Why I Lost My Christian Faith (grace, hell, church, atheist)

[L8Gr8Apost8]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

No, L8, I believe there is a higher power of some sort. It's definitely not the Christian god, yahweh. I've got him pegged as a pagan god made up by the ancient Hebrews. He fits all the criteria of a man-made god. Here's Dawkins assessment of yahweh's human attributes. I think Dawkins got it pretty accurately:

It's a little more succinct here:

All those adjective fit yahweh. sadly. In this respect he's no different than Zeus or Jupiter.

So the higher power I believe in doesn't do all this murderous nonsense. He's just out there somewhere and we may or may not meet him when we die. I don't know.

Now, Pleroo: There was no Jesus, son of God come to earth to die for our sins and his death cleanses us yada yada. Never happened. maybe there was an ordinary man named Jesus who died, period. I don't know. Again we have no historic record for him, just fables.

And you're right, a deist God "functionally" IS like a non-existent God if He sits there and does nothing. But I think He's there because someone had make this incredibly complex universe and everything in it including us. That's as far as I can get theologically with all this.

But you are laissez-faire with all this, Pleroo. None of the Christians' shenanigans irk you like they do me. Christians tell lies to win people over to their religion. They have been for the last 2000 years. I am trying to stop greenhorns from falling into their honey-trap by telling people Jesus loves them so much he died for them. Absolute bunk. I'm trying to save people from the Christian lies. That's all.

Now I'm reading Mystic's response to my post No 648 now.
But just for the record here's the dilemma I gave to Mystic:

Dang. I thought you were an atheist. It seems to me the Christian God is only as narcissistic as the guy worshiping Him.

Edit: don't get mad at me because I'm drawing from my own personal experience but that black/white thinking is a leftover from being in a fundamentalist system.

[thrillobyte]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Perhaps you missed my explanation of the origin of my adoption of the Christ narrative, Thrill. My encounter in deep meditation was unmistakable. The unconditional love, acceptance, joy, and Oneness of the consciousness I encountered eliminated my atheism instantly. My decades-long efforts to understand and explain to my intellect involved searching science and searching the spiritual fossil record (ancient writings speculating about God). The descriptions revealed in the Jesus narrative about the nature of God as Agape love exactly matched the consciousness I encountered. That combined with my Synthesis of the science that provided plausible hypotheses for what I encountered led to my adoption of the Savior template that is ubiquitous throughout the spiritual fossil record. It had nothing to do with the things in the current narrative that you object to which are based on the misconceptions, unsupported premises about God, and expectations about God's participation in human affairs. My experiences drive my certainty and acceptance of the Savior narrative as demonstrated unambiguously by Jesus in the Bible as the most sophisticated and reasonable (as reinterpreted by me,)

No one has given up on you, Thrill, least of all God or Jesus. But you have cut yourself off from them by your change from unrealistic expectations to NO expectations at all. You say you do not pray or meditate so how do you expect to ever receive ANY sign from God or Jesus? You seem to be operating on the mistaken notion that what God wants from us is belief, but belief only provides the motive to BECOME a loving human being. God wants us to become loving human beings and reproduce (grow) His consciousness (what we call our growing or expanding universe). WHY we become a loving human being is not as important as whether or not we DO become a loving human being. Of course, there are certain motives that corrupt the desired outcome, such as fear of Hell, or obedience for obedience sake or for reward, or to avoid punishment, etc. But in the final analysis, what matters is whether or not we are truly loving human beings whose consciousness resonates (however imperfectly) with Christ's perfect Agape love (Grace).

A point-by-point addressing of my issues would have gone a much longer way than just taking everything and lumping it into one broad general response, Mystic, but I think that was your intention to avoid the topics I raised. As such I cannot reply to this post. I apologize. Seeing the content of it, it would take a thesis-sized paper of my own to address what you say. I agree with most of what you say in the 2nd paragraph until you get to Christ's agape love.

We don't know if Jesus had any love for us because everything you are identifying as things Jesus said were thought up by churchmen 100 years after Jesus died. We have no idea what he thought because there is no written record of what he preached.


But you still side-stepped the big issue I raised which is:

If Jesus was the Son of God, then God would have left indisputable evidence of Jesus. If Jesus was NOT the son of God, then God would NOT have left indisputable evidence of Jesus. It's that simple, it's that black and white. There's no other way to analyze the facts and come to any other conclusion.

