Monday, October 15, 2007

My Deconversion Story – In Which I move to the back of the bus

What happens after a Christian becomes an atheist? Well…life moves on regardless. The sun rises, clients call, and newspapers continue to be delivered. While it was a shake-up, much of my life moved forward as before. I met the following weeks, months and years with a mixture of emotions.

Believe it or not, there was a feeling of relief. All those questions and attempts to determine what God was thinking, or what God was saying, or what God wanted were resolvable in the simple notion that everything I had learned about God was the human interpretation of what God was like. It was a human project, with human results. The unadorned answer to these complex questions? God was human-made.

It resolves the Problem of Evil. Resolves the conflicts (both historical and doctrinal) in theistic claims. Resolves the answer as to why God was so non-responsive, so hard to find. Resolves why humans provide 1000 different solutions to 10,000 different questions about God. Resolves why Christian book stores bulge with Self-Help books.

The humanity of God explained why non-believers and believers alike shared the characteristics of good and evil. Both were as likely to be a person of anger as a person of love. There is nothing “divine” in being a Christian; nor in Christian “fruit.” It is humanity looking for a justification to act a certain way.

There was also relief in having been through an ordeal. It is tiring on the body to deprive it of sleep. It was tiring on my spirit to be constantly aching for a God I believed in and hear nothing but silence. It was tiring on my mind to be suppressing the obvious implications of what I read.

I became elated. For the first time, I could openly read the Bible in any manner! There was no preconceived dogma which required “scripture to interpret scripture” or that it was God-inspired, or inerrant. Ephesians could be written by Paul, not written by Paul, or not even qualify to be in the Bible! Isaiah could be a complete book, or a conglomeration of two or three books. It could be written in 740 BCE or 450 BCE. I was not pre-determining conclusions, and looking for evidence to support them; rather I was looking at the evidence, and coming to conclusions.

All this new information was fascinating. Studying the Bible and Christianity became a joy—not a hardship with a mission. I wanted to share it with my friends; my family. But, as previously stated, that plan did not work so well. I found myself with a lot to say, and no audience to say it to.

I began to engage theists, specifically Christians on forums. This was no surprise; it was a natural progression on my path. I entered forums expecting to be a Christian informing non-believers, and found myself on the opposite team—a non-believer informing Christians. And oh what fun it is. Blast here with the Problem of Evil. Photon torpedo with archeological evidence. Machine gun with Markan geographical errors.

I tend to overkill a subject. Subtly and succinctness are not in my style. (I am working on it with little success.) However, not many theists wander into iidb and stay. If they did, they would be piled on by non-believer after non-believer. My voice was one amongst many. It was time to go—I went looking for a fight, landing at Christianforums.com. A huge monstrosity of a forum, with plenty of opportunity to debate religious topics.

Yet I found this…unsatisfying. Perhaps it was too large. Maybe the topics were too broad. I enjoyed a few conversations, but mostly I lurked and clucked my tongue. I tend to throw so much effort in a topic, by the time I had thought out a full response, it was too much work to write it all down. Easier to let the topic slip away.

However, I found a very unsettling aspect of the forum. It had “Christian ONLY” sub-forums. Oh, they are entitled to such, and I respect each website to implement whatever rules it feels appropriate. It was not that. I had never been a minority. Never been singled out as “different” and excluded.

I was a Christian, white, straight, middle-aged American male. Married, 2.5 kids, 2.5 cars in the garage, a home, a mortgage, a dog, two cats and some fish. College-educated, no criminal record, no tattoos. Brown hair, brown eyes. If we lined up every person who had ever lived, according to their possibility of being discriminated against, I would be the absolutely last person in that line.

And for the first time, I was looking at a club excluding me. A club where many a night I once would pass long hours sitting in deep leather, drinking brandy, smoking cigars, and rubbing elbows with my fellow club members with the camaraderie of historic battles fought together.

“Christians ONLY.”

Now I was on the outside of that club, looking in the window at my former brothers and sisters in friendship—still sipping brandy, still lighting cigars and still rubbing elbows. Only I was no longer welcome.

