Neal's Workshop - Post details: Losing my Religion, Part II

Losing my Religion, Part II

Posted on 03-30-2006 at 12:22:29 am by Justin, 1445 words, 876 views

In Losing my Religion, Part I, I detailed my Christian upbringing. Part of that upbringing was learning to challenge ideas and to have a faith that was internally consistent with a loving God.

Once I left home for college, my lifestyle as a Christian became less dependent on church-based functions or regular Bible study. Having learned more than the average church-goer through having a live-in Biblical expert (my dad), I felt like I had sufficiently learned the basics of what I needed to understand the Christian faith in significantly all of its applications. In Christian discussions, I was often perceived as the guy with all of the answers.

Other's perception of my Biblical knowledge is a moot point; having a base proficiency in Christianity is not difficult. God created the heavens and the earth (everything). God is wholly good, all-knowing and all-powerful. Mankind's sin resulted in a rift between Man and God. Thus, God sent his Son Jesus to earth. Jesus Christ was the embodiment of a loving and forgiving God. He was sent to die as a sinless sacrifice and was resurrected three days later. Through this sacrifice, anybody could be reconciled to God through Jesus. A Christian life is one of love for God, yourself and your neighbor. If you do not accept Jesus as your Savior, you will suffer eternal separation from God in hell.

It is hard to pinpoint a singular event that changed my perception of Christianity. Rather, it was a slow realization effected by countless determinations that my belief in Jesus and God was inconsistent, false and unnecessary. One of the most important components in my awakening was in allowing myself to apply logical thought to my sacred Christian tenets. People build walls around their religious beliefs. These walls are constructed with statements such as "I don't know", "We are incapable of understanding", "It's a mystery", "Don't question God" or any number of other discussion-killing statements. I had to destroy this wall: I could answer the tough questions; I must challenge my beliefs both to understand and instill them with meaning. Furthermore, reason demanded that I extend my beliefs to their logical conclusions, no matter what the consequences.

Having armed myself with reason, I started tackling everything about Christianity. Here are some of the issues with which I wrestled (Read any you find interesting):

There exist human beings whose lives are excellent. They are role models despite their stated religion or creed. However, they are not Christians. Per the Bible and Jesus' repeated teachings, these individuals will go to hell. Belief Consequence: God would punish a great human being with eternal damnation.
God gave human beings 'free will'. Therefore, even if you are a great person, if you choose to reject Jesus, that is your free will and you will go to hell as a result. Problem: Free will requires the ability to choose. The problem with Christianity is in the choice: God or eternal pain and suffering. Such a "choice" is akin to duress. Is this really a choice? How is it meaningful to choose God when the alternative is hell? If God is okay with such free will, what does this say about God? Is he vain? Does he demand meaningless worship by his own creation?
Man's distinction from every other being is our ability to use reason and logic. Furthermore, we have the ability to think abstractly. If God created mankind with these distinctive, uniquely human abilities - the very things that make us such amazing creatures, why would he then demand we reject our reason in favor of faith, which is inherently irrational? This is akin to a watchmaker creating a fantastic watch and then demanding the watch to stop telling time.
The theory of evolution is a hot topic in Christendom. Assuming you can understand the Bible as a symbolic document whereby not every story is to be taken literally, you have no problem with the potential for creation to have occurred in some manner different from either of the creation stories in Genesis whether it be seven day creation (Genesis 1) or the Adam and Eve Garden of Eden myth (Genesis 2). All evidence points to the universe being billions of years old. Evolution is the dominant theory that explains the existence, complexity and diversity of life on earth. What about Creationism, you say? A wealth of evidence exists to refute the argument from Intelligent Design. If you can accept that the Intelligent Design is flawed, which can be as simple as acknowledging the existence of useless organs, you must deal with evolution. Belief Consequence: If you accept evolution as how God created life, you must deal with the consequences. Either a) The end result of evolution, humanity, is an unintended consequence of evolutionary natural selection OR b) despite God creating life via evolution, he chose to make it appear as though the process was God-less and random. In other words, God chose to paint himself out of the picture of creation and then proceed to demand we believe He actually created everything. Problematic.
Salvation through Jesus: God had his Son die a painful death on a cross. Why? If you're God, anything is possible. Why, then, would you require this event to take place? Beyond that, why is it a meaningful act: Jesus' resurrection is hardly a feat for God/Jesus. God's all-powerful, so really, the sacrifice story is meaningless to God; therefore, why is it meaningful to Mankind? What does it accomplish aside from being a symbol of altruism? Or is it altruistic when Jesus ultimately got refunded the purchase price vis a vis resurrection?
Christian beliefs build walls between you and other people: human beings define individuals by religious beliefs in lieu of their real complexity.
Pascal's wager backfires: This is the argument that, "If you believe and you're wrong, you still lead a great life. But if you don't believe and you're wrong, you go to hell." Pascal's Wager is problematic for numerous excellent reasons but philosophy aside, my reason for vehemently disagreeing with Pascal's wager goes back to a late night discussion with a good friend back when I was twenty, an R.A. at Myers Hall, and on the edge of walking away from Christianity. My friend said to me, "I just can't believe that this [life] is all there is." It was then when it struck me: belief in God - in an afterlife - can actually diminish your experience of life. Why? Belief in an after-life means there's something better waiting when you die; the consequence is that it makes your life appear less important. Think about it this way: assuming you are wrong in your belief in God, your Christian beliefs net you:
1. Nothing upon your death, and
2. A life diminished by your fears and expectations; the knowledge that you've only got one shot at a great life is a huge motivator not to screw up your one chance.
Pascal's argument backfires. Furthermore, Christian beliefs make for less costly mistakes: after all, you can always ask for forgiveness. Contrarily, a life without God demands you maximize the life you have knowing it's the only life you're going to get.

