May 11 2007 10:19 pm

The following was written in a letter to a Christian colleague who has moved far from fundamentalist religion.

I can critique Christianity if you want me to. I wasn't sure how you felt about that and I want to respect people's beliefs and personal space. So if you don't want an intense critique of Christian doctrine, this would be a good place to stop reading. In case you're interested, as you seemed to be near the end of our meeting, here's some things that might interest you.

I am not hereby making any statements about my personal position because I am always learning and growing. But you may be interested to know that atheists today do not claim that there is no God. I think this is a shift from earlier in history. They claim not to have enough evidence for God's existence to believe. They will add: But if God showed up tomorrow I would not longer be an atheist. I would be a believer.

This raises the question: What is faith or belief?

I can only speak for myself here. You probably know a lot more about the psychology of faith than I do. When I say "I believe...." I mean that it makes sense in my brain. It has never made sense in my brain that Jesus' death and resurrection could in any way open the way to heaven for human souls.

There are many atonement theories, but why is an atonement needed? If I want to retain my sanity I have to forgive humungous offenses that the offenders claim should not have hurt me. As a person with training in counseling I guess you know that we each have a right to our own feelings. Well, if I can forgive these offenders, then why does God need an atonement before he forgives repentent sinners--people who confess their sinfulness and feel deep remorse for their offenses? I understand God is almighty.

It requires considerable emotional energy to forgive hostile offenders. I'm not asking God to do that. All I am asking is that God forgive people who are truly sorry for their offenses WITHOUT atonement. If I, a mere mortal, can do it, so can an almighty God. I think the atonement models are based on the stratified society of the Roman Empire with the patronage system, from which the NT writers would have taken their cues.

But even if an atonement were needed, how could Jesus' death atone for anything? I just don't get it. Nor has any Christian been able to explain it in a way that answers my questions. They always get to a certain point in the discussion, and then they say "Faith doesn't make sense/is not logical." Okay, if people feel good with that, fine. But don't ask me to say "I believe" something that makes no sense. For me, that's lying, pure and simple. Sorry, Andy, that's not aimed at you because you have not made any religious demands on me; it's just the feeling I get when Christians judge me.

When I was a child, my mother would always promise that I would understand things when I got older. When I hit forty, it occurred to me that I am now "older." And I have no more understanding on the topic than when I was a child. The theology I have been studying these past several years, which includes indepth conversations with my Christian doctrine prof, has brought me no closer to an understanding. It's time to just move on in life. I will no longer openly lie, as in professing to believe things I don't. But, as we discussed today, God is so amorphous and can't be pinned down, that I do believe in God from a certain perspective.

I know how to twist things in my brain to make it mean what I want. For example, you say you are convinced that God exists, that "there is something out there." However, given that this sense or feeling derives from a certain firing of the neurons in your brain, then the "God" you know about is something I know about, too; I get the same experiences and sensations. Anyway, this is where the line between truth and falsehood becomes really fuzzy.

Because of the extreme treatment I've experienced at the hands of conservative Christians, some of them in KW, I will allow people in general to believe what they will about me. I may even resort to evasive answers, depending on the situation. For the most part I just try to avoid situations where "dangerous" people are likely to question me.

What I find incredible is that most Christians, laypeople, when confronted with my questions outlined above will scurry for their Bibles to find the answers. I don't understand how anyone can claim to be a Christian without knowing the basic tenets of the Christian faith well enough to attempt an answer. On second thought, maybe they think I will accept it from an authority like the Bible. But how do we know the Bible is true? That's the point at which some people will say, "If you don't want to believe, then nothing I can say will change that."

It's as though belief were a choice. And, as I explained above, it's not. I hate being accused of choosing something over which I agonized for half a century in my effort to understand. It's so utterly unfair and unjust. Nothing that I have ever experienced requires more faith than to continue my walk in life without God--WITHOUT knowing whether it's really true that hell is not real. Hell makes no sense but if the faith makes no sense then hell still fits.

I have had to confront the hell question long ago. The decision to go for an education was a life and death decision. They won't accept it. I know that much without trying them out so I'm not throwing my pearls to the pigs. (Don't tell them I called them pigs, okay ?) But it's true all the same. Since they rejected me with my education, I had no choice but to leave the church. When official plans were in place for me to leave the OOM church, I had my new birth experience.

MCEC people have tried to tell me that I wasn't leaving God when I left the OOM church. I don't accept that. Disobedience is as the sin of witchcraft, Samuel told Saul. Children obey your parents, say the Old and New Testaments. And in the Bible, the child-parent relationship does not end so long as the parents are alive; after their death, one has to honour their memory. I was deliberately turning my back on all I had been taught to consider holy. That is not the time at which God normally blesses a person with the new birth. That is what I believe. Maybe if that were the only problem I had with Christianity I would think differently. But it's just one more detail.

So there you have what some people call an extestimony--a testimony about deconverting.

Posted: May 14 2007 01:16 am

He Responds with Normal Fundamentalist Rhetoric

I am no longer so sure that he has moved away from fundamentalism. He responded like any fundy I meet on the internet. He's more polite than some but the message is the same. Here are some of his points:

1. I would hope my faith is secure enough that any question or perspective can be fairly considered, analyzed, and debated.