Again, I respect each person’s ability to create and join a website with certain exclusions. Believers need a place of respite, without having a heathen constantly interfering with discussions. When a believer says, “Will you pray for my sister who was diagnosed with cancer?” the last thing they need is some skeptic citing surveys about the ineffectiveness of prayer. I understood why such a sub-forum was necessary. I defer to the discretion of having such a place.

It was just a shock of stark reality as to how far I’d come. Doors that were once flung open to me; now barred with steel and iron. On-line life was reflective of my own.

I resigned all positions in the church I attended. We still went to Church and Sunday School, but I dared not open my mouth. I feared if I even started the paragraph, by the end it would be obvious I was no longer a believer. Remember, this is a time when I feared divorce above all else.

We changed churches, in the hopes of bettering our awkwardness. At the new church, I fully and freely explained who I was, and asked how to fit in. I naively figured it was the secretive nature at the former church which was problematic. No—it is that a church is not designed for deconverts. I stopped going.

I became angry. Look, I wanted to go to church. We had been taught all our lives people like me (the “darkness”) ran from the church (the “light.”) I wanted a relationship with my friends. I felt no different. I was no more inclined to kidnap and sell their children to shoemakers in China. Yet because of this gaping difference, we could no longer be friends.

I wanted my marriage. I wanted to stay married to my wife regardless of her theistic belief. Yet we now had this huge silence between us which we could not cross.

Here I was, brimming with new-found knowledge about the Bible—a topic these people should be drawn to, and immersed in, and they were repelled by me! I saw a system with questions and issues and holes and significant problems—and these people ALL preferred such a system to me. Without even the remotest desire to probe the system in any way!

If you have read my previous installments—what is one emotion I cannot sustain? Yep—anger. I realized they cannot help it. I would like to think if a buddy of mine deconverted 5 years ago, I would have listened to him/her, or been interested, or stuck with them. But deep down, I am not so sure I would have. Maybe I would have run, too.

My churches, family, friends and wife had never had to cope with someone like me. Is it any surprise they choose to not, rather than figure out how? Much easier in the long run, and realistically better for us all. The club does not want to hear my battle won with a person who claims the Gospel of John is historical. They want to hear the battles won over the enemy. Me.

I flitted back and forth between Christianforums and iidb. One day, mention was made of a discussion on a more liberal Christian forum—Xnforums. (The link on my blogroll.) Here I was able to enjoy myself, being a smaller forum, with an ability to more fully focus my lengthy comments. I happily traipsed along, arguing such things as the finer points of Calvinistic presupposition.

The Internet gives us a chance to meet some people we would never know to associate with in real life. It gives people the opportunity to shine; and others the opportunity to sour. In some discussion somewhere on Xn, a poster (male) refused to respond to another poster (female), because women don’t teach men. Nothing she said could be of any value to him; why should he have to respond to it? Silly and ridiculous, and I would have thought so as a Christian.

Or would I?

The more I reflected on that foolish precept, the more I realized how insidiously Christianity had caused me to hurt others. I used to pride myself on my reaction toward homosexuals. Oh, sure, homosexuality was a sin. But I felt the church was failing on focusing on the sinner, more than the sin. We were NOT open to having homosexuals attend our church. We WERE trying to legislate the morality of non-believers, without addressing their need for Jesus. What good was it to convict a homosexual of his or her sin (since we are all sinners, this was not exactly a monumental project, in my opinion) if our convincing turned them off from Christ, due to our unloving action?

Besides, gossiping is given as much a black mark (Rom. 1:29) yet we wink and nudge and lean in close to hear more. Even as a Christian, I could see we were “picking” the sins we would least likely be tempted by, to claim are the really, REALLY rotten ones which require laws and penalties. In Sunday School classes, I yammered and hounded about how we need to show more openness to gays, and accept them in as people. (Before pounding them into the conviction they were sinners and turn ‘em straight.)

Yet for all that “wonderful” openness I felt I had—I had taught on the fact women could not teach in church. Not the finest hour for me to reflect on. I was no different than this poster who would not respond to a woman. I thought the Bible was the written word of God, acted upon it, and discriminated against women because of it. I sat in that club with my men friends and our men conversations, never noticing the women outside.

“Men ONLY.”