I ended with that last example because if there was one event that was the culmination of my faith abandonment, that was it. In truth, it took all of these examples above and many, many more to get me over to the other side. I couldn't hope to represent them all in this single post; thus, if you are unconvinced by the above, feel free to egg me into telling you some more. I enjoy debating this stuff.

Why did I lose my religion? I didn't lose it; rather, I grew out of it. I opened my eyes to a world without fear or mysticism. And it was like being reborn. I am an atheist. I do not see belief in God as meaningful: every meaningful way I ever tried to define God resulted in contradictions to the evidence of personal experience, science and reason. There still may exist some higher power. However, I am convinced its existence is inconsequential to your life and mine. Life is too important to waste chasing shadows.

I have never regretted my decision to close the book on Christianity. I feel more alive as an atheist than I ever did at the peak of my belief in God. Why? Because the world makes sense now. What a great feeling that is! If you have any questions, concerns, challenges or whatever, please comment and I'll be happy to respond. I obviously enjoy healthy debate.

Stay tuned for An Atheist Epilogue, a case for a worthwhile life.

Categories: Life, Religion • 19 comments

Permalink

Comments, Pingbacks:

Comment from: Leo [Visitor]

Did you grow out of your religion, or just into a new one?

Permalink 03-30-2006 @ 09:39

Comment from: Justin [Member]

I have to read into your comment a bit: are you implying that atheistic belief is religious?

If so, no I did not grow into a new religion. Religion requires belief in some sort of supernatural agency. According to this definition, I am non-religious as I have no beliefs in any supernatural agency.

If you are implying that I grew into a system whereby I understand the world, then I would say you are correct. However, such system is not religious in nature; rather, it is based on logic and reason - material things instead of spiritual ones. All said, good question.

Permalink 03-30-2006 @ 12:12

Comment from: Leo [Visitor]

Christian beliefs build walls between you and other people: human beings define individuals by religious beliefs in lieu of their real complexity.

Would this principle apply to you as well? You are a human being, right? I would say beliefs, not just Christian, build walls between people. I've heard you say before, 'are you willing to go down that road?' I know the road is one of searching and challenge. To me, it seems you believe that if a person does go down that road, he or she will learn or discover what you know now. Or, if you only hope for a person to go 'there' insomuch as it leads to his/her 'best life,' then one person's view of 'best life' is relative. Would you say this is true? And if so, what difference does it make to be religious or not? I believe one person is always going to try to persuade the other that he is wrong--if you didn't believe that person is wrong, then how can you be convicted about your own stance? I have a hard time believing that your beliefs or your atheism, do not also build walls between you and others. Our differences build walls between us, whatever they may be.

Permalink 03-31-2006 @ 10:19

Comment from: Justin [Member]

Would this principle apply to you as well? You are a human being, right? I would say beliefs, not just Christian, build walls between people. . . . I have a hard time believing that your beliefs or your atheism, do not also build walls between you and others. Our differences build walls between us, whatever they may be.

