Leaving Chrisitianity

[stfoskey15]

Threads like this have convinced me to start my own thread about why I left Christianity for deism.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...-am-an-atheist
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...nversion-Story
The summary for those who are too lazy to read a few paragraphs is that I became unconvinced that God communicates with people because what I had thought was God communicating with me turned out to not be God.

The Story
I was raised by a Christian family, with my dad being a Christian universalist and my mom and step-dad having more conservative but not fundamentalist views. As a 14-year-old I felt God was calling me to fast. Not just for a day, but for a week, like my step-dad had done (but he was in his 20's at the time). Being relatively tall and thin, this "calling" was highly concerning to me. I felt like God was trying to force me to do it. He seemed to be a sort of bully who would make people do things they didn't want to do, because that was how we were to deny the world, take up our cross, and follow Jesus. I would instead get into a routine where every two weeks at school I would take a day and instead of eating lunch with friends, I'd read the Bible in the school library. This pattern continued for two years or so. Then near the end of Lent after year one I gave up food for two days. About a month after that, I read something on the religious views on the creation vs. evolution debate, and wondered if my theistic evolution position was unchristian. In the past I'd also wondered about Christianity and homosexuality, but I simply chose to not have an opinion on that issue. I couldn't bring myself to reject the Bible or to feel that my family members were doing something wrong. However, as someone who likes science, I felt I could not reject the idea that the Earth and Universe are billions of years old. Anyway, I suddenly wondered: What if Christianity is all wrong and there is no God? And Why would God put me through this suffering that seemed to be all his fault? I was scared of leaving religion however, because I didn't want God to be real and punish me. So kept up my praying, Bible reading, and fasting for another year. I was someone who wanted to believe and was scared of the repercussions of not believing, but someone who couldn't bring themselves to fully believe. I tried to think of the Bible as a metaphor and adopt more theologically liberal views. For a while I considered the Holy Spirit to just be one's conscience, for example. But 1 Corinthians 15:13-19 (about how Christianity is worthless without the resurrection of Jesus), made me think the metaphorical position was untenable. After Lent number two and not eating for three days, I realized trying to believe wasn't going to work. I had felt no spiritual connection during that time. So I gave up the lunchtime fasts soon after, but kept up Bible reading and praying for a few more months, more to keep my bedtime routine than anything else. During this time I gradually came to the realization that I could not easily believe in any god that interacts with the Universe, because that God cannot seem to communicate effectively with people. So what was I left with? A creator, who does not seem to communicate with its followers/members of creation, or interact with the Universe, a consequentialist system of ethics, and an uncertainty about ideas such as materialism. Now, I am almost 18, and a deist, yet I still go to church because I haven't told my parents I'm no longer Christian, and I don't want them to get mad at me. While I do still acknowledge that religion can help people behave morally, I'm pretty skeptical of people saying their god is so big and powerful and unbelievers are going to hell.

The Reasons
The first reason for leaving Christianity is described in the story, and mentions the seeming unreliability of God to accurately communicate with his followers. Communication from God seems to be limited to what notions the believer already has of God. See the story of Hong Xiuquan and the Taiping Rebellion for more on the matter. That being said, I know misunderstanding thoughts as divine communication does not disprove the possibility of divine communication. But it has made me mistrust anything my brain might try to imagine came from God, and it makes me skeptical of others who supposedly receive divine communication, because I know they could be as confused as I was. As mentioned above, different people seem to get different contradictory divine revelations, so God seems to be a rather inefficient or ineffective communicator. I have also learned about the problem of evil (which I think is the best argument against an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god). There is also the similar problem of hell (which could be solved by universalism, if only it were biblically supported). Then there is the fact that there is scholarly debate about the historical accuracy of the Pentateuch and the stories about the Kingdom of Israel. There is also the fact that the Gospels were written decades after Jesus' death. I'm not sure if these points are self explanatory, or if you want me to elaborate on them more.

Most of the apologetics debate would probably revolve around if the reasons I gave for leaving are valid reasons. I doubt my deconversion story is going to deconvert any more people than seer's conversion story converted. I included it for more of a background as to how I got the beliefs I have today.