While I was breaking off my arm, patting myself on the back, as to how open I was to homosexuals, I was doing it to change them. I was not accepting them for who they are, I was accepting them for who I wanted them to become.

“Heteros ONLY”

My thrill in reviewing the Christian doctrines and Bible from a new-found perspective was chilled with the review of my Christian practice from a new understanding. Sure I focused on “loving others.” I focused on “loving” them only in the Christian mindset. Only on Christian terms. Only loving non-believers enough to coerce them to the point of their changing to the point I could REALLY love them.

It is painful to look back upon my own Christianity. How many venues did I teach, in which I confidently and egotistically told my class “THIS is what God says” when there is no God? How many times did I gloat in my Biblical scholarship, and minute knowledge of things which turn out are completely unsupported? How many times was I convinced a God was nodding to the words I spoke?

I am glad for my Christian upbringing. I am glad for my Biblical knowledge. But I am even gladder at 38 I was given a new lease on life. A chance to view the world with open eyes and accept others for who they ARE, not for who a God wants them to be. We were taught to “love others” as well as Jesus did. I now can love others better than Jesus did.

Where do I go from here? Who knows. My friendships are extremely limited. I am thankful, every day, for people on-line who, 10 or 15 years ago, I would never have had the chance to meet and share our experiences. At times I find the theistic debate tedious. I am reminded of others who shared their thoughts, and deconverted the likes of me. There may be a “me” or two out there who need a wake-up call only a random click to something I write produces.

But mostly I want us to get better. I want us to be more loving. I want us to understand each other more fully. I want us to say, “I don’t agree with that person, but I get where they are coming from.” I want us to live by the Platinum Rule: “Treat others as they want to be treated.”

The End.

26 comments:

  1. That was a great series, DagoodS. There is much that you wrote that so precisely maps to my own experience. While at first I was devastated at my own loss of faith, ultimately I felt the relief you did when you realized that so many of the problems you had wrestled with were no longer problems. And also I experienced the exact same thrill of studying the Bible without all of the dogmatic constraints. It opened my eyes to a much deeper and much more interesting understanding of the text.

    And again, like you, this excitement of knowledge gained was something I wanted to share. I share with people who don't want to hear it. I try to contain myself, but can hardly help it. Nobody in my circle of friends and family really wants to hear that Mark 7 has Jesus base his argument on an idiosyncratic mistranslation in the Septuagint, or that Matthew is constantly fixing Mark's errors. But it is fascinating to me, and I want to share.

    Fortunately for me my wife can discuss it without becoming angry. She'll say "that's very interesting, Jon" and she may even say she's not sure how to resolve it, but she thinks ultimately there is a way to reconcile everything in some way that allows her to maintain core Christian beliefs. I can't complatin about that reaction.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I now can love others better than Jesus did.


    So you would give your life to save someone who hates you?

    The problem with converting to atheism is that you really have no grounding of how we should treat each other other than your wishful thinking. You say, "But mostly I want us to get better. I want us to be more loving. I want us to understand each other more fully."

    But, who on earth are you? How are you, the lawyer, going to make that legally binding?

    And the ages-old question, if there is no God, where did you come from? Aliens? A "Franken-cell"?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jon Curry,

    Thank you. It is always heartening to learn our experiences are shared; we are not alone in both our struggles and our triumphs.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jim Jordan,

    Christians are far more enamored with Jesus than skeptics. By defining Jesus as Love, his actions are given greater depth and worth than the same actions taken by others. Just like the celebrities of our day – a lock of my hair is worthless, whereas a lock of Brittany Spears’ hair goes for $200 on Ebay. In the end, it is just hair.

    Jesus the God never died for anybody. Gods don’t die. Jesus the human was gone for what…not even 48 hours? He didn’t last a whole weekend! Worse, if you hold to the prophetic nature of the Gospels, he knew he wouldn’t be dead but for a wee amount of time. It is the difference between loaning Bill Gates $100 on Friday night, knowing he will be good for it on Sunday morning, or giving $100 to a homeless person immediately before leaving town. One $100 you certainly will get back, the other $100 is lost forever. Which is the greater sacrifice, Jim Jordan?

