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 dont blame the person who left then its that crafty devil who led them astray.

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

[EduChris]

...I propose that if EduChris is so adamant in determining another's credentials, he'd offer us some means to confirm his own.

The only reasons I'm interested in verifying her repeated claims to such credentials are that: 1) her claim is the centerpiece of many of her arguments, and 2) there is a glaring discrepancy between her claim to credentials and the actual content of her posts.

However, if you can convince Jester or Slopeshoulder or Mithrae (all of whom have advanced credentials of their own) to examine my masters thesis, I would be happy to forward them a copy and they can confirm its validity for you.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 76:

The only reasons I'm interested in verifying her repeated claims to such credentials are that: 1) her claim is the centerpiece of many of her arguments,

Which is one of the reasons I aim to confirm your'n.

and 2) there is a glaring discrepancy between her claim to credentials and the actual content of her posts.

Given the many branches and sects of Christianity, I propose we should find "discrepancies" abundant.

However, if you can convince Jester or Slopeshoulder or Mithrae (all of whom have advanced credentials of their own) to examine my masters thesis, I would be happy to forward them a copy and they can confirm its validity for you.

So, you're not going to present your credentials within the thread where you question the credentials of another.

Again I'm left to wonder how much schooling is required to authoritatively expound on woo.

The only real question here is, "Did you lie...

[catalyst]

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

Hi SS,

Well I think I told you in our interactions that I am a former Baptist. Perhaps that is why Oldfarmhouses's comments in the OP read to me like a near mirror image of what I went through and that is why I replied to him/her so openly on this thread.

Being a Baptist, we were taught the LITERAL, especially when things could be "tested" (as such) and that is why we went to Israel/Palestine....so that WE could show that in fact the Baptist church was the first "christian" church in Jerusalem (predating by centuries the ones propped up by the catholics...just sayin'), and also to walk where 'jesus" had walked etc ... according to the gospels. It is not like I was told that "Luke" "Mark" John" and "Matthew"..."Paul" were actually disciples or "apostles" that penned the works... THAT was a given by (with my study) within the first year. ONE thing though that did remain a constant was the assumed geographical accuracy.

NONE of what I had been lead to believe panned out as being any truth, from a purely observational level. Please appreciate when told things happened "here or there" there is an expectation of the here or there as being as the bible describes it to be. Like it or not one WOULD expect the geographic element at least to hold SOME water, even if the "message" through the gospels doesn't.

Despite that, I remained with the church for years after, because I felt my faith was 'enough", so no, I didn't just walk away after that trip.

In fact the more I delved into understanding (at least) hebrew, is when my own little " WTF ???" antenna propped itself up again. I don't know what you covered in your theological study in whole, but if you DID cover hebrew to get an M.Div, isn't the fact that Hebrew is an alphanumerical language a barrier that makes it IMPOSSIBLE for the OT(Septuagint) to be considered ANY type of VALID translation from the Hebrew? If you can show that it IS viably translatable, to others on here given they seem to respect your "creds" more than mine, then please show how.

As far as I can see now understanding it more, the Torah IS wholly untranslatable and those with an understanding & knowledge OF the Hebrew agree with me. I suppose that is why not too many Jews convert to christianity, but once they KNOW and understand, many christians DO turn to Judaism. The proof is in the OT "pudding".... once one DOES understand the Hebrew of course. In a sense it is like trying to translate katakana or kanji directly into english. CAN"T HAPPEN and when translated forth it's a mish mash and when translated back... just a mish mash of meaningless too.

Hey, I don't create the languages, I just study them to get a better grasp of the actual INTENT of the author in their language rather than opting for the feeble also ran version which invariably is nonsensical drivel. *shrug*

Anyway, I have never dissed anyone's personal choices or reasons for leaving a "faith" or even being involved in one they profess to believe in. I hope you know me well enough to understand I have a "whatever floats YOUR own personal boat" mentality.

Catalyst

[Haven]

Catalyst,

I'm also a recovering Baptist, so I know exactly where you're coming from. Growing up in the Southern Baptist church, I was taught the Bible was true "from cover to cover," and that it was the "inerrant, inspired word of God." I was taught that the universe was 6,000-10,000 years old, Noah packed two of all the world's animals into a big wooden boat, Jonah was really swallowed by a huge fish, and Jesus really came back from the dead. My parents, pastors, spiritual leaders, and Christian friends told me to accept these things without question.

