|
----- Original Message -----
To: Chris
Sent: 02 December 2001 21:09
Subject: Re: Thanks for your web page.
Hi Chris,
Thanks very much for your thoughtful email. A
number of times people have
remarked that just by reading the thoughts of
others they see their own
thoughts and experiences expressed so well. For me,
I had that experience
in reading your email, it was almost as if I had
written it myself!
<< Is it unusual that although I am
convinced that I can no longer
believe without reservation, I still feel
rather guilty (sinful?) reading
anti-Christian material? >>
It's
not at all unusual. I've seen it many times on the ex-Christian
mailing list
and experienced it myself. I left Christianity 16 years ago
and still
occasionally get those feelings, although admittedly a lot less
than I used
to. I think it was about 2 years until I stopped being
constantly
subliminally scared that I was doing something terrible by no
longer being
able to accept Christianity. I think the guilty/worried
feeling left mostly
due to the emotional realisation that being punished
for ones thoughts is not
good. But the old brainwashing is hard to shake
off. Christians are usually
taught that belief is a choice - otherwise
where is the justice in being
rewarded for it or punished for not having
it? However it became apparent to
me that not only is it psychologically
impossible to believe something you
don't believe, but it's neither moral
or responsible to attempt to force
oneself to believe things. I discussed
this mostly with Dr. Garrett at the
conversation starting
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/garrett/1.html.
It
is no wonder that plenty of Christians have doubts as they live with
so much
cognitive dissonance. Nevertheless the feelings that later take
over are, as
you mentioned, exhilaration at so much interesting material
to find out,
freedom to really think in an unfettered way and connection
with others, even
if you disagree with them. I loved your description:
<< There is a
subconscious feeling of superiority when one is a Christian,
one of the
elite, the untouchable. Well not any more. I can continue
the
conversation I started last month with a Buddhist friend and
really
appreciate his point of view without secretly believing myself to be
party
to privileged information whilst wondering whether I should really
be
talking to him at all lest some demon should take possession of my
soul
for such a sin... >>
Exactly! I felt like I was in a secret
and spiritually insightful superior
club. Even somewhat heroic for daring to
be a Christian in a largely
secular society (living in the UK that
is!)
<< I always believed that it was due to my
sin/doubt/whatever that
I never had the orgasmic experiences of my
charismatic friends,
nor the 'personal relationship' of which they speak.
>>
As Robert Price remarked nobody had even heard of "having a
personal
relationship with Christ" and "inviting him into your heart" until
the
German Pietist movement of the Eighteenth Century. So I wouldn't
worry,
it is a manufactured relationship. Catholics will have deep devotion
to
the Virgin Mary, whereas other Christians would balk at such
feelings.
Ex-Moonie leader Steve Hassan spoke of his overpowering love
for
the Reverend Moon, even to the extent that he would have killed for
him.
In my opinion it is all manufactured based on what you are
supposed
to be feeling - Christians would be having personal relationships
with
St. Peter if that is what they were told was important. As most of
us
painfully discover it is quite possible to fall in love with somebody
who
does not love you or who is quite a different person than the one
you
thought they were. Feelings of love are sadly no guarantee that
you
are correctly perceiving the focus of your love.
An ex-nun friend
told me that she gradually came to realise that a
relationship in which one
of the partners does not talk to you is not a
real or healthy relationship at
all. Add to this the rationalizations
Christians have to make to justify hell
and the "vibrant, dynamic"
relationship they sometimes report with Jesus is
horribly similar
to the deep attachment captives sometimes develop in prison
camps (the
"Stockholm Syndrome.") After the holocaust (not to mention a
host of
other atrocities and natural disasters), there should be no numinous
and
loving feeling left for such neglectful deities.
See http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/mcfall/1.html
for
some more ranting on this one!
<< As for fathoming out
which member of the 'Trinity' I was supposed
to be addressing, well I never
did. When I asked 'mature Christians' they
said it didn't matter.
