When Good Christians Go Bad!

[Exrev]

Let's find out!

I think, I was just saying that some Christians leave no room for people to leave their faith, based on an honest evaluation of the evidence and weather they find it logical or rational.

Well, Exrev, I was guilty of leaving out that option in my first response, although I've said that option before and believe it to be valid. I was coming at the question from kind of a different way, and I could have done a better job answering. I added in that option shortly after my post, and then edited it into the first post for the purpose of everything being together (I noted that it was edited in) (and now I see that the edit got lost in the crash, so I put it back in).

I see. I'll let it slide this time, but gosh who forgets to put stuff in their post on this forum JEZZZ.

This third option was :

3. A person truly is a Christian but is at a point in life, due to many things, where it is reasonable to leave God and the church as they know it, because "as they know it" is wrong.

I could see that. However, it still places it back on them that they have some misunderstanding of Christianity and leaves the current believers with an idea that if they "just got" the true gospel they would still be a believer. So what if they understand the main tentets of christianity and still rejects them. To me this view still isloates Christians from the real reasons why we leave. But maybe to futher lead the discussion, maybe you could tell me something that you think i was mistaken on in Chrstianity that casued me ultimately reject it.

I think you replied to that fact that maybe if i didn't find Christianity hard that I was neglecting some aspect of it.To which, I responded you to name something that you felt I might have been lacking, before I de-convereted.

As far as the hard thing - it's not that easy to name a particular "hard" thing that you didn't do. We're all different, and something that I find excruciatingly difficult, you mind find to be a piece of cake. I only know that the times when I'm seeking out God more are harder than the times that I'm not (although they're more rewarding, too). And if you truly didn't find that your Christianity didn't call upon you to do hard things, then I just gotta really wonder about that, because one of the main things that I see in Christianity is that you change - sometimes at very deep, personal levels - and that's hard.

I did some pretty crazy things that i look back on that I thought were pretty hard. But i didn't leave because I thought it was hard or getting too diffcult. I left because I don't think its true.

I'll also counter that it was much harder to leave Christianity than stay.

Yes, I can see that it would be very, very difficult - and several people here have shared their pain over that part in their life. You also said some things about how it's harder to NOT be a Christian in America than to BE a Christian in America, but that wasn't what I was talking about. I think for the most part, that's true, but I was talking about being a Christian, period - the place doesn't matter. But I admire you (and anyone) that acts on their beliefs, even when they're hard. That's one thing that I always encourage people to do - think about things, then act on what they think is right, no matter what. One of my favorite thoughts I picked up once was supposedly an unofficial saying of the Coast Guard - you may not come back, but you have to go out. I like that idea - decide what you think is right and do it, no matter what.[/quote]

Yeah, I mean this is not easy restarting what you want to do in life at 30!!! But its not if its easy or hard, not why I stoped being a Christian.

[mitchellmckain]

What I understand from reading the Bible is that people have sufficient evidence to make an informed decision, and I can see how this would work from just the way that I live - how things happen and make you think, and you see things and it makes you think, etc. I don't think that people have to even read a Bible to be a Christian - Jesus is the one and only way, but a person can walk on that one and only way without knowing its name, so to speak. I don't think that all paths lead to heaven, but I also don't think that there's a checklist that gets you into heaven. I think it's a matter of the heart - and if that's indeed so, then I can see how every person could be given sufficient information from an all-powerful God to make an informed decision. Do you see what I mean? (obviously, I could be wrong, but do you see how I could be right?)

Rian, you're a truly lovely person. I think that's a beautiful and quite happy thought you've shared with us here. It also reminds me very much of some of the things Mitch has spoken about. You two are an odd couple of Christians, I've got to tell you!

I think this view is getting more popular. When you start to push Christians on their view of hell, I've noticed that many repond like Rian did. But yes she is a lovely person.

Yes I would say what Rian is saying here in more abstract terms like making a claim that religious truths are highly semantic because I want to avoid the appearance that this is just something cobbled together in a kind of patchwork justice but to insist that things can be conducted according to general principles which really are just. But unfortunately sometimes such an abstract approach does just generate confusion and so having Rian spell it out here is helpful indeed.

In fact, this kind of illustrates the whole point of semantic ambiguity -- where explaining things from different angles can communicate things a little more clearly to a wider audience. I think this agreement of Rian and I flows from a basic faith we both have that somehow God really does love us and that God really is good and just, even when it is little difficult to work out the details of this and so we just keep plugging away until we find out how it really can work out. This is not a blind faith but just a realization of what kind of God is worth believing in. In this sense you can say that there really is not that much difference from the atheist, who has just been forced into that corner where they have to in fact say just what we would say in the same situation, that if this unjust immature self-absorbed tyrant god is what Christianity is really offering then we just cannot believe in it.

[Tim-the-Hermit]

Hi TIm!