    If I died for someone who hated me (and until I am faced with the situation, I will not know what I do) I am dead. Kaput. Finished. No coming back. Jesus’ human dying was barely a slight inconvenience. Even Jesus recognized which is the greater act of love. Luke 6:34-35. While I may never be forced with such a choice—other humans have. Soldiers, dying for a country that did not love them in Vietnam are far greater humans than Jesus.

    I can discuss rationally with those who disagree with me. I can do it without calling them names. Jesus could not. If I am unclear on a subject, I can attempt to re-state my position, or provide clarification. Jesus could not be bothered. Mark 4:11-12. I can attempt to rehabilitate a wayward people. Jesus only seems able to kill ‘em. Numbers 31, 1 Sam. 15:2. I don’t require a test of loyalty by demanding people to kill their own children. Gen. 22:1-2. I don’t let others die to “win” a bet. Job. Jesus’ has far too great an ego.

    As a skeptic, I see some good moral statements by Jesus. But when Christians made him a god, they removed any grandiose love actions by him. What is it to the creator of the universe to feed 10,000 people? THAT is a great act of love? It is the equivalent of my giving $5 to a needy person. Such a pittance will not make or break me. Why should I be commended for giving away something I do not need?

    You are quite correct I cannot “make” my moral judgments legally binding. I would hope, through communication, reason, demonstration and observation, it would be a bit more than “wishful-thinking;” yet in the end--you are correct that is what it boils down to. The difference between you and I, is I do not NEED something to be “legally binding” to still consider it, weigh it, and implement it in my own life.

    I am looking to improve myself for my own sake—not do the bare minimum required by something “legally binding.”

    The question is not whether absolute morality is a “better” system than relative morality—the question is which one exists.

    Jim Jordan: And the ages-old question, if there is no God, where did you come from? Aliens? A "Franken-cell"?

    I presume you are discussing the comparison of natural abiogenesis to supernatural abiogenesis. 3000 years ago, due to lack of knowledge, theists claimed the sun moved across the sky by magic. Subsequent information demonstrated it is a natural, non-miraculous process. 2000 years ago, due to lack of knowledge, theists claimed earthquakes, volcanic explosions and diseases were caused by magic. Subsequent information demonstrated these are natural, non-miraculous process.

    500 years ago, due to lack of knowledge, theists claimed each separate species came about by magic. Subsequent information demonstrated it is a natural, non-miraculous process. Now theists tell me, due to lack of knowledge, abiogenesis can only happen by magic. I look back at their accuracy rate…and wait. Compare the two positions:

    Natural Abiogenesis
    Question: How did abiogenesis occur?
    Naturalist: We don’t know.

    Supernatural Abiogenesis
    Question: How did abiogenesis occur?
    Theist: God did it.
    Question: How?
    Theist: We don’t know.

    The difference is supernatural abiogenesis adding another component (“God”) which is equally unknown, and further complicates the issue. How does that progress our knowledge any?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dagoods, brilliant as always. You really should save your posts for future publishing.

    I had a pastor once (the non-evil one at the church I grew up in) who said something in a sermon that stuck with me ever since: "there is no uglier word in the English language than 'exclusive'". Part of the new raison d'etre of the renaissance of the church I currently attend is the congregation's conscious decision to be welcoming to everyone. One of my pastor's current crusades is getting the entire historic building wheelchair accessible. She gave an impassioned sermon on the topic recently, saying that the Americans with Disabilities Act's waiver for us as a "place of worship" is no excuse for us--the Church of all institutions should push for accessibility for everyone.

    I largely agree with you on the idea of morality (or ethics, if you prefer). I don't think it's inherently necessary to be religious to have a set of personal ethics, and that's true for most people. There are those people who require a "nanny"--clear, black & white guidelines of what is acceptable and what is not. Ironically, the same folks who complain about "moral relativism" and "shades of gray" are the ones who often (but not always, to be fair) decry "The Nanny State", while holding fast to "The Nanny God".

