Woo's Woo in Christianity

[Oldfarmhouse]

One of the problems for those who adhere to Christian doctrine (any doctrine, really) is the existence of people who were at one time strong believers in the faith and then at some point abandoned it. The reason that this is a difficult issue for the believers is that former members often provide detailed coherent descriptions of how they came to question, doubt, and eventually reject the doctrine.

Almost invariably the reasons for leaving differ between ex-members and current members. Former Christians often describe a process of investigation into the claims made by the group and ended up with very unimpressive answers. Ex-Christians discuss education and how the increase in knowledge and exposure to different cultures and ideas renders the theology useless to accurately describe the world.

On the other side Christians give very different reasons that people leave the faith. Invariably members of the faith will blame the person who left the church and never admit to the possibility theat the doctrine is inadequate. I will say that there are exceptions -- if they don’t blame the person who left then it’s that crafty devil who led them astray.

For discussion -- why do you think Christians become ex-Christians?

[catalyst]

Hi Oldfarmhouse,

I realise there is only one point up for discussion, but I would like to comment to you on the points you made in your OP.

One of the problems for those who adhere to Christian doctrine (any doctrine, really) is the existence of people who were at one time strong believers in the faith and then at some point abandoned it. The reason that this is a difficult issue for the believers is that former members often provide detailed coherent descriptions of how they came to question, doubt, and eventually reject the doctrine.

Indeed that is the case and I have noticed, not only on this forum but also in RL situations, my reasons (not excuses) pretty much fell on deaf ears. The still believers just did not want to hear anything that MAY get them to question their "faith", too.. so it is a matter of being confronted with people with fingers near in their ears "la la la la laing" so they cannot hear what you have to say.

Almost invariably the reasons for leaving differ between ex-members and current members. Former Christians often describe a process of investigation into the claims made by the group and ended up with very unimpressive answers. Ex-Christians discuss education and how the increase in knowledge and exposure to different cultures and ideas renders the theology useless to accurately describe the world.

With me, the beginning of the end was a visit to Israel and Palestine. I was there ON a trek the church I was part of (was at the time a christian counsellor and "womans" minister). The depth of my belief was HUGE and I thought nothing at all could interfere with what I perceived as "TRUTH". A lot did. Nothing really teed up in reality as the NT had inferred.. even geographically.
The fact is, not too may self-professed christians GO those extra yards to explore themselves.. to be ACTUAL seekers of "TRUTH". Interestly I know I am not the only at the time DEVOUT christian to come back from such a trip a little more than jaded and in fact MANY christians that did much the same as I did have come back scratching their heads, which in turn, eventually leaded to them leaving christianity behind as a bald faced lie.

On the other side Christians give very different reasons that people leave the faith. Invariably members of the faith will blame the person who left the church and never admit to the possibility theat the doctrine is inadequate. I will say that there are exceptions -- if they don’t blame the person who left then it’s that crafty devil who led them astray.

That is what happened in my case. The fact I questioned ANYTHING during the "holyland" trip or after was an issue for them. It seems that my faith to them was NOT "enough" so it was my fault that I pointed out the clear to all discrepancies...and yes... the whole "devil" thing was also brought into the equation too. As I WANTED to still "believe" and didn't want to be thought of as THEY (the only people I interacted with anymore)..I stayed with the church for 3 years then after... trying to push aside the OBVIOUS and GLARING discrepencies.

It's like a very insular society in and of itself.. this christianity thing. When push comes to shove it IS CULT behaviour, whether those IN IT want to realise it or not. I know I didn't when I was part of it.

For discussion -- why do you think Christians become ex-Christians?

I can only speak for myself and frankly my own personal story to tell would take up too much bandwidth and probably exceed the post limit.