You are right. It would certainly apply to me, as well. And after reading your comment and rereading what I wrote, I realize that I didn't do justice to what I'm trying to convey. Let me try again.

Our beliefs - whatever they may be - will always build walls between us and other people and other things. The impact of these walls and how much they keep us from interacting with others in meaningful ways depends on the beliefs. I posit that certain generally held Christian beliefs impede interaction. One of these beliefs (Perpare for a generalization) is that non-Christians (whether atheist, agnostic, Hindu, Muslim, Jew, Satanist, Wiccan or Whatever) are going to hell, need Jesus, bad people, immoral, sinners, worthy of pity, need a good Christian influence or any number of other things. It's important to note that not all Christians build these walls, but a significant majority do, and it's unfortunate. Christian beliefs also impose morality without reason. Why is divorce wrong? Why is getting drunk wrong? Why is cursing wrong?

I'm reminded of a discussion happening right now over on www.reappropriate.com in the comments for Black.White. about the "n word." By the majority population (of White people) simply accepting that "nigger" is a bad word, we foster ignorance. Though as kids we would argue with our parents when they used the catch-all "Because I said so!", as adults we often accept absolutes without reason or understanding. Thus, Christians (and ANY believer of a system that is handed down as a complete package - Islam is a great other example) often make moral decisions without reason. Often these decisions build walls that are unnecessary and limiting. I know there were people I knew when I was still a Christian who drank or did drugs and I didn't hang out with them or talk to them simply because of my religious moral code. I would never do that now without good reason. My belief system as it pertains to supernatural beings, which I say is "atheism" because it's the best term out there for it, builds fewer walls than a Christian system because people I encounter and potential things I could do are all question marks waiting for reason's hand.

And it's important to note that I am making generalizations, but these generalizations are based on personal experience as well as Christian doctrine. Compare Christianity to Hinduism. Hinduism doesn't advocate mission work or that everyone should be a Hindu. Thus, Hinduism is inherently less wall-building than Christianity or Islam.

I'll move on.

I've heard you say before, 'are you willing to go down that road?' I know the road is one of searching and challenge. To me, it seems you believe that if a person does go down that road, he or she will learn or discover what you know now. Or, if you only hope for a person to go 'there' insomuch as it leads to his/her 'best life,' then one person's view of 'best life' is relative. Would you say this is true? And if so, what difference does it make to be religious or not? I believe one person is always going to try to persuade the other that he is wrong--if you didn't believe that person is wrong, then how can you be convicted about your own stance?

To your last question, you are absolutely right: your beliefs are a moral stance and they require conviction.

Yes, it is relative. However, perception (thus the relativity of the question) is not always accurate, so yes it can make a huge difference. It's made a big difference for me. It makes an even bigger difference in how your beliefs can affect others either on a personal level (as I detail above) or on a mass scale: religious systems organize people into groups with power. I'm not aware of any wars started by or fought by atheists. However, how many people have died at the hands of religious fanatics (Crusades? Modern day terrorism? Spanish mission work in South America? Etc...). So to sum up, I think it can make a huge difference what you believe even if it is relative.

Permalink 03-31-2006 @ 11:15

Comment from: Leo [Visitor]

In your first and second points, you asked the following:

1. If God is a loving God than why would God punish us for a) living an excellent, 'Christian' life (even though we may not be Christian) and b) choosing not to love God back?

This question is a difficult one. The reality is that no one knows if hell or heaven or God exists, but if God does exist and God is loving, then the idea of hell is contradictory. I do not believe that hell exists. That is to say that I don't NEED to believe that hell exists to lay claim to Christian beliefs or the idea that God loves me whether or not I choose to love God back. In fact, many times over and over throughout one day of my life, I choose to do things that do not show love for God but rather love for myself. I believe this to be human nature and the nature God gave us. Why would God give us this nature that would mean rejection for God? Since I do not believe in the existence of hell, I do not believe our choice is akin to duress. What value does love hold if it is forced?

I'm searching too. I must say, though, that the search is exhausting and is not once and for all. It is a lifetime, and we must be present to our experiences if we are to learn anything about people and life. And learning about our relationships with people seems to be the most real connection to the sublime or even a higher being, for without meaningful relationships, what is the value of life?