[JonathanL]

The Reasons
The first reason for leaving Christianity is described in the story, and mentions the seeming unreliability of God to accurately communicate with his followers. Communication from God seems to be limited to what notions the believer already has of God. See the story of Hong Xiuquan and the Taiping Rebellion for more on the matter. That being said, I know misunderstanding thoughts as divine communication does not disprove the possibility of divine communication. But it has made me mistrust anything my brain might try to imagine came from God, and it makes me skeptical of others who supposedly receive divine communication, because I know they could be as confused as I was.

You're right. It doesn't. And you should be mistrustful of people who claim to have received divine communication. 99.99% of the time they're, as you said, 'confused', or lying through their teeth. Personally I only trust what God has revealed in the Bible (and anything that can be accurately derived from the Bible) to be reliable.

As mentioned above, different people seem to get different contradictory divine revelations, so God seems to be a rather inefficient or ineffective communicator.

What's that fallacy called where you only provide one alternative to a problem that could potentially have many answers? Different contradictory revelations could also point to there being many con artists and deceivers (both natural and spiritual ones), and not simply to God being an inefficient/ineffective communicator.

I have also learned about the problem of evil (which I think is the best argument against an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god). There is also the similar problem of hell (which could be solved by universalism, if only it were biblically supported).

The problem of evil, while it has a strong emotional force, isn't really that rationally compelling. All the Christian has to do to answer that argument is to point out that God could have morally sufficient reasons to allow evil in the world, and that it is the burden of the atheist to prove that He couldn't. While it doesn't soften the emotional impact of the argument it does defang the logical aspect of the argument. The same could be said about the problem of hell (as it is simply a subset of the problem of evil), or one could possibly hold to a 'shame'-model of hell, or an annihilationism view (which I don't personally hold to, but I'm not going to view someone as not Christian if they do).

Then there is the fact that there is scholarly debate about the historical accuracy of the Pentateuch and the stories about the Kingdom of Israel. There is also the fact that the Gospels were written decades after Jesus' death. I'm not sure if these points are self explanatory, or if you want me to elaborate on them more.

Personally I don't know if we have enough information from the historical sources and archeology to make a judgement on whether or not the Biblical stories in the OT, especially the older ones, are historically reliable or not. Whenever someone says that a certain event described in the Bible didn't happen, or it didn't happen as described in the Bible I just roll my eyes and go on with my life. Most of the time they're simply arguing from an absence of evidence, but as anyone who's slightly informed knows, "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence". And when we have ancient sources that contradict the Biblical narrative I usually don't see any good reasons why I should esteem them as having any higher trustworthiness than the Biblical narrative itself.

And regarding the Gospels, you'll find few ancient sources that are as close to the events they describe as the Gospels are. You try to make it seem like "a few decades" is a long time, but in terms of ancient historiography the distance in time between the events described in the gospels and the writing of the gospels themselves are unusually short, even if we go by the later estimates.

Most of the apologetics debate would probably revolve around if the reasons I gave for leaving are valid reasons. I doubt my deconversion story is going to deconvert any more people than seer's conversion story converted. I included it for more of a background as to how I got the beliefs I have today.

Well, seeing as I'm a Christian I don't really think you had any valid reasons to leave Christianity. But then again, it seems to me you had a lot of misconceptions about what being a Christian meant (such as God supposedly calling you to fast for a week for no good discernable reason what so ever), so it's not clear to me whether or not you rejected Christianity proper, or just your own confused notions about it.

[siam]

... I became unconvinced that God communicates with people because what I had thought was God communicating with me turned out to not be God.

The Story
... As a 14-year-old I felt God was calling me to fast. I felt like God was trying to force me to do it. He seemed to be a sort of bully who would make people do things they didn't want to do, because that was how we were to deny the world, take up our cross, ...
...Christianity and homosexuality,
...What if Christianity is all wrong and there is no God? And Why would God put me through this suffering that seemed to be all his fault? I was scared of leaving religion however, because I didn't want God to be real and punish me. ...scared of the repercussions of not believing, but someone who couldn't bring themselves to fully believe.
... I tried to think of the Bible as a metaphor and adopt more theologically liberal views.
I had felt no spiritual connection... God cannot seem to communicate effectively with people.
So what was I left with? A creator, who does not seem to communicate with its followers/members of creation, or interact with the Universe, a consequentialist system of ethics, and an uncertainty about ideas such as materialism.
... I'm pretty skeptical of people saying their god is so big and powerful and unbelievers are going to hell.