As such in a couple of paragraphs.. TRUTH actually set me free..the truth that ALL CAN physically see. There is no secret, no interpretation required. All you have to do is take your little Book (bible) and do a FULL physical trace of what all the NT dudes allegedly DID and you will find that NOPE.. NONE of it could have happened the way the bible claims it did....from there... after you have done that.. is then see how viable all the other "stuff" mention in there is. You will find it is NOT viable at all.

Not too many christians have the gonies to do that, or even THINK about doing it. In a way I see it as a lack of dedication OF their belief to NOT want to actually walk where the bible jesus is claimed to have... to see where he was allegedly when the people tried to push him off the "cliff" (I still laugh to myself about the "cliff"....it's a gleeful little "roly poly" that any kid would giggle being rolled down). lol I also laugh about the mass run the "demon possessed" pigs would have had had to do...etc...

Just to name a few.

The fact is, I have found that many people DO stay in christianity due to emotional ties to others but more so, not wanting to admit they are WRONG about something. The EGO is a hard thing to get past. Not too many WANT to accept that the stuff they have put their heart and mind into for DECADES can be shown in one fell swoop to be absolute bollocks.

IMO, only those truly WANTING to seek the truth, whatever it is... lets go of their ego.

As I have stated on here before Oldfarmhouse, not ONCE has ANY theists asked me on here WHY I left christianity. The reasons are.. as you stated above and as I have elaborated on. They really don't WANT to know.

Catalyst

[otseng]

You ignore the effective contents/structure of their arguments and you invent something stupid instead.

it is clear for others how disconnected from reality you are.

you clearly can't grasp rational arguments, even light clear and simple ones

Moderator Warning


These would be considered personal attacks and would be in violation of the rules.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Slopeshoulder]

Hi Catalyst:

There are plenty of good reasons to change one's beliefs or leave a religion. And I honor your choices and journey. I'd only point out that oodles of people in clergy, leadership, and academics on the liberal side of the fence have great educations and would absolutely share your views regarding inaccuracies and myths. It's sort of assumed once you get into those circles (like first semester div school or in adult ed). So if confronted with discrepencies between more literalist-conservative beliefs and newly acquired facts, one could leave, or one could reframe the religion on more solid ground. I'd rather see someone leave a religion because its worldview/gestalt/lens at its best no longer resonates of feeds them. But leaving over not transitioning from literal-factual to symbolic-meaning based takes on a religion makes me sad, plays into the hands of literalists, and seems like a lost opportunity that is too often the case. So very often devout ultraorthodox belief that relies upon literal historicist truths is a loss of faith waiting to happen; it sets up the preconditions and happens just as soon as some better education and facts arrive. Like an either-or, a binary choiuce. But for many of us there was an alternative, a journey into the mythopoetic meaning of a religious tradition; for may of us it is deeply satisfying while also intellectually responsible and psychologically healthy - no idiocy or fantasy required. Still, as a priest friend once said to me, "you've gotta go where you're fed."
Best,
SS

[EduChris]

...see where he was allegedly when the people tried to push him off the "cliff" (I still laugh to myself about the "cliff"....it's a gleeful little "roly poly" that any kid would giggle being rolled down)...

Once again your unsubstantiated claims to have engaged in graduate-level Christian theological education is disconfirmed by the evidence of your own words. The language of Luke 4:29-30 references the customary Jewish practice of throwing a person down from some height before stoning him or her; in other words, it doesn't imply that "throwing him down," by itself, would kill or even hurt him.

[catalyst]

...see where he was allegedly when the people tried to push him off the "cliff" (I still laugh to myself about the "cliff"....it's a gleeful little "roly poly" that any kid would giggle being rolled down)...

Once again your unsubstantiated claims to have engaged in graduate-level Christian theological education is disconfirmed by the evidence of your own words. The language of Luke 4:29-30 references the customary Jewish practice of throwing a person down from some height before stoning him or her.