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Dagoods,

    I have read through the whole series and I gotta say, bravo! Though I can't identify with your initial phase where everything about God and Jesus were true, I could certainly identify where you started asking critical questions about them. I was apathetic with religion (though I raised in the Mormon church) but I took an interest when it hit me full on in the face, the girl was a full on pentecostal. Now many religious claim are easily examined and dismissed on its merits. :D

    Thank you, once again.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I like these things you wrote - they are very honest and reveal a lot about the experiences you went through to get to the point you are at now (which seems a lot more freer and happier). Also the hardships and troubles you had while in the church are bery poignant - I think someone said you should write a book - I couldn't agree more!

    I have always been a fan of your writings - for the pure fact you are very relateable while being deep on a subject - that's very tough to do I find.

    I am somewhere on this road also - tossing about thinking what it all means in this weird and confusing Christian realm - I can identify with a lot of what you are saying.

    ReplyDelete
  8. By defining Jesus as Love, his actions are given greater depth and worth than the same actions taken by others.

    That's the consequence of seeing Him as Christians believe He is, the one God-man.

    Jesus the God never died for anybody. Gods don’t die.
    Come again? You're an atheist. I thought Gods didn't exist for you.

    Soldiers, dying for a country that did not love them in Vietnam are far greater humans than Jesus.

    Soldiers are not God in the flesh. Your measuring stick for Jesus comes up a little short, doesn't it? Jesus is far greater than soldiers because He's the Son of God. That doesn't even require Him to die to establish that. That you think yourself better than Him is rather humorous, not unlike the guy up in the nosebleed seats second guessing the coach.

    As for your payday loan to Bill Gates, what Jesus gives us freely is infinitely more than what BG has.

    The difference between you and I, is I do not NEED something to be “legally binding” to still consider it, weigh it, and implement it in my own life.

    True, but it sure helps in the courtroom, doesn't it? It also helps if the legally binding law of God does everything your law does and more.

    The difference is supernatural abiogenesis adding another component (“God”) which is equally unknown, and further complicates the issue. How does that progress our knowledge any?

    "God" is the only explanation. If we focus on God's character, uncreated, creator, provider, author of intelligence, etc. it is more helpful than fantasizing pipe dreams about matter organizing itself supernaturally into the machine that is life.
    Regards.

    ReplyDelete
  9. **Come again? You're an atheist. I thought Gods didn't exist for you.**

    I think the point here was that, regardless of a belief in God, it really can't be said that God died for anyone -- if a God can die, then that God can't be considered eternal or really even infinite, because the God "stopped" at some point. The only element that died on the cross was the human element, because only humans can die.

    **Soldiers are not God in the flesh. Your measuring stick for Jesus comes up a little short, doesn't it? **

    This is the interesting thing about saying that Jesus sacrificed, though. If we say that the soldiers sacrified their lives for us, we mean that the soldiers are never getting that life back. The sacrifice is permanent. But Jesus didn't really lose his life, because he came back three days later, and as DAgoodS said, it can be seen that he knew he'd be resurrected. The sacrifice wasn't a permanent one. To DagoodS, the soldiers sacrifce would probably pack more of a punch, because it's a one-time thing, something incredibly valuable that can't be retrieved. If a soldier said that he was going to die for his country, but was then going to resurrect three days later, would that carry as much weight as a soldier who stayed dead? To me, no. The life that's permanently gone is almost more valuable.

    ReplyDelete
  10. DagoodS,

    **I became elated. For the first time, I could openly read the Bible in any manner! There was no preconceived dogma which required “scripture to interpret scripture” or that it was God-inspired, or inerrant. **

    I can very much relate to this. I wonder if this could be considered the truest form of "sola scripture?" You aren't attaching any traditions to it, you aren't approaching the Bible with a pre-formed set of doctrines. You're just reading it and saying, "Hey, isn't this new perspective interesting? Look what it does to [fill in the blank.]"

    Like you, I think that's why I'm so drawn to blogs. It's hard to find people to discuss things like this in real life, and regardless of one's position, the Bible is a fascinating book to read. It's dicatated so much of our culture and history.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi One Small Step
    The only element that died on the cross was the human element, because only humans can die.


    Didn't you answer your own question here?

    But Jesus didn't really lose his life, because he came back three days later, and as DAgoodS said, it can be seen that he knew he'd be resurrected. The sacrifice wasn't a permanent one.

    You're assuming that the soldiers' sacrifice is a permanent one.