Although I flirted with non-theism in high school, I never really took the step of going deep into the evidence, and emotional reasons brought me deep into the web of evangelical Christianity during my undergrad years. I became heavily involved in church, college group, and other "Christian activities," and made it my life's mission to seek after Christ with all my heart. I believed on faith, pushing doubts out of my mind and rarely giving philosophy or science a second thought.

When I found that faith wasn't enough for me and decided to investigate whether or not the claims of the Bible were true, I found that none of the supernatural claims (and a significant number of the natural ones, as well) could stand up to skeptical scrutiny.

To answer Slopeshoulder's point, no I don't think liberal / symbolic Christianity holds any water. Before I left the faith, I explored liberal Christianity, but I could find no value in practicing something I knew had no basis in reality. To me, if something is not objectively true, it is not worth practicing or believing. Therefore, non-theism is the only option that is right for *me.* I would say I became an atheist, but I think a better way to put it is that I was forced to relinquish my theism, as theism (especially Christian theism) cannot stand up to skeptical scrutiny. I did not want to become an atheist -- I had built my entire life, including my morality, my future plans, my politics, and my personal relationships, on my Christian faith. Deconversion was a very painful process for me, but looking back, I know I made the right decision. For me, life is better accepting reality as it is, and I feel no need to add anything extra.

-Haven

[catalyst]

...I propose that if EduChris is so adamant in determining another's credentials, he'd offer us some means to confirm his own.

The only reasons I'm interested in verifying her repeated claims to such credentials are that: 1) her claim is the centerpiece of many of her arguments, and 2) there is a glaring discrepancy between her claim to credentials and the actual content of her posts.

In fact they are not the centerpiece to MANY if any of my arguments at all, considering if you LOOK, the majority of my posts are related to things like abortion, or the psychological aspects of "faith". A lot of the time I don't even USE information I gleaned FROM any degrees in Theology I HAVE, as I have since found out that the "facts" I was lead to believe, were not what can be considered TRUTH in ANY way shape or form.

So yes, much to my chagrin I DO have degrees in Religion, Divinity and also Theology. If you think it is something I actually am trying to boast about... then you are truly mistaken. I am not actually PROUD of those achievements, Educhris....they are just par for the course of the life I had at one point in my life. I don't regret them, but there is no pride from my end about them.

SO to answer your question of:

Do you have an advanced theological education, as you have repeatedly claimed, or do you not?

YES I do.. a total of 8 SOLID YEARS dedicated to achieving them alone. Prior to that, I also did my CCA..I got that at 18yrs old. I was engaged and then married to a MINISTERS SON, Educhris. HE (my father in law), the church I was involved in and also my brother-in-law (also a Minister) sponsored my education. At the time, a female minister was not a thought in the main.... they tended to feel that they were progressive though and THEY pushed it as they NEEDED a female Minister.. I was "chosen" by them given my past and given my at the time "plucky" attitude.

Again, this IS information I gave well before you joined this forum, Educhris.


Educhris wrote:

The content of your posts disconfirms your claim to such an education. And the fact that you have consistently and repeatedly tried to divert attention from this question casts further doubt on your claim.

I have done no such thing. As I stated info regarding my Theological education has been here for YEARS... even PRIOR to your joining.

My approach on here has NEVER changed Educhris and if anything and others CAN actually testify to the fact, I would much prefer to tackle anything put forth than avoid it..or even divert from it. The fact thought that you would go out of your way to DIVERT someone else's OP and make it a little personal "quest" against "Catalyst" speaks volumes.


If you have any further questions for me, then please, rather than invade someone 's OP take your queries to the QUESTIONS FOR "X" person part of the forum.


At this point, I apologise to Oldfarmhouse for my part in this derailment of your thread.

I hope now that it can carry on as you wanted it to.

Catalyst.

[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

Hi SS,

Well I think I told you in our interactions that I am a former Baptist. Perhaps that is why Oldfarmhouses's comments in the OP read to me like a near mirror image of what I went through and that is why I replied to him/her so openly on this thread.