The Reasons
...Hong Xiuquan and the Taiping Rebellion for more on the matter. That being said, I know misunderstanding thoughts as divine communication does not disprove the possibility of divine communication. But it has made me mistrust anything my brain might try to imagine came from God, and it makes me skeptical of others who supposedly receive divine communication, because I know they could be as confused as I was. As mentioned above, different people seem to get different contradictory divine revelations, so God seems to be a rather inefficient or ineffective communicator.
...I have also learned about the problem of evil
...Then there is the fact that there is scholarly debate about the historical accuracy of the Pentateuch and the stories about the Kingdom of Israel. There is also the fact that the Gospels were written decades after Jesus' death.

[Carrikature]

Your mistaking something for communication that wasn't doesn't mean no one receives communication. It doesn't mean that you've never received communication, either, just that you don't know how to recognize it properly. It certainly doesn't mean that a god isn't interacting with the universe. Communication with humans isn't a necessary criterion of godhood, after all.

It's never going to be a matter of adopting this or that view. You need to work through it. Learn what makes a rigorous logic chain. Work to establish some basic beliefs and follow them to conclusions about everything else. Don't just run with something because it seems convenient or lets you keep on a certain path.

Ask yourself why you still believe there is a god at all. Must there be a creator?

Why is a spiritual connection necessary to belief or faith? It bolsters both of them, sure, but the right answer is the right answer no matter how you feel about it. That's how practicing religion works. You're not always going to get it, it's not always going to make sense, and you're not always going to feel good about it. It doesn't matter, though. Those things aren't why you do it; they're just bonuses.

Suffice to say I think you have a lot of homework to do still. That's a good thing, though. No matter where you end up, you'll be a lot more confident in the outcome if you do the work to get there.

And don't worry about telling your parents you're not a believer any longer. There's no real need to ever do so unless you just want to. Going to church won't harm you. You'll be off on your own soon enough, and they won't even know what you do or don't do. Who knows, you might even regain belief, or convert to another system, or even abandon deism.

[shunyadragon]

The reasons you gave lead me to question all religions, and take an agnostic skeptical approach to religion. Ultimately I am an agnostic, because I do not know and there is no specific objective evidence for God, nor convincing logical arguments that do not 'Beg the Question,' and a great deal of contrary evidence that the Biblical God does not exist. I am at present a Baha'i, because if God exists the description of Revelation/Creation and 'communication' from God to humanity is addressed in a realistic evolving progressive way as the objective evidence indicates.

The reality of the nature of religions over the millennia is an evolving changing spirituality where the individual scriptures reflect the very fallible human view of God(s?) at the time and culture they were composed. I believe that the claims of any one religion, church, or sect as the only true belief is illogical and irrational, and can only be justified by circular selfish logic because of the extreme emotional commitment to that belief system. I believe there are only two possible choices based on the evidence. The next problem is by the evidence religious belief in the older Abrahamic religions is based on a progressive mythology with well documented very human origins.

The first possible scenario is that God(s?) do not exist, and the religions and belief systems of the world represent a natural evolution of belief systems that reflect natural human reasoning and intellect, with a natural desire for survival and immortality. The second is there is a God that is a Divine Source and Creator of everything, and the evolving spiritual nature of God's Creation/Revelation is reflected in humanity in all the religions of the world. I believe if God exists, his Creation/Revelation is universal with all humanity, and all of Creation in many worlds of the greater existence beyond our own.

I do not consider Deism a viable approach, because a God with no evidence of existence nor involvement in Creation is essentially 'no God(s).' Like Pantheism the result is a version of agnostic/atheist belief.