    The life that's permanently gone is almost more valuable.

    There's a disconnect here with the claims of the Bible. Your point is as irrelevant as it is circular. You're assuming death is the end, but the whole point of Christianity is that death is NOT the end.

    IF Jesus is who he said he was, then the crucifixion affects everyone who ever lived, unlike the death of a soldier and unlike the deaths of the 2,923 on 9/11 that DID NOT affect everyone.

    The Bible is the core book of history for a reason. It is the best collection of thought and revelation that was ever written.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jim,

    **Didn't you answer your own question here?**

    This wasn't a question, it was elaborting on DagoodS comment about Gods dying. The thing with this is that Christians do often say that God died for us -- but it's only the human portion that died, so God didn't die for us. I'm not even sure you can say that the Son of God died, because how most explain the "Son of God" portion is that it's the "God" element. The son of man died -- but if the Son of God is the same as God the Son, then can it even be said that Jesus proved he was God the Son by dying, since God the Son cannot die?

    **You're assuming death is the end, but the whole point of Christianity is that death is NOT the end. **

    But in the end, even death not being an end is an assumption. No one "knows" that heaven exists, the way we know that 2+2=4. Heaven, Jesus' resurrection and such: all of that is based on faith, based on an interpretation of the Bible (which is essentially what someone said about what Jesus may have said/did). And, depending on how Christianity is interpreted, death can be the end for the "unsaved." I mean, if we go back to DagoodS money example, lending $100 to a homeless man is a greater sacrifice than to Bill Gates, because you know that Bill Gates has the means to repay you. You might never see the homeless man again. With Jesus, he knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he'd be raised from the dead, and that his death would be very brief, due to prior experience in heaven. Anyone else who dies at this point doesn't. Say an atheist gives his life -- that sacrifice would be huge, because for the atheist, he wouldn't get eternal life. He almost gave the only life he had.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thanks, Gus, for slogging through. I am taking a small break, while I catch up on other blogs and other forums, since this has consumed my time. I will be back (with a vengeance) on a coupla points rolling through my brain.



    SocietyVs: …you are very relateable while being deep on a subject…

    Thank you, SocietyVs. That is an outstanding compliment to give.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Jim Jordan,

    OneSmallStep had stolen my thunder! Seriously, she said what I would have said. Only a few additional points:

    When I say “God” I am referring to the concept contrived by humans. You don’t think your God actually died on the Cross, right? Would you prefer I said, “The Christian concept of their alleged ‘God’ does not die”? Seems like a waste of time.

    The point of the soldier is the sacrifice as seen from what the person believes. Regardless of the reality of resurrection, if a soldier dies, thinking they will never, NEVER be heard of or seen again, this is a greater sacrifice than a Human/God only killing the Human part, knowing he would be stuck hanging around as God-only for less than 48 hours; then getting the Human part back.

    Probably shouldn’t have used the analogy of the “Monday-Morning Quarterback.” I am from Michigan. Perhaps you have heard of our professional football team—the Lions? For the past few years (like 50) they have stunk. In Michigan we have perfected second-guessing the coach. As seen by their performance, much of our second-guessing is correct. *grin* Sometimes the guy in the nose-bleed section is correct.

    You are starting to buy your own press. I noticed all you want to focus is on Jesus’ death. What about calling his enemies names? Not sharing truth? Killing kids? Asking followers to kill their own kids? Can’t I be better than Jesus in those regards? Or do you think that is the best a creature can do?

    Jim Jordan: It also helps if the legally binding law of God does everything your law does and more.

    Right. “If.” What is God’s legally binding law regarding slavery? Polygamy? Divorce? Re-marriage? Salvation? Taking Oaths? Obeying Parents? Socialism? Alcohol? Dancing? Musical instruments? Frozen Embryos? Suicide? Life Support? Pornography? Age of Consent? Circumcision?

    People who claim absolute morality exists, cannot demonstrate what that absolute morality is. Other than somewhere somebody says something that we should or should not do. We just don’t know what it is.

    Jim Jordan: IF Jesus is who he said he was…

    Again, a pretty big “if.” If the authors accurately recorded what Jesus said, and If Jesus said it, and If it was true…sure we would be in a different position. Aren’t those the very things we are attempting to determine? What Jesus said, and is it true?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jim Jones: Come again? You're an atheist. I thought Gods didn't exist for you.