Have YOU been there Educhris? There is no HEIGHT involved.. in the place this was purported TO HAVE HAPPENED. THAT was the point. It was a gentle incline IF THAT.. that even 2 yr old would happily "roll" down ...giggling with glee...merely by laying at the "top" with a gentle push to get them under way. A two yr old would then have walked back and said "AGAIN MUMMY".

Go there, and check it out yourself!! It's damn laughable. Truly, Educhris going there you WILL find, the ACTUAL truth WILlL set you free!

Catalyst.

[EduChris]

...A two yr old would then have walked back and said "AGAIN MUMMY"...

Not after having been stoned to death, which is what any first-century resident Jew would have immediately understood Luke's language to imply.

Again, the point here (and in other of your posts as well) is that you do not give any evidence of your multiple claims to have engaged in graduate-level Christian theological education. (Not that you need to have engaged in such study to participate meaningfully on this forum; rather the sole issue is the credibility of your oft-repeated claims.)

[catalyst]

...A two yr old would then have walked back and said "AGAIN MUMMY"...

Not after having been stoned to death, which is what any first-century resident Jew would have immediately understood Luke's language to imply.

Again, the point here (and in other of your posts as well) is that you do not give any evidence of your multiple claims to have engaged in graduate-level Christian theological educaton. (Not that you need to have engaged in such study to participate meaningfully on this forum; rather the sole issue is the credibility of your oft-repeated claims.)

Well put it this way, I have been the same ME since I started back in here 2008. I didn't start professing "stuff" off the cuff when you decided to join several years later.

The point is, if you READ the Gospels, he wasn't STONED at all. he was "nearly"...supposedly... second, of you WENT there to the place this allegedly happened you will see it was no darn cliff at all...just a cute little roly poly hillside.. IF that...geez... my front yard as a kid had a greater incline! THAT is the point.

Apart from that what "jewish law" presumably dictated had no part in what I or from what I know others were taught at theology college in the late 80's... NOR from what I know is it part and parcel of what is taught NOW. THAT did not crop up at all with me until studying divinity. If you can show that it IS part and parcel now OF what is being studied as to "christianity" in ministry or theology, I would be surprised. I do though look foward to your "proof" it is?

Until then...

NO CLIFF TO BE PUSHED OFF. Sorry to tell you but the geography...the way the land lies does NOT CHANGE despite the story you might WANT to believe.


As I said, all you have to do is go there YOURSELF and see for YOURSELF what what you may believe cannot be TRUE by any stretch of the imagination.

Thank you for your comments though Educhris. As usual.. they are... well.. they just ... are...

Catalyst.

PS... to Oldfarmhouse.. Edudchris in MY opinion is one of the many theists described. The GOSPELS of course "cannot" be wrong. It must be ME saying stuff that is not true of course, despite there being LAND there... he can view himself... and anyone else can too if they choose to...showing clearly that the point I made IS actually true. They just don't want to acknowledge they were wrong and continue to be wrong.

[EduChris]

...he wasn't STONED at all...

Of course he was not; he walked away. But the point is that the people intended to stone him. The throwing him down from some height (even such as a two-year-old would frolic up and down) was, in that culture, a prelude to a stoning.

Are you going to continue to claim to have received an education which is disconfirmed by your own words?

[catalyst]

...he wasn't STONED at all...

Of course he was not; he walked away. But the point is that the people intended to stone him. The throwing him down from some height (even such as a two-year-old would frolic up and down) was, in that culture, a prelude to a stoning.

Are you going to continue to claim to have received an education which is disconfirmed by your own words?

I think you should read my edit....to you and also perhaps to Oldfarmhouse.

As I said... the GEOGRAPHY doesn't lie.

You can perhaps reply to the edited bits too.

THANKS

[EduChris]

...GEOGRAPHY doesn't lie...

True, but nobody ever said it did.

The only real question here is, "Did you lie when you claimed to have received an advanced theological education, when in fact your posts provide evidence which disconfirms your claims?"

Why will you not answer this simple question? Why do you keep trying to divert attention away from this simple question?