[Kbertsche]

Stfoskey15, your description of your journey seems to focus on intellectual and behavioral aspects. Christianity is not fundamentally intellectual or behavioral, but relational. It's all about relationship with God, a relationship that was broken by sin and was restored by the Christ at the Cross. Do you feel that you ever had a true relationship with God?

[Truthseeker]

Stfoskey15, your description of your journey seems to focus on intellectual and behavioral aspects. Christianity is not fundamentally intellectual or behavioral, but relational. It's all about relationship with God, a relationship that was broken by sin and was restored by the Christ at the Cross. Do you feel that you ever had a true relationship with God?

I do not understand what you mean by "behavioral" aspects that would make the topic more intelligible. Same saying for "relational." What is my relationship to the universe? So general as to be essentially not meaningful to me.

[Kbertsche]

I do not understand what you mean by "behavioral" aspects that would make the topic more intelligible. Same saying for "relational." What is my relationship to the universe? So general as to be essentially not meaningful to me.

Christianity is all about a personal relationship with God; thinking of Him as Father, talking to Him, listening to Him, spending time with Him. It is not about behaving in a way dictated by family or community; dressing a certain way, talking a certain way, doing specific things.

[Truthseeker]

I've never seen Obama. Allegedly he did visit my home area briefly, but I did not go to verify for himself that someone who looks like his pictures in the media did visit here. I try to believe in the Presidency of the United States, but a skeptic recently shook my beliefs. He claimed that the media makes things up. Obama is not real, he insists.

OK, not a good satire, but it does show my thinking somewhat.

[seanD]

Stfoskey15, your description of your journey seems to focus on intellectual and behavioral aspects. Christianity is not fundamentally intellectual or behavioral, but relational. It's all about relationship with God, a relationship that was broken by sin and was restored by the Christ at the Cross. Do you feel that you ever had a true relationship with God?

Wow, I really take issue with that.

[KingsGambit]

I don't take issue with Kbertsche's post. While our faith can have an intellectual mooring, the relationship aspect reflects how it actually plays out. Christianity is far more than reflecting and acknowledging a set of intellectual propositions.

[seanD]

I don't take issue with Kbertsche's post. While our faith can have an intellectual mooring, the relationship aspect reflects how it actually plays out. Christianity is far more than reflecting and acknowledging a set of intellectual propositions.

I agree that they work together, but that isn't what came across in his post. And I've heard other Christians make the argument that intellectualism has nothing to with Christianity, so I that's how I perceived it.

[Adrift]

Yeah, I sort of read it the same way that KingsGambit read it, but I understand your concern sean, because a few folks (even around here) seem to lean that way.

[stfoskey15]

You're right. It doesn't. And you should be mistrustful of people who claim to have received divine communication. 99.99% of the time they're, as you said, 'confused', or lying through their teeth. Personally I only trust what God has revealed in the Bible (and anything that can be accurately derived from the Bible) to be reliable.

OK.

What's that fallacy called where you only provide one alternative to a problem that could potentially have many answers? Different contradictory revelations could also point to there being many con artists and deceivers (both natural and spiritual ones), and not simply to God being an inefficient/ineffective communicator.

I'm saying God could prevent con artists from deceiving others but he doesn't (at least not always).

The problem of evil, while it has a strong emotional force, isn't really that rationally compelling. All the Christian has to do to answer that argument is to point out that God could have morally sufficient reasons to allow evil in the world, and that it is the burden of the atheist to prove that He couldn't. While it doesn't soften the emotional impact of the argument it does defang the logical aspect of the argument. The same could be said about the problem of hell (as it is simply a subset of the problem of evil), or one could possibly hold to a 'shame'-model of hell, or an annihilationism view (which I don't personally hold to, but I'm not going to view someone as not Christian if they do).

While sure it's possible God has some reason for allowing genocide, famine, and the like, it's hard for me to imagine that is the best possible world. God might have a good reason for doing so, but I don't know why he would leave us in the dark about such things. I think it's more reasonable to think that God cannot stop evil than that the evil he allows prevents even greater evil, because he sure seems to allow a lot of evil sometimes. I agree that annihilationism is one way to solve the problem of hell. But one still has to wonder why God wouldn't make more people aware of his presence (thus allowing more people to be saved). After all, throughout history, vast numbers of people have lived and died without learning about Christianity.