    OneSmallStep: I think the point here was that, regardless of a belief in God, it really can't be said that God died for anyone -- if a God can die, then that God can't be considered eternal or really even infinite, because the God "stopped" at some point. The only element that died on the cross was the human element, because only humans can die.

    Actually, I think the point was that, God didn't "die" in the same sense that a person dies. If I give my life for an enemy, I don't get to come back. Jesus (according to stories) barely stayed dead for two days.

    That's a heluva bargain. Debt owed: billions of souls' worth of never-ending-torment in Hell. Amount paid: two days' worth of death, and then "get out of jail free". Debt cleared?!

    If I owe a person money, and cannot pay him, and he threatens to put me in prison, another person can take the debt upon himself, and pay it for me. But if I have committed a crime, every circumstance of the case is changed. Moral justice cannot take the innocent for the guilty even if the innocent would offer itself. To suppose justice to do this, is to destroy the principle of its existence, which is the thing itself. It is then no longer justice. It is indiscriminate revenge.
    —Thomas Paine

    ReplyDelete
  16. Interestingly enough, Jesus himself commented on this in a couple of places.

    He points out (rightly) that the widow giving two small copper coins was actually giving more (making more self-sacrifice) than the rich men giving princely sums at the Temple in Luke 21 and Mark 12.

    He also tells the story of a creditor who forgives the debts of two men, one who owed 500 denarii, the other only 50. The one shown more forgiveness ("love") is the one who had the greater debt. (Lk 7)

    I think it's a valid question. How sacrificial was the "ultimate" sacrifice if Jesus knew he wouldn't remain dead?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Gentlemen,
    Jesus' sacrifice is only a blip on the radar screen unless He is who He claims to be. If God comes to earth in the flesh and is executed for preaching the gospel, then that's news.

    Paine said "Moral justice cannot take the innocent for the guilty even if the innocent would offer itself." If the innocent is God? Again, it's who Jesus is that makes all the difference.

    It is a big IF when it comes to who Jesus was. If it's true, how every person looks at the world is changed.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Jim,

    Notice how you're changing the original argument, though? When you brought up Jesus' sacrifice, it was to counter DagoodS' claim that, without the Bible, he can be more loving than Jesus was [as described in the Bible]. Your response was to ask whether he would give up his life for an enemy [as Jesus did]. His answer was that giving up his own life for an enemy would be a disproportionately far greater sacrafice than it was for Jesus to give his, which is an objectively true statement.

    Now you're moving on to address whether Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient to cover sins, or if it was justice versus revenge (my fault for bringing up the Paine quote). That's not the issue you brought up. I don't mind discussing it (though I don't think there's really much to discuss: I don't see how his being God changes at all whether it's an act of justice or of blind punishment; despite Paul's bandying of terms, it's clearly not debt), I just want to make it clear that the topic of conversation has shifted.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Micah,

    **Actually, I think the point was that, God didn't "die" in the same sense that a person dies. If I give my life for an enemy, I don't get to come back. Jesus (according to stories) barely stayed dead for two days.**

    Maybe this would also depend on the definition of God? For the Christian, if one says God, part of the meaning of that word is that God is infinite/eternal, and how those two words are defined include the lack of ability to die. But if we were going with something like a Greek God, then they could in fact die (for didn't Zeus kill his father or something?)

    Flycandler,

    I liked the points pulled from the Bible -- I'll have to remember those.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Jim Jordan,

    “IF there is no God, THEN there is relative morality.”

    Read that sentence again.

    Read that sentence once more.

    Seriously—read it again!

    Did I just convince you morals are relative? No; probably not. The reason being—you do not agree with the “IF” part of the sentence. You believe there is a god.

    Why is it Christians find any argument starting with “IF Jesus was God, THEN blah, blah, blah” should be even remotely convincing to us, when the same principle would not apply to you?

    Read the sentence again!

    Are you convinced morals are relative?