It did to me. >>
Coincidentally I was musing over an old memory of
that problem just
yesterday. Until I went to university, the Christians
around me discussed
God. At university I was exposed to Christians who talked
about Jesus all
the time. Seemed like an unnecessarily obstacle as I was
doing very well
before the extra theological personage had to be in the
forefront all the
time :-> Anyway, I once saw the following on the errancy
newsgroup which
amused me. Here is the snippet:
It's very
simple. Jesus not only IS God, he is also the SON of
God, who unfortunately
never had a wife and never had sex, except
possibly for the Holy Ghost part
of God, who supposedly somehow
impregnated Mary, but this didn't involve sex,
because Mary was still
a virgin, but this is getting off the point. Anyway
God as a whole
however is really a triad, usually called the trinity,
it being of
course, like all good combinations, greater than the sum of its
parts,
God thereby being the ultimate synergism, which however does not
apply
here because each part is also the whole thing, so the whole thing
is
less than the sum of its parts, except that it's also equal to the
sum
of its parts because the sum is the sum, period. Now Jesus as I
said
before both is and is not all of God, the latter fact
being
demonstrated by his asking, at a certain crucial point (no
pun
intended), why the rest of God, that is, the father part,
had
abandoned the Jesus, or son, part of God. Jesus also kept
referring
to himself as the son of man, which seems to imply that man and
God
are the same thing, except the Bible says this is not so, so the
son
of man designation is not exactly clear, unlike all the other
really
obvious stuff I explained above.
My own feeling is that the Trinity
was chosen because the other
choices, Monity, Binity, and Quinity (wait,
that's five), sound silly,
in fact all together sounding like a team of
comedians.
Anyway, remember, this is
Monotheism.
<< I feel like my gay sister must have
felt when she 'came out'. >>
That too is very common. Some
gay ex-Christians have explicitly remarked
on the similarity they felt in
"coming out" of the closet about their
homosexuality and their "coming out"
about their lack of belief in
Christianity. It was also interesting to note
that on the ex-Christian
mailing list, although there were diverse opinions
on abortion,
child-rearing, gun-control etc. etc. there was unanimity on
acceptance of
homosexuality, despite the fact that many (not all) condemned
it as
Christians. Homophobia is one of those things which appears to be
taught
by the certain large elements of the church, because it appears
so
strikingly absent in ex-Christians once the biblical reasons
for
condemning it no longer hold influence. However I want to be quick
to
point out that there are plenty of gay-friendly Christians (I was
one,
although not when a young teenager), one of my university
housemates
was secretary both of the University Anglicans and "gaysoc." There
are
also very pro-gay Christian groups such as the UU's and the MCC
(See
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_met.htm).
There are also
homophobic atheists, but I am yet to meet a homophobic
ex-Christian.
<< My doubts have always been there.
>>
Although plenty of ex-Christians (and present Christians) have
always had
some doubts from my encounters and reading, some go through a
"complete
certainty" period. I think though that some doubt is common,
although
there are plenty of cult-like thought stopping techniques that
Christians
seem to use. As for doubts being common, even the well-known
Internet
apologist Glenn Miller has written on his website in reference to
what it
is like for a Christian to do battle with "skeptics," at
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/advice.html
"No
matter how much you 'know your stuff' or how long you have walked with
Him or
how many questions of your own He has answered, your spirit will be
troubled.
No matter how many prayers have been answered (beyond the range
of
statistical probability) or how much character transformation you
have
personally experienced (beyond the range of self-help methodologies)
or
how many sceptics you have seen come to trust in this Living Lord,
your
spirit will be troubled. "
I think that if their "spirit will
be troubled" then that must mean that
they are put into doubt. Even the likes
of Glen Miller. Whereas one of the
things that surprised me in debating
Christians is just how easy it is,
which makes me think I'm onto something!
All it takes is the ability to
think carefully and to know how to research.
It can take a lot of time
though!
<<... cannot reconcile a
God of love with the biblical God, whom we
are to told to believe, forgives
*all*sin (including the rape and murder
of a child?) except the sin of
unbelief, for which we will fry eternally.
Isn't it odd that the rest of the
believers appear to see no such
absurdity? >>
Well said!
It seems absurd to me that Christians claim they have "good
news" whereas it
transpires that they have brought instead some really
bad news - torture
forever just for not believing something that is so
absurd.
<<
There is no bible study for asking awkward questions. >>
I see that
over and again in deconversion stories - how Christians turn on
those who
start asking awkward questions at church etc. Dr. Garrett
claimed that there
are answers, but failed miserably when I pressed him
for them.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/garrett/1.html.