If you can find a way around that totally rational deduction I'd be very interested in hearing it. Explain why Jesus is the Son of God but God left no indisputable evidence of that fact. I'll wait around for it.

[thrillobyte]

Originally Posted by L8Gr8Apost8

Dang. I thought you were an atheist. It seems to me the Christian God is only as narcissistic as the guy worshiping Him.

Edit: don't get mad at me because I'm drawing from my own personal experience but that black/white thinking is a leftover from being in a fundamentalist system.

LOL, no I'm technically an agnostic deist. I don't know if there's a God out there but if there is He definitely has to be deist because He doesn't do a damn thing down here.

[Mightyqueen801]

I see the remnants of the black/white either/or thinking too, thrill.

Maybe it's part of a process you have to work through.

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

Because the gospels are fiction (think War and Peace),

It's not so black and white in regards to ancient history, and you should know this. Many accounts that are considered largely reliable still contain legendary elements ("fiction" if you will), but that doesn't mean the historian just throws these documents out.

and Paul nowhere clearly talks about a historical Jesus. Only one seen in visions or revealed in scripture.

What do you do with 1 Timothy 2:5. “For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.”

And then with Philippians 2:5:
"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross"

Or with Romans 1:3? “Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh”

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

would the gospel evidence hold up in court?

No more/less than any other historical document (or collection thereof). Why?

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

This is the tenured Ehrman married to a Christian? The same Ehrman who accepts Paul says Jesus was an angel?

So now you're having to resort to implying that Ehrman is a Christian spy? Nevermind that he argues against Christianity on a regular basis? Is that really your only defense against difficult arguments?

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

A 'historical' figure who according to the NT was a divine being who never walked on the earth.

Where in the New Testament does it say that Jesus never walked the Earth?

[thrillobyte]

Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801

I see the remnants of the black/white either/or thinking too, thrill.

Maybe it's part of a process you have to work through.

Interesting, MightyQueen. As a mod you would have to be more impartial than the rest. I am viewing this as a situation where sometimes it's necessary to be black and white. Lying is not gray, it is either right or wrong, true?

Let me pose the Gordian puzzle to you:

If Jesus was the Son of God, then God would have left indisputable evidence of Jesus. Do you agree with this premise?

If Jesus was NOT the son of God, then God would NOT have left indisputable evidence of Jesus. Do you agree with this premise?

For me it's that black and white. There's no other way to analyze the facts and come to any other conclusion.

To your best way of thinking, Mighty Queen, can you explain why Jesus is the Son of God but God would NOT have left indisputable evidence of that fact if He really wanted us to believe in Jesus?

This one really has me stumped and all the Christians refuse to get near it.

Mystic refuses to confront this question, frankly because I don't think he knows how to answer it, but it seems pretty cut and dry to me.

[Mightyqueen801]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

Interesting, MightyQueen. As a mod you would have to be more impartial than the rest.

I wasn't posting as a mod, but as a member. Mod posts are in red. I've been a member of City-Data for almost ten years and a mod for about eight months. I'm allowed to post outside of my moderating duties, you know. That was impartial, an observation.

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

I am viewing this as a situation where sometimes it's necessary to be black and white. Lying is not gray, it is either right or wrong, true?

No, I don't think that is true. I don't agree that this is a situation where it's necessary to be black or white. If I did, I wouldn't have the particular spiritual worldview I do, now would I?

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

Let me pose the Gordian puzzle to you:

If Jesus was the Son of God, then God would have left indisputable evidence of Jesus. Do you agree with this premise?

Not necessarily, and I suspect that the concept of what you are calling "God" is not the same as mine, but rather the biblical presentation of God.

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

If Jesus was NOT the son of God, then God would NOT have left indisputable evidence of Jesus. Do you agree with this premise?

For me it's that black and white. There's no other way to analyze the facts and come to any other conclusion.

That's exactly what L8, Pleroo, and I all said we observed.

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

To your best way of thinking, Mighty Queen, can you explain why Jesus is the Son of God but God would NOT have left indisputable evidence of that fact if He really wanted us to believe in Jesus?

This one really has me stumped and all the Christians refuse to get near it.

Mystic refuses to confront this question, frankly because I don't think he knows how to answer it, but it seems pretty cut and dry to me.

