, it doesn't justify the amount of disrespect you are showing.

Yes, there are endeavors that require years to cultivate. I agree that art and music appreciation and spiritual growth are such endeavors. But the question was, is there an *objective* reason to pick one style over another (classical over rock, Christianity over other religions). You replied, "once you study classical music/Christianity for years you'll see why it's superior." But the same could be said by those who have studied other musical styles or other religions for years. Nothing you have said so far differentiates Christianity from other world views, let alone demonstrate its superiority.

Thank you for your patience with me, and for having continued the discussion this long. But frankly, if you cannot produce arguments or evidence that justify your repeated assertions of Christianity's superiority, then I don't see the need to continue this discussion. As I said before, I'm not out to deconvert you. I just want you to stop asserting Christianity's superiority and disrespecting other world views in this setting, if you cannot back up these statements in this setting.

José Solano said...


I’m sorry Benny, I’ve done what I can and things seem to have taken a turn for the worse. You are not understanding what I am saying and you are now ordering me around, but I will approach complex subjects as I think best.

All I can say is reread what I have written perhaps more slowly and cautiously, particularly the parts about “evidence” and the analogies I’ve given. There is logic and there is analogic. Both are needed.

I wish you well.

Adios.

Unknown said...

Jose,

It was a plea, not an order. You are free, of course, to say whatever you like. But your approach of asserting the superiority of your beliefs without backing it up, and disrespecting other beliefs, does little credit to your beliefs.

I wish you well also, and I look forward to future discussions.

Anonymous said...

how on earth can you honestly sit there and say you are happier not being a christian i dont n wont believe hat for one second!

you might feel like you are happier

but deep down insde i kno your not!

you cant be constantly having to worry whats round the coner what happens after your dead

wait you dont have to worry abt the last bit cause ill tell you what will happen to you

you will go throught tourture!

pain and suffering every day you cant even imagine the pian you will go through in hell!

you love your mother n father dont you?

of course you do!

well this guy God!! he made the whole world not just you the whole world you would never be here if it wasnt for him

you respect your parents dont you?

of course

and you cant even be botherd to open your mouth and tell people at this amazing uy that made this whole world and you?

you wont sacrifice a little bit of your time for him?

you just want to "have fun" i dont see how you can!

being a christian is thebest thing ive ever done!

just think abt this would you rather go to hell and go through pain and suffering or go to heaven where you are never sick o pain no suffering and are just happy?

i will not believe for one mintue some one canbe happier with always having that on their minds!

Lisa said...

It is sad, but there are so many in church who are not being taught and so it becomes so easy to walk away from God. The reason you feel so good about leaving christianity is because you have defaulted back to your natural state with which he were all born into the world, your flesh. Your flesh wants to have it's way and if you give it it's way it is happy, just like you. That is all you have done, no big deal. But just so you know grace is free and all God wants from His people is a relationship with them. Human beings make serving God more complicated than it is. Grace is free and it can't be earned, so is His mercy. Evangelising is somthing you do because you love people, not somthing you do because you have to. It seems to me you got caught up into relegion and never was taught how to have a real relationship with God. Because if you ever felt His presence surround you and hold you, it is very easy to walk away and feel good about walking away from God or christianity. You can't miss what you have never really had.