2. I think [faith] is more than can be measured by psychology.

3. [M]y conception of God is that God and love are inseparable, love is God--God is love.

4. [T]he fact that many people who claim to know God are anything but loving points to the reality of how little they know of God.

5. [T]he fact that there is love in the world and that we can know and feel when love is lacking points to a source of love out there that is complete; we always are incomplete when it comes to love.

6. [T]he very fact that we experience unwholeness, points to the the reality that there must be wholeness somewhere.

7. Is it possible that the very deep needs in our being are an indicator that somewhere there must be a reality without pain--a wholeness? (He credits Blaise Pascal for this.)

8. Faith is otherworldly, it is not simply rational logic, or it wouldn't be faith.

9. Personally I think that even many atheists actually believe in God they just don't realize it yet.

10. [M]athematics and science have in the last 50 years become progressively more honest about what they thought were the "sure" truths of their field.

11. An honest Atheist can't even say there is no God, because he can't prove it.

12. The fact that God makes no sense to you right now is not a statement of your will or your rational mind.

13. I think it points to your experience, you have had a hell of a time and God makes no sense in your experience.

Confessions

I too have struggled with atonement theories and can't say that I really understand it. The term "Jesus dying for my sins" is mystery. I understand the concept particularly in light of that era where sacrifice was a common act of devotion to deities, but could not an all knowing God have come up with anything else?

Conversation:

ME: When official plans were in place for me to leave the OOM church, I had my new birth experience.

HIM: Very interesting use of words--I get it though; you found life as you never before experienced--you found something profound--alive--life giving. To me that is God, but that is a faith statement.

**************


ME: I was deliberately turning my back on all I had been taught to consider holy.

HIM: I think you were turning your back on all that was unholy--of course you are human so you will not get it all right and thus make mistakes. But I still see this as a movement toward light.

MY RESPONSE: I feel and see so much light around me that it seems absurd to suggest that I am �on my way to� light. I am there! I would never return to the slavery of Christianity. Note, the word �slavery� is not my term; it is the term of the Apostle Paul.

****************


That's all I am quoting from him for now. I answered all of his questions but I will hold off posting my answers for the time being. I am curious how you would have answered, or responded to, these points and rhetorical questions and statements. I treated them like genuine questions. He has had all of last night and today to respond. So far, no response.

For a bit of background. He and I are studying theology at the same level in two different schools; both of us expect to finish this summer; he is going on to do a PhD with the intention to become a prof. (Do we need ANOTHER fundy prof???) His school is Mennonite and my school is Evangelical Lutheran. He identifies as Christian. I do not. I have not told him that I am atheist because I am not completely sure of that myself, but he seems to assume that not being Christian equals being atheist. And apparently he assumes that atheism of necessity declares that there is no god. He totally ignores my statement to the contrary. As you will notice, he states twice that atheists cannot prove otherwise--as though we were trying!

[align=center]Faith is Not Rational Argument[/align]

HIM: But I think [faith] can be rational in an emotional rational kind of way.

ME: It is emotionally irrational and unethical that God cannot/will not forgive without an atonement.

HIM: I think as humans we are made up of emotions and a rational brain - to make any decision based only on the brain is not rational.

ME: I don't think anyone does. I certainly don't. You yourself admit that I have striven for wholeness. Wholeness is definitely not a "brain" thing.

HIM: Only things that are considered both by the brain or the will and by the emotional are completely rational.

ME: When you read exChristian you will see that emotions, will, and the intellect combine in every deconvert's decision to leave Christianity.

HIM: I get some of these ideas from MacMurray - philosopher in the early 20th century.

ME: Sounds like MacMurrey was a Christian. From my perspective, Christians make these arguments to rationalize and justify their religion that otherwise makes no sense.

Twisting Things

MY FIRST EMAIL: I know how to twist things in my brain to make it mean what I want. For example, you say you are convinced that God exists, that "there is something out there." However, given that this sense or feeling derives from a certain firing of the neurons in your brain, then the "God" you know about is something I know about, too; I get the same experiences and sensations. Anyway, this is where the line between truth and falsehood becomes really fuzzy.

HIM: From this it sounds like you think truth is a clear set of rational propositions that can be "scientifically" proven by inductive and deductive study.

ME: To arrive at this conclusion, you must have failed to take into consideration the story of my journey. (Frankly, I have no idea how he arrived at this conclusion. I mention "brain" and I mention "feelings" and I mention "fuzzy." "Science" normally means intellect or brain. "Fuzzy" is NOT "a clear set of rational propositions that can be "scientifically" proven by inductive and deductive study." I think it's a tactic to turn a blind eye to reality and explain away my experience.)

Secular Thinking and Christian Philosophers

HIM: This in my mind is the weakness of enlightenment-modernism there is no place for the ontologically other.

ME: [H]ave you read no nonChristian philosophers? Are all the ontological arguments written by Christians? No.

HIM: Psychology originally had no place for anything that could not be rationally observed and deducted, but in the last 30 yrs there has been a profussion of writing on spirituality from psychology, on that mysterious part of ourselves that we all know is there and yet defies being charicatured.