    This is part of what I mean by “do better.” Start looking at things from the other person’s perspective. Why would a skeptic even pause with an argument starting off with “IF Jesus was God” when the very premise is the point of the discussion? Although, on rare occasion (and I DO mean rare) it may be helpful to flesh out a point, or draw a conclusion which conflicts with reality, (I.E. “IF the sun orbited the earth, THEN we should see the following effects. Since we do not, the sun must not orbit the earth.”) I see this tactic over and over.

    “If God inspired the Bible, THEN it would look like ____”
    “If God was solely moral, THEN ____”

    Now you are (again) making claims about “IF Jesus was God…” You are quite right, “IF” it is true, how we view the world is changed. “IF it is NOT true, how we view the world is equally changed. Where is the new information in that? Rather than talk about “What ifs?” how about we talk about plausibility of the premise itself?

    Again, you fail to address the difference between my own ability to communicate, and Jesus’ refusal. My own ability to not call others names, and Jesus’ inability to control his own mouth. You fail to address Jesus killing kids. You fail to address Jesus asking his followers to kill their kids.

    Are you agreeing with me I am better than Jesus in those areas?

    ReplyDelete
  21. It's all allegory - in extremis: for religionists, with a great dose of insecurity and wishful thinking thrown in. And self-deception fills the crock

    If you're so disposed, DG, I'd welcome, appreciate even, some one-on-one. We have some common acquaintance. Ionian. Zoe. VT. Initially, please try spillerp (AT) yahoo.co.uk

    ReplyDelete
  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Terrific series. I'm sorry I missed you on IIDB; I used to hang out there a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I hate coming into a blog post months or years after it is finished and commented on to try to make another post - it may not ever get noticed.

    But, in this case, I have to make an exception, as this series was, in my humble opinion, not only very well written, but hits close to home.

    I was raised in a Christian home, too, although in my case, it was First Christian - pretty liberal compared to the Baptists! But it was still church every Sunday, with Sunday School right before that. I went through all the proper classes to "prepare" me for the great Decision of accepting Christ. Heck, as a teen, I even went to a Billy Graham event and was moved enough to answer his call to come forward!

    Of course, I was attending a private military school in Texas at the time, so one can see where that would be no surprise...

    But as an adult, church dropped of of my radar, abruptly. It stayed that way for several decades, including during much of my marriage to a lovely German girl whose opinion of forced church-going is roughly the same as my own.

    But as I began to move through my 50's, I began to revisit those roots - and seeing much of the things you described seeing that eventually made me see that I've been an atheist for close to twenty years, but just didn't think about it!

    But it is your description of your reactions after making that discovery that hit the closest to home for me.

    I, too have religious family that I have not had the courage to tell. My wife, yes, we've discussed it, and while she still says she believes in God, she discounts much of the Christian teachings. Our kids - one is pretty liberal and isn't religious, one is on that finely balanced edge of not knowing - but her boyfriend/fiance IS religious. My second daughter converted to Catholicism (and I am convinced that she did so in order to marry her chosen, not because she really believes). So the kids know, but we really don't discuss it much.

    So the only people I can talk with are here, online.

    Thank you for telling your story, it is encouraging that others have experienced the same things I did (if not worse) and ended up in the same place.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hell of a story, DagoodS. Thank you for sharing.

    This line resonated with me:

    > I focused on “loving” them only in the Christian mindset. Only on Christian terms. Only loving non-believers enough to coerce them to the point of their changing to the point I could REALLY love them.

    Here I am right now, unsure of everything...and that part of my mentality really disturbs me. God tells us to love people, but knowing Him is our greatest good, so my "loving" an unbeliever must come with an agenda?

    Changing the subject:

    I appreciate the background you shared, and that it appears that you genuinely did not want to be convinced that the Bible/Christianity are untrue. As I endeavor on my own journey/exploration--not yet knowing the destination--I will try to be neutral, but I fear my own biases steering the ship--especially in light of Bible verses speaking of how we delude ourselves.

    I figure, what else can I do but try to be honest about it all, and try to weight the evidence fairly? So I've been pretty open about my (conflicting) biases in my first blog post. If my faith is reinforced, that could arguable be a testament to its credibility. If I deconvert, Christians may use it against me in the future.

    Oh well.

    ReplyDelete