But don't you think that people are so different, that what might affect one person wouldn't affect another? IOW, it's kinda hard to judge what is the "same" strength of evidence, so to say, for different people.

Sure, Rian, but I suppose it depends on the evidence. I brought up St Paul before because he went literally from persecuting Christians to believing. It was a first-hand revelation that caused him to go from one extreme to another. If belief mattered in order to be saved then surely it would be fair for everybody to get a first-hand revelation of that sort of strength? But you seem to be coming around to Mitch's view on belief and I too feel more comfortable with that.

What I understand from reading the Bible is that people have sufficient evidence to make an informed decision, and I can see how this would work from just the way that I live - how things happen and make you think, and you see things and it makes you think, etc. I don't think that people have to even read a Bible to be a Christian - Jesus is the one and only way, but a person can walk on that one and only way without knowing its name, so to speak. I don't think that all paths lead to heaven, but I also don't think that there's a checklist that gets you into heaven. I think it's a matter of the heart - and if that's indeed so, then I can see how every person could be given sufficient information from an all-powerful God to make an informed decision. Do you see what I mean? (obviously, I could be wrong, but do you see how I could be right?)

When you put it like that, sure! The only quibble I might have is that I can only accept it as a possibility. I can't say to myself or others in good conscience that I definitely believe that to be the case.

[Brad]

For me, sufficiently persuasive evidence that a god - any god - exists would need two elements:....

Your criteria, while generally reasonable, seems to contain two common biases which speak to Aristotle's question of uncertainty:

1) A bias towards modernity or a commonly held belief that seems to be present in all ages, that we know better or are more capable thinkers and judges than than our ancestors; and,

2) A bias towards believing everyone somehow has a right to at least an opportunity to personally witness such a demonstration.

Am I correct that those biases are present and if so, why do you think they're necessary?

Why, yes, I do have a strong bias toward modernity! I use everything modernity has to offer, especially when it comes to understanding how the world works and to evaluating truth claims.
For example, in a minute I'm going to eat breakfast, and before I do so I'm going to wash my hands, an action which not a single one of the writers of the Bible had any idea might be useful. It's not a tidbit found in the Bible, don'tcha know.

For another example, I don't trust or follow the predictions of astrologers. You?

And last night I rode in an airplane, something I and millions of other modern people are able to do quite regularly!
On the other hand, we could just ride donkeys and camels to get to our destinations, I guess.

And from 36,000 feet above the surface I watched in awe for many minutes one of nature's more spectacular shows - cloud to cloud lightning occurring along a hundred mile long line of thunderstorms. And I didn't believe a single thing - no, not one - about that event that ancient people believed or were taught. And not believing any of those sorts of things, I was able to enjoy and appreciate the show all the more!

And no, I don't think anyone has a right to see "miracles," because using the available tools of modernity, not least basic literacy and reason, I'm persuaded that no such events ever occurred. I was simply responding to the question of what might be sufficient to cause me to believe in a supernatural deity.
I can also postulate scenarios that would be sufficient to convince me that psychics or prophets accurately foretell the future at a success rate better than chance, or that a magician can actually saw a lovely woman in half and then have her appear again, smiling and whole. But my criteria for such things would be very unreasonable in the view of those people who take pleasure from, or gain from, beliefs in their "truth."

[Brad]

Just walked in from the mailbox, where I found the August 9, 2010 issue of Time magazine.
For an excellent illustration of the handiwork of people who are NOT biased toward modernity, and of why a bias toward modernity is necessary, indeed essential, for any reasonably thoughtful and caring human being, I recommend the cover photo.
The internet version of the photo doesn't do it justice. Next time you pass a magazine stand, look at the actual magazine cover.
Look at it for at least a minute without looking away.
Then talk to me about "bias toward modernity."

[mitchellmckain]

Just walked in from the mailbox, where I found the August 9, 2010 issue of Time magazine.
For an excellent illustration of the handiwork of people who are NOT biased toward modernity, and of why a bias toward modernity is necessary, indeed essential, for any reasonably thoughtful and caring human being, I recommend the cover photo.
The internet version of the photo doesn't do it justice. Next time you pass a magazine stand, look at the actual magazine cover.
Look at it for at least a minute without looking away.
Then talk to me about "bias toward modernity."

Yes and and you don't have to go that far back into the past of this country and Europe to see the same kinds of barbarity defending the same kinds of oppression, where women were treated as property rather than human beings. I don't know whether that particular barbarity was ever done but simply returning women to their abusive situation is no better and then they did use the excuse of accusations of witchcraft to drown or burn women alive if they did not conform to social norms.

[Kiwi]

To briefly recap on a post I did that got swallowed, Rian had asked this:

So Kiwi - given that you're an atheist, how would you characterize yourself when you were/thought-you-were a Christian? WHY were you a Christian? And in this point in time in your life, do you think that back then you were deluded, or what? Do you respect your views as they were back then?