I would ask what the heck makes you think of these questions in the first place? Why are they relevant to anyone other than a black-and-white literal-Bible thinker? In short, what difference does it make?

I do not take the Bible literally, and as far as I know, neither does Mystic, and that way of thinking seems to be the base on which your questions stand.

[Mightyqueen801]

Re your questions:

Basically you are saying you don't believe in this manmade God because if YOU had made him up, he would have done or not done this and so.

[gabfest]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

Interesting, MightyQueen. As a mod you would have to be more impartial than the rest. I am viewing this as a situation where sometimes it's necessary to be black and white. Lying is not gray, it is either right or wrong, true?

Let me pose the Gordian puzzle to you:

If Jesus was the Son of God, then God would have left indisputable evidence of Jesus. Do you agree with this premise?

If Jesus was NOT the son of God, then God would NOT have left indisputable evidence of Jesus. Do you agree with this premise?

For me it's that black and white. There's no other way to analyze the facts and come to any other conclusion.

To your best way of thinking, Mighty Queen, can you explain why Jesus is the Son of God but God would NOT have left indisputable evidence of that fact if He really wanted us to believe in Jesus?

This one really has me stumped and all the Christians refuse to get near it.

Mystic refuses to confront this question, frankly because I don't think he knows how to answer it, but it seems pretty cut and dry to me.

That's a nearly impossible feat for most people, not to mention any topic that one is passionate about. It's sort of like asking the Cookie-Monster to guard the cookies.

[thrillobyte]

Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801

I wasn't posting as a mod, but as a member. Mod posts are in red. I've been a member of City-Data for almost ten years and a mod for about eight months. I'm allowed to post outside of my moderating duties, you know. That was impartial, an observation.

No, I don't think that is true. I don't agree that this is a situation where it's necessary to be black or white. If I did, I wouldn't have the particular spiritual worldview I do, now would I?

Not necessarily, and I suspect that the concept of what you are calling "God" is not the same as mine, but rather the biblical presentation of God.

That's exactly what L8, Pleroo, and I all said we observed.

I would ask what the heck makes you think of these questions in the first place? Why are they relevant to anyone other than a black-and-white literal-Bible thinker? In short, what difference does it make?

I do not take the Bible literally, and as far as I know, neither does Mystic, and that way of thinking seems to be the base on which your questions stand.

Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801

Re your questions:

Basically you are saying you don't believe in this manmade God because if YOU had made him up, he would have done or not done this and so.

I am approaching this entire conundrum from the point of view of how the Christians perceive their Christian God.

The Christians are adamant that their god is the right god and everyone else's is heretical. If you don't accept Jesus you go to hell. If you believe in any other god you automatically go to hell. That is problem no. 1 for me.

Their god, they claim, wants us to believe that Jesus is his son and that we must accept him or he will be forced by his justice to go against his love for us and condemn us to hell, but he left nothing that I can discern to prove to us he means business. That is problem no. 2 for me. MightyQueen, if you have a incorrigible dope-addicted child, don't you do everything in your power--spend every last dime you have to try to save this child from killing himself? Shouldn't we expect the Christian god to do even more for his children than the best parent out there? Why doesn't he???????

Where I am catching flack from everyone is their what-I-perceive-to-be-inability to rationally put two and two together: if God wants us to believe so desperately in his son because he doesn't want to condemn us to hell, then the ball is in his court to give us irrefutable, incontrovertible, indisputable evidence Jesus was who the gospels claim he was. But the Christian god left no such evidence for us. That is problem no. 3 for me, but it apparently is no problem for Christians. They don't care if their god left evidence or not. They're ready to blindly accept everything the Bible says about Jesus without a penny's worth of proof to establish a foundation for their beliefs. In other words, their entire faith is built on beach sand--ironically the exact thing Jesus warned people not to do in the last verses of the sermon on the mount.

My question: how are they able to just close their eyes and stick their heads in the sand like ostriches? In the final analysis, I couldn't care less what they do. It's their lives. But I would like the lurkers here who read but don't post to see exactly how rudderless the Christian faith is--a faith that has absolutely nothing to hold it up. A faith that has a god who doesn't give a damn about them when push comes to shove. That's my entire premise. It's why I left the faith. I couldn't believe in an impotent Christian god that was totally incapable of saving his children. In that respect he's no better than a derelict father. We lock up such fathers. They're unworthy of our love and respect.