Permalink 03-31-2006 @ 11:49

Comment from: Roarke [Visitor]

I also was raised in a Baptist church and ran the course of Christianity through my formative years. I, like Neal, also grew away from the Church and its beliefs. I think it's important to emphasize that this 'growing' is a gradual process, whereas the leap from non-believer to believer is more of an instantaneous epiphany (from what I understand). I never suddenly decided that I was an atheist. It was more of something that I learned about myself, not necessarily something I figured out about the world and my existence. The thought-infrastructure was already there, however, the questions still had to be answered. When I finally mentally articulated to myself that I was an atheist, it was not an earth shattering moment any more than when I learned that I had grown out of my penchant for all things nougat (not to draw any parallels between nougat and Christianity).

Permalink 03-31-2006 @ 12:27

Comment from: Leo [Visitor]

I didn't mean for the question, 'what difference does it make to be religious or not' turn into a spiel on how religious org's have hurt the world, which they have. (I believe Hitler was an athiest, by the way.) I meant it doesn't matter if you are religious or not, one person is going to think the other is wrong if their beliefs are in disagreement. I was trying to determine from you whether or not you desire for others what you believe yourself (you being not religious vs. religious).

I think I have a problem with the generalizations you make about Christianity and its stance on hell, though the majority of Christians probably do believe it exists. Furthermore, I believe that every single person's perception of God is so incredibly different from the next person's that it is impossible to know much about God, thus making generalizations moot. Most people are making assumptions of God based off a collection of writings a.k.a. the Bible and what their parents, elders, ministers tell them vs. combining those influences with your own personal experience. If it is so difficult to know about God because we all view & define God differently, then how can we begin to know about things like the afterlife? I mention the difficulty of defining God to debate some of your points and to see if you might think of some "tenets" of Christianity in a different light. I realize, however, that you have to make generalizations to be as concise and succinct as possible.

I'm not sure if I believe in God or not. I am in awe by the thought of a higher being loving me when I cannot love myself. Is that a sign of weakness or an opiate? It does not cause me to profess it to the world, or influence a wayward nation, or to act much differently than I do. I guess I don't want to say 'yes' God exists or 'no' God doesn't exist. I enjoy the mystery and am secure believing it's okay not to know, that God loves me regardless, which means 'yes God exists.' Or is love for myself supposed to be enough? I'm doing the best I can and, I think we all are. If God exists, I believe God recognizes that struggle and doesn't condemn us for it.

I have so many thoughts running through my head. As your friend said, 'There has to be more to this life than this' or something to that effect. All of us seem to need and do have so much purpose in our lives. Where does that come from? What should it be? To live fully? That seems like an excellent purpose. And you are saying that your journey has allowed you to discover a full life. I don't think your friend meant he was giving up on his current life--he's asking the question we all have asked at one point and will ask again, what is our purpose?

Permalink 03-31-2006 @ 12:48

Comment from: Justin [Member]

Leo,

I have not done an exhaustive amount of research on Hitler, but I did find this with a quick Google search on "Hitler religion." It appears that Hitler was not an atheist but believed in some form of God.

I do desire for others what I have for myself, but acknowledge that I can't force anyone to believe what I believe. Even moreso, no one is going to believe precisely what I believe. We all come to different conclusions. I think you would agree: this is a good thing.

I think I understand your problem with my take on Christianity and hell; it most certainly conflicts with your take on hell, which is that hell doesn't exist. However, the Bible is extremely clear on the existence of hell. My statements about hell are not generalizations about Christians, they are extrapolations from the Bible. Though you can selectively pick and choose things out of the Bible to support your beliefs, at what point do you say "Wait a sec, if I have to interpret x, y, and z out of the Bible, can I really call myself a Christian?" I guess it just depends on your definition of Christianity. If it's as simple as "God is love. God loves you." then that is great, but is that Christianity? Like you said, everyone is different, and you can define Christianity however you want. The question you have to ask yourself is: is my definition useful?

You say:

I'm not sure if I believe in God or not. I am in awe by the thought of a higher being loving me when I cannot love myself. Is that a sign of weakness or an opiate? It does not cause me to profess it to the world, or influence a wayward nation, or to act much differently than I do. I guess I don't want to say 'yes' God exists or 'no' God doesn't exist. I enjoy the mystery and am secure believing it's okay not to know, that God loves me regardless, which means 'yes God exists.' Or is love for myself supposed to be enough? I'm doing the best I can and, I think we all are. If God exists, I believe God recognizes that struggle and doesn't condemn us for it.