It's a pertinent question.
My response is nope, I don't think I was deluded. I made the best decisions I could with the information I had. If I had escaped some sort of brainwashing cult then maybe I would look back with retrospect and say I was deluded. But no, I wasn't deluded. Nor do I think any of my Christian friends and family are deluded. I might disagree with their conclusions, or the way they assess some of their decisions, but I'm not about to write off an entire world view as being delusional. Many, many people who are far more intelligent than me have considered the same evidence that I have and landed in a different place.

[WorldlingWatcher]

And no, I don't think anyone has a right to see "miracles," because using the available tools of modernity, not least basic literacy and reason, I'm persuaded that no such events ever occurred. I was simply responding to the question of what might be sufficient to cause me to believe in a supernatural deity.

I can also postulate scenarios that would be sufficient to convince me that psychics or prophets accurately foretell the future at a success rate better than chance, or that a magician can actually saw a lovely woman in half and then have her appear again, smiling and whole. But my criteria for such things would be very unreasonable in the view of those people who take pleasure from, or gain from, beliefs in their "truth."

Just remember, despite more advanced technology and "better" thinking, a third of Americans still believe the Sept. 11 attacks were an inside job. The point is the age in which an event occurs has no bearing on whether people are being reasonable about evaluating it given the information and knowledge they have.

For an excellent illustration of the handiwork of people who are NOT biased toward modernity, and of why a bias toward modernity is necessary, indeed essential, for any reasonably thoughtful and caring human being, I recommend the cover photo.

And modernity should not be confused with values. Had they not tried to kill their daughter, you would have likely judged this woman's parents as sufficiently modern. I wonder, did the facists in Germany attempt to eliminate the Jews because the weren't modern enough?

[Pseudonym]

And modernity should not be confused with values.

I find that it helps to think of the Taliban as being like any other organised crime gang (which in the Afghanistan and Pakistan of today, is essentially what they are). They will do you horrible things to you and your family if you cross them, but so will a Mexican drug cartel. Afghanistan under the Taliban is pretty much the same as what would happen to Calabria if 'Ndrangheta ever took over the functions of government.

[Tim-the-Hermit]

God is allegedly no respecter of persons. Therefore everyone is entitled to the best evidence and first-hand revelation.

It seems you're willing to accept mere allegations he's no "respecter of persons"? How did you conclude that such a low standard is acceptable for unfavorable reports, but such a high standard is required for favorable reports?

I don't understand at all. Perhaps you could rephrase in simpler English. A 'seems' is not a conclusion.

[Exrev]

seems like this thread has been derailed. Maybe this topic should be on a new thread?

[Exrev]

God is allegedly no respecter of persons. Therefore everyone is entitled to the best evidence and first-hand revelation.

It seems you're willing to accept mere allegations he's no "respecter of persons"? How did you conclude that such a low standard is acceptable for unfavorable reports, but such a high standard is required for favorable reports?

I don't understand at all. Perhaps you could rephrase in simpler English. A 'seems' is not a conclusion.

He's playing either dumb or coy. Because for the sake of arugement you said that "god is no respector of persons" he thinks he has trapped you somehow into admitting the bible is true... of course if we use his own tactic on him he just admited the bible is a "mere allegation". LOL but SRLSLY WW

[spongebob]

3. A person truly is a Christian but is at a point in life, due to many things, where it is reasonable to leave God and the church as they know it, because "as they know it" is wrong.

I could accept this idea if the concept of god were truly so difficult to grasp. It isn't. But the way it is presented in religious groups is so confusing and often so insanely childish that I'm at a loss to understand how so many people accept it, except that people are good at compartmentalizing information.

The reason could also be written as "people see their religious group's practices as largely counter productive to society", and so they leave, either for another group or to forge their own practices. This is actually a growing trend in America.

[WorldlingWatcher]

He's playing either dumb or coy. Because for the sake of arugement you said that "god is no respector of persons" he thinks he has trapped you somehow into admitting the bible is true... of course if we use his own tactic on him he just admited the bible is a "mere allegation". LOL but SRLSLY WW

I don't think I've trapped him into anything. What he's done is expose the fact that he's willing to take derogatory conclusions about God at face value with no serious evaluation of the claim, but positive conclusions about God will no doubt require "extraordinary" evidence or some similarly indefensible and unachievable standard.

[Tim-the-Hermit]

He's playing either dumb or coy. Because for the sake of arugement you said that "god is no respector of persons" he thinks he has trapped you somehow into admitting the bible is true... of course if we use his own tactic on him he just admited the bible is a "mere allegation". LOL but SRLSLY WW

I don't think I've trapped him into anything. What he's done is expose the fact that he's willing to take derogatory conclusions about God at face value with no serious evaluation of the claim, but positive conclusions about God will no doubt require "extraordinary" evidence or some similarly indefensible and unachievable standard.

What you have done is taken a penguin and declared that it is a giraffe.