Being a Baptist, we were taught the LITERAL, especially when things could be "tested" (as such) and that is why we went to Israel/Palestine....so that WE could show that in fact the Baptist church was the first "christian" church in Jerusalem (predating by centuries the ones propped up by the catholics...just sayin'), and also to walk where 'jesus" had walked etc ... according to the gospels. It is not like I was told that "Luke" "Mark" John" and "Matthew"..."Paul" were actually disciples or "apostles" that penned the works... THAT was a given by (with my study) within the first year. ONE thing though that did remain a constant was the assumed geographical accuracy.

NONE of what I had been lead to believe panned out as being any truth, from a purely observational level. Please appreciate when told things happened "here or there" there is an expectation of the here or there as being as the bible describes it to be. Like it or not one WOULD expect the geographic element at least to hold SOME water, even if the "message" through the gospels doesn't.

Despite that, I remained with the church for years after, because I felt my faith was 'enough", so no, I didn't just walk away after that trip.

In fact the more I delved into understanding (at least) hebrew, is when my own little " WTF ???" antenna propped itself up again. I don't know what you covered in your theological study in whole, but if you DID cover hebrew to get an M.Div, isn't the fact that Hebrew is an alphanumerical language a barrier that makes it IMPOSSIBLE for the OT(Septuagint) to be considered ANY type of VALID translation from the Hebrew? If you can show that it IS viably translatable, to others on here given they seem to respect your "creds" more than mine, then please show how.

As far as I can see now understanding it more, the Torah IS wholly untranslatable and those with an understanding & knowledge OF the Hebrew agree with me. I suppose that is why not too many Jews convert to christianity, but once they KNOW and understand, many christians DO turn to Judaism. The proof is in the OT "pudding".... once one DOES understand the Hebrew of course. In a sense it is like trying to translate katakana or kanji directly into english. CAN"T HAPPEN and when translated forth it's a mish mash and when translated back... just a mish mash of meaningless too.

Hey, I don't create the languages, I just study them to get a better grasp of the actual INTENT of the author in their language rather than opting for the feeble also ran version which invariably is nonsensical drivel. *shrug*

Anyway, I have never dissed anyone's personal choices or reasons for leaving a "faith" or even being involved in one they profess to believe in. I hope you know me well enough to understand I have a "whatever floats YOUR own personal boat" mentality.

Catalyst

Hi. I had forgotten you were Baptist, and I don't think I had an appreciation for just how much so. That sure explains a lot. It's a very different experience from my own. The Catholics I grew up with were strange, simultaneously devout yet detached, saying all sorts of traditional things, then having common sense take over and not being too hung up about it. Bible stories were told a few times to kids, but no one was too invested in it. It was just a nice story.
Regarding Hebrew, I have no opinion. I did the two year degree in div school, in which I took no ministerial practice classes but intead heavied up on academics, as well as classes in the schools of law and business. But strangely, there was no language requirement, greek or hebrew. I know NOTHING about either of them. I used to know a decent amount of german, but no more.
Regarding your open mindedness, I know, for sure.

[EduChris]

...As far as I can see now understanding it more, the Torah IS wholly untranslatable and those with an understanding & knowledge OF the Hebrew agree with me...

Try telling that to Robert Alter. Your claim, repeated above, that the "Torah IS wholly untranslatable" is simply and patently false, and it puts the lie to your claim of having received an accredited graduate-level Christian theological education--or a grad-level education of any sort that deals with language in translation. Not even Bart Ehrman, who would love to be able to make the same pronouncement as you have made, would be able to stomach such a bizarre assertion.

In short, your personal claims have no credibility whatsoever.

[JoeyKnothead]

In short, your personal claims have no credibility whatsoever.

Let's all remember that as EduChris refers so often to himself as an "intellectual Christian" while not once offering his CV or his alleged "master's thesis" for examination.

[EduChris]

...EduChris refers so often to himself as an "intellectual Christian"...

Please provide evidence for this claim. I do not recall ever referring to myself in this manner, but perhaps I'm wrong about that.

...while not once offering his CV or his alleged "master's thesis" for examination...

See here

[Slopeshoulder]

Oh, this is silly. Educhris went to a good div school, and I think I remember which one, but it's not for me to say. And it's apparent. It doesn't make one omniscient or perfect, but he is formally and well educated.