I think this is a great statement, but it leaves me with some questions. If you don't know God exists, if you don't want to profess either way, why does believing in God matter to your life? How does God love you? Love is a statement of value that is backed by action. How has God shown you love? What is love without action? If there are no actions, is it worth your time to even think of God? If the existence or non-existence of God has nothing to do with your life, then how is God's existence relevant to your life?

Also, it doesn't really matter how my friend meant me to take his statement: the conclusion I made is (I believe) still valid.

To your last point, I believe life's purpose is entirely what you decide it to be. I think life is inherently purposeless aside from perpetuating existence. Instead of this realization causing me despair, it instills me with the knowledge that life is what I make of it. And for me, I want to make the most of it and live fully without regret or uncertainty.

Permalink 03-31-2006 @ 13:57

Comment from: T/ether [Member]

Some good posts here peeps. I will try to make my comments brief. First, I find it interesting that three people growing up in the same household can have three totally different experiences with their inherited belief system. I find that all of your opinions are valid and can completely see where you each come from in approaching this issue. To a certain degree, I would argue that all three of us: Leo, Neal, and myself could say that we hold to some of our proposed ideas at least some of the time. Meaning, there are times when we feel more atheist, times when we feel more agnostic, times when we feel more spiritual, and times when those categories fail altogether.

Second, I take issue with the way in which you paint your journey as a "I've arrived at a higher place than most people" kind of experience. Maybe that was not your intent. If not, I will speak to that notion generally. I think that human life, and the life of the mind is very complicated. I don't feel that it's complicated to the point of the unexplainable, but I do feel that it is complicated to the degree that there is no single concept or ideology that can easily sum up a person. For that reason, I take issue with trying to pinpoint our ideologies altogether and holding them in front of us as if to say that those words/ideas are in fact, us. To me, that is a gross oversimplification of human experience. I felt that a better vantage point for your argument would have been one of "this is my story, yours might be different."

Third, most, if not all, of your arguments for Christian doctrine (namely, that said doctrine exists concretely somewhere) can be, and are by faith groups and academics alike, debated. The Bible is an ancient collection of writings, and as such it really has no place in functioning as a systematic theology or philosophy of existence, metaphysics, god, etc. Instead, what we have there is a collection of experiences or differently stated, a collection of people trying to recreate their experiences or the experiences of others. It is sad that we have taken such a complicated text and have tried to flatten it into something it simply cannot be. I hear your arguments and qualms, I just don't feel that they really hold water because they are debating interpretations of a text that really has no place functioning in the way in which people treat it--as a guide to life, the world, the beyond, etc.

I've got lots more to say, but need to go home. Might give me a chance think through some more things and come back with fresh eyes.

Permalink 03-31-2006 @ 18:23

Comment from: Justin [Member]

T/ether,

I must have taken a tone of "I'm advanced in my thinking" at some point as at least a couple people have pointed as much out. This was not my intent and I hope I've already spoken to that in a couple of my posts.

One of our differences is that I tend to boil things down to a core belief whereas you tend to keep a smathering ideas juggling amongst each other. I hope you understand what I mean, as this is a difficult concept to explain. I'm only pointing out that I think we conclude on matters differently.

As to your points about "gross oversimplification," I agree to some extent and disagree for the rest. I agree that it is impossible to explain with accuracy who I am to someone else. I couldn't do it in 100,000 words and I definitely can't do it in a mere 2,000. However, I think it's important for me to try and explain who I am and what I'm about. Furthermore, I think it's of the utmost importance that individuals try to understand what drives their actions - to understand their beliefs. I think you should try to hold out your so-called beliefs and examine them for truth. Otherwise, they're meaningless. Insomuch as this process can be shared with others, I think it can be meaningful. All of that said, this is my story [in 2,000 words regarding my experience with Christianity]: yours will be different.

To your last point (Thirdly...), there does exist Christian doctrine. No matter how much said doctrine is debated by academics and laymen alike, doctrine does, in fact, exist. To the extent that doctrines differ between people, that is fine. However, it does not mean you can't argue on certain issues. My arguments do hold water because people do interpret the text in certain ways that are then indoctrinated in the church. Outside of Biblically-based arguments, philosophical arguments such as the problem of evil or intelligent design are not dependent on textual interpretation. Finally, if you can't use the Bible to direct you to an understanding of Jesus/God, then how can the Christian experience be meaningful at all? I don't think I understand how you can be a Christian without using the Bible as your guide to Christianity. If you can't use the Bible as your guide, then can you be a Christian?