ME: Again, what have you been reading? Christian psychology? Secular psychology and secular science explain this "mysterious" part. I can give sources if you want them.[align=center]

Posted May 16 2007 12:09 pm

[align=center]Answers to Rhetorical Questions[/align]

HIM: Why do people need God, why has every civilization that we know of always had religion,

ME: In ancient times before people understood how rain was caused and how nature worked, the logical conclusion was that the gods are responsible. Science proves the causes so there is no longer a need for God. Read Max Weber, anthropology or religion, and sociology of religion.

HIM: why has there been thousands of studies and millions of papers written on God,

ME: Because people have been obsessed with God from both sides of the issue. Christians and other religious people are determined to prove that God exists. Individuals such as myself and Copernicus grew up and lived in a society where it was required by law of the church (either state church or the church one was born into) to believe in a God we could not believe in, due to lack of evidence, indeed, in the face of evidence that God does not exist we were required under pain of severe consequences to believe. For that reason, very many writings have been produced by nonchristians as well as by Christians.

HIM: why after 2000 yrs do people still profess in an earthly man Jesus who died on a cross,

ME: I can only guess and my guess is that they have refused to take an honest look at the historical evidence. After all, how many thousands of years did humans believe Zeus was the top God? Why don�t you believe in Zeus? There is just as much evidence for his existence as there is for the existence of Jesus.

HIM: if he died and that was it - how in the world could this lie have been perpetuated all these years,

ME: One major reason is compulsory religion. As you know, for fifteen centuries the Christian Church has ruled supreme. It was a means of social control. Heresy was punished by death. Today in North America the death sentence is no longer officially imposed on nonChrisitans. However, the social prejudice, ostracism, employment discrimination, killings made to appear as an accident or suicide�all these things are imposed on atheists, agnostics, pagans, etc. in North America today. That being the price of deconversion, is it any wonder that Christianity continues to exist to this day? Not in the least.

HIM: much of the inspiration for many of the greatest things in life has been attributed to God,

ME: Key term here is �attributed.� Inspiration does not come from God so much as from sources within the psyche. Evidence? Look at what works or inspiration are produced by nonChristians. If you want to argue for the anonymous Christian, well, there is no basis either emotional or intellectual for such an argument.

HIM: education for instance came from Greek, Latin background and was rediscovered around the 6th century (I think) by Muslims (Muslims believe in the God of Abraham like Christians) It so happens that these people believed in the Abrahamic God. Most of western higher education up until the very last approx. 50 yrs, was founded by Christian churches.

ME: Yes, because the churches defrauded people of their money. The church was perhaps the only human institution that has been given the right by our governments to beg for money.

HIM: What I am saying is, Christianity or faith in God, has fuelled so much energy in the world, granted for good and evil, that there must be something to it.

ME: As I have shown, psychologically and socially and culturally, there is too much pressure for individual dissenters to resist successfully.

HIM: Where does intelligence come from?

ME: Within the human psyche.

HIM: If we have the ability to question the possibility that there is no God and we have intelligence to realize that there is more that we do not know, does this not indicate that there must be some greater source of intelligence.

ME: No. If we have the intelligence to question God�s existence, perhaps this is evidence that God was created by humans for humans in the human image.

HIM: Consider any part of nature, biology, science, cosmology, and see if in any field they can fully, rationally explain their discipline.

ME: Yes they can. You must have been reading pseudo-science. That is fundamentalist belief.

HIM: Not one of these fields has figured out everything there is to know, why not?

ME: Because it takes many generations and exceedingly high technology to investigate and proof beyond reasonable doubt exactly how things evolved.

May 22 2007 02:55 pm

[align=center]Update[/align]

There has been considerable conversation with this man since I posted the above. He has proven himself to be an honest man. He affirms that he sees life in me--life as in feeling truly happy. He thanked me for seeing him as a seeker. I will not repeat everything we exchanged; just felt that in keeping with the purpose of this forum I should report that I feel our correspondence has been successful.

I do not think it is successful as in converting him to atheism. I mean successful as in coming to a mutual understanding and respect. I think this should be our goal. You can see part of my last email to him in the third post of this thread with the subject title: Role of Religion. That post explains how religion can play a constructive role in human life. I do not think it is ethical to impose atheism on religious people. I think mutual understanding and respect is what we should aim for. I am sure he got a different view of himself and the world as a consequence of our dialogue.

The arrogance and condescension were gone from his last email to me; nor did I sense the phony humility I had sensed earlier. I don't think he was consciously aware of his attitude at first, but that eventually he realized that he was perhaps over-reacting because his faith was being challenged. I have seen very few Christians who were mature enough and strong enough to stick to a conversation long enough to come to this level of mutual respect and understanding. It gives me new insight and understanding.

TODAY: Those posts were written back in May. I didn't hear back from him for a long time. I thought perhaps I had over-stepped my boundaries. However, this seems not to be the case at all. Recently he asked me if I would read and comment on something he had written. That is what academic colleagues are for so I guess the friendship is still in place.