Personally I don't know if we have enough information from the historical sources and archeology to make a judgement on whether or not the Biblical stories in the OT, especially the older ones, are historically reliable or not. Whenever someone says that a certain event described in the Bible didn't happen, or it didn't happen as described in the Bible I just roll my eyes and go on with my life. Most of the time they're simply arguing from an absence of evidence, but as anyone who's slightly informed knows, "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence". And when we have ancient sources that contradict the Biblical narrative I usually don't see any good reasons why I should esteem them as having any higher trustworthiness than the Biblical narrative itself.

From what little I know, some of it is historically accurate and some isn't. I've heard that Jericho was destroyed before the Hebrews got there, for example. On the other hand, the Assyrian and Babylonian conquests of Israel and Judah seem to have really happened.

And regarding the Gospels, you'll find few ancient sources that are as close to the events they describe as the Gospels are. You try to make it seem like "a few decades" is a long time, but in terms of ancient historiography the distance in time between the events described in the gospels and the writing of the gospels themselves are unusually short, even if we go by the later estimates.

I mean, I'm a little curious as to why none of Jesus' followers kept a diary. Were they all illiterate?
Still, I believe you on a few decades being shorter than the gap in time between many (most?) ancient historical events and when they were recorded. And I definitely accept the existence of a historical Jesus. But considering as the Gospels weren't written by eyewitnesses, who's to say the stories hadn't changed somewhat as they were passed on.

Well, seeing as I'm a Christian I don't really think you had any valid reasons to leave Christianity. But then again, it seems to me you had a lot of misconceptions about what being a Christian meant (such as God supposedly calling you to fast for a week for no good discernable reason what so ever), so it's not clear to me whether or not you rejected Christianity proper, or just your own confused notions about it.

What would be a valid reason to leave Christianity?
I have decided to take a break from Christianity proper. I may or may not return, but I need to get books from the library and do some reading before I decide. I am definitely leaving my own confused notions about it.

That's an interesting story. And I do think humans tend to want to believe in a higher power, even if it's not God in the traditional sense.

No pain, no gain/God is a bully---Some people think denial of earthly pleasures is the "way" to God, but there are others who feel the "way" is through the experience of joy and pleasure---perhaps both work just as well...and maybe an ordinary, everyday life is just as close to God as that of a mystic...?....only God can judge what is in the heart.
It is easy to blame God when a person feels angry, frustrated, helpless---but that way of thinking implies that human beings are simply pawns in a game of destiny---and not the movers. Judaism has the concept of Tikkun Olam (repair the world) in which humanity is in "partnership" with God to care for his creation. This is a more active and mature "way" of being religious. Fasting is good---but "to repair the world" is even better?...One of the purposes of Ramadan (Muslim month of fasting) is to motivate people to "do" (take action) to repair the world.

I agree that acting to repair the world will generally do more good fasting/self-discipline.

Christianity and homosexuality---People have to struggle with aspects of their morality---where to draw the line and where to be flexible. It is easier to figure out this dilemma if there are principles to which one can refer. Otherwise, morality without principles can lead to moral bankruptcy...

No God, suffering, punishment---If life does not make sense with or without God (because either way, reality does not change) then perhaps you are just looking at it wrong?...have patience, you'll figure it out...but so far it seems a good start that you are reflecting on things. I would suggest, rather than asking what God can do for you---why not contemplate on what you can do for God---such as Tikkun Olam?....
Muslim mystics are known for their love poetry, here is a reflection from an 8th century lady, Rabia Basri.
"If I adore You out of fear of Hell, burn me in Hell!
If I adore you out of desire for Paradise,
Lock me out of Paradise.
But if I adore you for Yourself alone,
Do not deny to me Your eternal beauty. "

Bible as metaphor---I am not familiar with the Bible, but I was in conversation with an Agnostic ex-Christian who was re-reading the NT but without the solely "Christian" perspective and this gave him new and interesting insights. As a Muslim, I have read the Tao te Ching and IMO, it has given me more insights into the Quran. There is much wisdom everywhere. Knowledge is fascinating and such fun to explore.