Another
good one is James Buckner's correspondence at
http://home.att.net/~j-buckner/essays.html
<<
I wonder how many religious leaders get to the top and realise that
their
doubts are greater than their faith but feel they must continue
because their
livelihood and social standing depend on it? >>
I asked the
principal of a theological college (who I knew had read a
little Cupitt and
had a large library) how he copes with the thoughts of
Cupitt, Russell,
Paine, Nietzsche etc. He told me that he has to remember
his position as a
priest and leader of a theological college, and there
are some things that he
just can't read. Earlier he had told me that his
main reason for being a
Christian is because he believes in
authenticity...
Basically many
elder churchmen do just leave the church altogether,
whereas some others make
their views plain but desire to continue in some
related, but secular,
manner. e.g. as a parish priest as a humanist
Christian (like Anthony Freeman
- but he was sacked by the church for
this) or theologian Gerd Lüdemann who
went so far as to say he renounced
Christianity, but still wished to lecture
in NT history etc. (his
university tried unsuccessfully to sack him) or
Michael Goulder who left
the priesthood but continued his university duties,
reporting that many of
the students who go through his courses are no longer
Christians by the
end, such is the inevitability of unfettered
research.
Also the literalness of the beliefs of clergy is usually much
less than
their congregation - from http://www.religioustolerance.org/resur_lt.htm
"The
beliefs of mainline Christian clergy and academics tend to be
between those
of the liberals and conservatives. A survey of mostly
mainline Protestant
clergy shows that many doubt Jesus' physical
resurrection. Percentage of
doubters are:
American Lutherans: 13%
Presbyterians: 30%
American
Baptist: 33%
Episcopalians: 35%
Methodists: 51%
There is a massive gap
between the beliefs of the clergy and laity in
mainline and liberal churches.
A recent survey of randomly selected
Christians revealed that 96% believe the
resurrection to have been an
historical event."
<< The
Christian church is a clever mix of psychological tactics. Having
got
you in, with a promise of 'free' salvation, they keep you there
with
psychological blackmail. To doubt is an unforgivable sin.
Where else
will you go? Who else "loves you as you are but loves you
too much to
leave you like that"? >>
Its also classic
abuser-abused relationship psychology Christians have
with their god.
See
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/mcfall/1.html
and
http://www.losingmyreligion.com/articlesf/abuse.html
<<
who do I thank for a beautiful day? I asked my Buddhist friend and
he
seemed bemused that I should consider thanking anybody.
>>
Yes, G.K. Chesterton wrote that "the worst moment for an atheist
is when
they are full of thankfulness with no one to thank."
It is
Christian propaganda I'm afraid. If you had never been a Christian
who
expects to react to the world in that way then you would be unlikely
to be
feeling this. In her accounts of mystical experiences, Marghanita
Laski http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/mybooks.html#laski
showed
that non-believers were quite capable of having spiritual and
beautiful
experiences without the need for finding a god to thank. I agree
with your
Buddhist friend, and I think that other non-theists who have not
been brought
up with a theistic background would also be bemused
that they were meant to
feel thankfulness to a deity. Interestingly
Buddhists describe belief in a
deity, not so much as "false" but as
"unskilful" as it can actually harm
one's spiritual life, wrapping you up
in concern over your own soul and
salvation. Buddhism strikes me
as much more mentally
healthy.
Conversely Christians usually expect you not to blame their god
for the
terrors of the world. Somehow Auschwitz was for a higher purpose. If
so,
then maybe a beautiful sunset is Satan up to some devious trick too
evil
for us to fathom.
I do not blame the Norse god Thor for making a
racket with thunder and
lightning whilst I'm trying to sleep. Neither can I
bring myself to thank
Bacchus for the gift of wine. Without any reason for
believing in
existence of the Christian god or any other, I can no more blame
him for
wicked biblical passages and Auschwitz than I can blame evil elves
for
making my computer crash. I save my computer wrath for Bill Gates, and
my
annoyance at Christianity for dishonest Christians.
As for
beautiful moments, for me they became even more unbearably
beautiful and
gratuitous when I no longer felt there was a giver. All this
stuff - for
free!
Best wishes,
Steve
----------------
Leaving
Christianity: www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html
|