To the extent that this comment is disjointed, I apologize as I'm commented out for one day. I'm sure we'll hammer it out in time.

Permalink 03-31-2006 @ 19:03

Comment from: T/ether [Member]

Excellent clarifications. I do agree with you that if you're going to call yourself a Christian, then you will depend upon the Biblical text for the foundational understanding of your beliefs. However, I would argue that Christianity as we know it, isn't exactly what we find in the textual record. It's layer upon layer of tradition, interpretation, ritual, politics, economics, and culture that creates the Christianity we know today. Such a layering means that getting at the 'core' of some type of Christianity is practically impossible. So, what we have, are flavors of textual interpretation that people call Christian. Under this system, there is no one doctrine of Christianity...there are doctrines, and we can debate those all we would like, but there is no Doctrine. Your stated doctrine of Christianity is widely accepted, but not the definitive flavor.

It is this notion that there exists some kind of 'core' system that I take the biggest issue with. I guess we're prone to grouping ideas and placing them under umbrellas, but my point is that we are better off coming to one another as relational people first, and as people with ideas, second. The distinction might be subtle, but I believe it to be important. It's one thing to say "hey, i'm a Christian. my name is x." and another thing to say "hey, i'm x. i'm wrestling with these principles that i understand to be known as Christian." we live our lives by inherited systems. we can understand them only to a point, and we are destined to grapple with the issues that those systems present. some choose to annihilate all dissonance in their system by wrapping themselves in a tight thought-world/game. others, choose to embrace the dissonance by walking alongside those issues within their system and holding a conversation...one where they might be changed and where those they talk with might also be changed through the exchange of ideas. that's what we're doing here, and i applaud the effort.

Permalink 03-31-2006 @ 19:38

Comment from: Justin [Member]

I agree with you regarding there being no Doctrine of Christianity. There is no way to determine absolutely what the Christian Doctrine is. The closest (but still fatally flawed) determination of the Christian Doctrine we can make is to gauge what the majority of Christians might call the core of Christianity. I defined such core and then examined certain problems with it. It isn't perfect, but I do not think it is unreasonable. The impossibility of determining the core doesn't make an educated guess worthless.

As for being "better off coming to one another as relational people first, and as people with ideas, second.", I agree only insomuch as ideas are poor representations of an individuals inherent complexity. Furthermore, the degree of correlation between stated beliefs and beliefs in action, is often poor, at best. I believe, however, that the better you understand your beliefs as they are practiced, the more worthwhile it is to express your beliefs relationally.

I choose not to "embrace dissonance" when doing as much is just another way of saying, "I don't know the answer/I can't know the answer/I don't know why they don't work together/etc" and never resolving anything. I found resolution in my understanding of Christianity, but only after grappling with the issues and then drawing conclusions. I think it a sound approach consistent with who I am (naturally).

Permalink 04-03-2006 @ 12:29

Comment from: T/ether [Member]

and i think your stance is working very well for you. for me, i appreciate the suspension of firmly held "beliefs" because i firmly believe that as individuals we are more dissonant than we'd like to believe...note the rampant use of belief here. i'm more comfortable with approaching people and myself with a stance of open-endedness--an unfinished story, or heck no story at all, but merely a collection of experiences. at the end of the day we are imparting meaning onto our own identity, our world, etc. we are good at doing such, and it seems to me that we often trick ourselves into seeing some type of core belief outside of our own interpretive lense. i haven't found a core to exist in my own experience, unless that core is the truth that we create one through our acts of being in the world.

Permalink 04-05-2006 @ 00:40

Comment from: Halve [Visitor]

well, you're all to smart for me but I'll throw out my two cents on the subject at hand...