God is a bad communicator---I think he/it is doing a fine job of leading you in an interesting direction. The world has much to explore---give yourself a break and have fun exploring it.

Christian ethics---I am not familiar with this subject---My tradition is based on law...law and ethics are connected---ethical principles are practiced as law... so I cannot fathom how Christian ethics work without a framework of law....

Unbelievers are going to hell---I think your tradition solves this problem?....

Hong Xiuquan---The culture and environment influence the way we derive meaning and understand any communication. The Eastern worldview has a concept of re-incarnation, in some ways of thinking, the divine spark or spirit of a Godly person/Saint inhabits anothers body to bring wisdom or do God's work. It may seem strange to you---but then the idea of incarnation/son of God (to a Muslim) is equally strange. So, this guy may have expressed himself as a relative of the divine/saint because that is the environment/cultural language he was familiar with....At any rate, the marginalized and oppressed people were given a voice...There is no need to dismiss your experience or that of someone else, because we all do good and contribute in our own ways....

Interesting. I'll definitely continue thinking about things. You seem to be saying I should spend some time exploring and thinking about things without worrying too much. That sounds like good advice.

Your mistaking something for communication that wasn't doesn't mean no one receives communication. It doesn't mean that you've never received communication, either, just that you don't know how to recognize it properly. It certainly doesn't mean that a god isn't interacting with the universe. Communication with humans isn't a necessary criterion of godhood, after all.

Sure, but it seemed more likely all communication is psychological than that some is psychological and some is divine. Why would God make it so confusing?

It's never going to be a matter of adopting this or that view. You need to work through it. Learn what makes a rigorous logic chain. Work to establish some basic beliefs and follow them to conclusions about everything else. Don't just run with something because it seems convenient or lets you keep on a certain path.

Fair enough.

Ask yourself why you still believe there is a god at all. Must there be a creator?

Sometimes I wonder that myself. But I suppose there had to be some force that created the Universe, so why not just call that force God?

Why is a spiritual connection necessary to belief or faith? It bolsters both of them, sure, but the right answer is the right answer no matter how you feel about it. That's how practicing religion works. You're not always going to get it, it's not always going to make sense, and you're not always going to feel good about it. It doesn't matter, though. Those things aren't why you do it; they're just bonuses.

I suppose I don't really see the point of faith without strong evidence.

Suffice to say I think you have a lot of homework to do still. That's a good thing, though. No matter where you end up, you'll be a lot more confident in the outcome if you do the work to get there.

I agree. I've been waiting for college to do a lot of that homework because then I'll be free to explore without judgment from family members, but maybe I'll be busy then so I maybe I should do more this summer.

And don't worry about telling your parents you're not a believer any longer. There's no real need to ever do so unless you just want to. Going to church won't harm you. You'll be off on your own soon enough, and they won't even know what you do or don't do. Who knows, you might even regain belief, or convert to another system, or even abandon deism.

I decided to tell my dad on the condition that he didn't tell anyone else. He seemed reasonably okay with it and recommended I read The Why's of a Philosophical Scrivner. I definitely acknowledge that my beliefs are not set in stone.

Stfoskey15, your description of your journey seems to focus on intellectual and behavioral aspects. Christianity is not fundamentally intellectual or behavioral, but relational. It's all about relationship with God, a relationship that was broken by sin and was restored by the Christ at the Cross. Do you feel that you ever had a true relationship with God?

I thought I did. Now I'm not so sure.

[seanD]

Yeah, I sort of read it the same way that KingsGambit read it, but I understand your concern sean, because a few folks (even around here) seem to lean that way.

Another reason I perceived his post that way is because it sounded to me that stfoskey15 WAS having a relationship. I mean, it sounded like he was doing everything right in that respect -- diligently reading his bible, fasting, praying, etc. Then when I get down to the bottom of his post, that's where the intellectual arguments usually become the problem (or intellectual lack thereof). I can personally relate to that problem.