Your first point is that you know people "whose lives are excellent." I am not sure what your interpretation is but I take it as they are inherently "good" people.
My problem with this whole thought process is this... not to sound boastful but many people out there would say I am a good person or as you put it "live an excellent life." The truth is I am not even close.... the screw ups never end, the things I know are wrong I do over and over again. If i am inherently good then why when I know something is bad do I do it? Even when I am doing something "good" my motives are sometimes not. I just think that if I am a good person then once I know something is bad I can just turn the switch and never do it again. This illustrates evil in the world and unfortunately none of us are good people. if you interview anyone in the world and they were truthful about their sins, thought life, etc the results would be the same. Thus the "savior" concept.

Also, how can you think that there's the possiblity that everything is purposeless? Any creation, no matter what it is has a purpose. If you paint a painting there is purpose behind that, maybe it's to make money, show someone you care, etc. How can you believe that this whole universe which had to be created at some point by some entity is purposeless?

Also, I think there have to be some things that are not completely clear in the bible. If everything was laid out perfectly and there wasn't really a decision or faith based action to be made then the joy of God would have to be much less in our worship of him. Ultimately, the bible says we are here to worship (glorify) him so the fact that not everything is revealed requires us to use the free will he gave us to worship him thus bringing much more joy than simply laying it all out for us. i think i just said the same thing twice by the way. I am not the best at vocalizing (typing) my thoughts so if this makes zero sense let me know and i'll try to do betta.
I haven't gotten to the rest of your blog yet but i'll get around to it. Keep writing stuff I like hearing different perspectives, keeps you thinking and growing.

Permalink 04-30-2006 @ 21:37

Comment from: Halve [Visitor]

that's too smart FWIW... geez.

Permalink 04-30-2006 @ 22:20

Comment from: Justin [Member]

I have a few problems with your first argument.

One, that forgiveness by God of my sins is meaningful. For example, if my sins hurt no one but myself, then really, I'm the only one who should be forgiving. An offshoot of this thought is somewhat blasphemous, but I think important: something obviously went wrong with humanity - something God had not expected. Otherwise, why the need to send his son to save us? So God failed. How do you reconcile that failure with the notion of God?

Two, why was Jesus' death on a cross was meaningful or how did it accomplish anything? I spoke to this in my post, but what did it mean for God to die? Jesus died, but rose again. Is death meaningful if it isn't permanent?

Finally, our lives are defined by what we do. What we do is who we are. The things that we do are not undone by simply wishing them away. And if they are, by what mechanism? How exactly does Jesus save us? By granting our wishes?

As to your question about purpose, I guess I just come at things from the other side. Things seem so inherently purposeless. The things we create have purpose simply because they have value to us each individually. But the purpose is in the result. How do you reconcile human purpose to a universe so vast we can't even begin to fathom it? If you take existence as creation, what does it tell you about the creator?

Finally, I reject God creating us to worship him. I don't even know what that means. I could understand God wanting a relationship with his creation, but if that's what God wants, why doesn't God ever relate to us - not through feelings that may or may not come from God, or relationships with live human beings that we somehow attribute to God, but real relating? I'm talking about one-on-one communication with God. I could understand that, but I don't see that and have never experienced it. If God wants us to just tell him how great he is, it seems awfully silly to me. Does God have some kinda vanity complex? It just doesn't add up to any purpose worth spending time on. Let's keep talking.

Permalink 04-30-2006 @ 22:42

Comment from: lillian [Visitor]

I could understand God wanting a relationship with his creation, but if that's what God wants, why doesn't God ever relate to us - not through feelings that may or may not come from God, or relationships with live human beings that we somehow attribute to God, but real relating? I'm talking about one-on-one communication with God.

I believe that this is the function of prayer.

If God wants us to just tell him how great he is, it seems awfully silly to me.

God knows how great he is. What he wants is for us to love him.

Permalink 07-21-2006 @ 22:49

Comment from: Justin [Member]

I believe I have addressed both of your comments at length here.

The most basic response I can give, however, is a question:

How do you love/relate to God when God never love/relates back?

Permalink 07-22-2006 @ 09:37

Comment from: lillian [Visitor]

I believe I have addressed both of your comments at length here.

Not really. You've not discussed prayer in that piece. What you have done is lamented the fact that God does not address you in your way and in your time and that is true. God responds in his own time, not necessarily our own. And it may be that our response from God comes to us by way of the Holy Spirit.

When we pray we may need to overcome the resistance we encounter as we seek to be closer to God. And it is easy to allow God's response to be muted by our own refusal to attend to it.

How do you love/relate to God when God never love/relates back?

In my experience He does.

Permalink 07-23-2006 @ 16:27