----- Original Message -----
Sent: 22 June 2000 22:27
Subject: Let's keep going then...
Dear Anthony,
I am happy to continue with any points that
you wish to discuss.
<< I never criticised you for your unbelief
and would not do so. >>
That is good and tolerant, but is there any
chance God criticises me, and if
so, would you approve of Him since you
yourself don't criticise me? Wouldn't
you then be tacitly criticising me
because you would have to approve of
God's criticism of my unbelief?
Criticism is putting it rather mildly, God
might send me to hell, (Mark 16:16
" ... but he that believeth not shall be
damned." [Jesus]). You would have to
approve of this to the depths of your
being to make heaven tolerable for
yourself.
You wrote earlier:
<< But it is also possible that you
do understand the faith and simply
dislike it - including particular passages
from scripture. That would be
your choice and responsibility.
>>
I see a big problem with this. As mentioned before, it is hardly
likely that
there are many Christians who "choose" to disbelieve in
Christianity. It is
such a common misperception that people "choose" to
disbelieve, that it
obviously requires more discussion.
"Choosing" to
disbelieve is not what is happening according to my research.
If a person
really thinks the evidence points to something being true or not
then their
belief is not a choice, it is a natural and unavoidable state of
mind. I
cannot help but believe that I am typing at the moment, there is no
choice in
this belief. I also do not believe the world is flat, not through
choice or
stubbornness, but by being convinced by the arguments
and
evidence.
However, if people attempt to choose belief then they
are forcing themselves
to believe something that they are to some extent
dubious about and which
may not even fit easily with their perceptions of the
world. This is not
honest and, if a very encompassing belief, is likely to
result in
psychological tension. It may partly explain why so many
ex-Christians
report a much improved mental health after leaving Christianity
following
the initial shock stages of deconversion.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/quotes.html
Personally,
I did not choose to disbelieve in Christianity any more than I
choose not to
believe there is an invisible pink unicorn floating in the air
in front of
me. I am simply no longer that credulous, and cannot force
myself to believe
in Christianity when research and reflection has lead me
to the conclusion
that Christian claims are not true. Neither do I find it
virtuous or
responsible to make oneself believe things, even if it were
psychologically
possible to believe something you don't believe!
So no, I have no
responsibility for what I happen to believe. Honest belief
is something that
happens to a person based largely on the knowledge and
understanding they
have and how they perceive the world. I neither choose to
disbelieve in
Christianity nor am I responsible for the beliefs that happen
to me. On the
other hand, if others make themselves believe things, and
think that
believing things is a virtue, then maybe those people are
choosing and are
responsible for dishonesty.
The responsibility issue lies in
investigating ones beliefs. One can choose
to investigate but cannot
honestly, or morally, "choose" what to believe.
I wrote:
>...
divine commands of rape, dismemberment of pregnant women ...
You
replied:
<< Where are the first two given divine *approval*?
>>
"Approval" is your word, but according to the bible there are
divine
commands in the verses I gave previously. Commands (even if not
"approved")
are bad enough, but how a god does not approve of his own
commands requires
some explaining!
Regarding the first
two:
Rape:
Numbers 31:17-18 "Now kill all the boys. And kill every
woman who has slept
with a man, but save for yourself every girl who has
never slept with a
man."
"Save (virgins) for yourself" hardly means
something merciful to these
warriors who have just been killing boys
etc.
Dismemberment of pregnant women:
Hosea 13:16 "The people of
Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have
rebelled against their God.
They will fall by the sword; their little ones
will be dashed to the ground,
their women with child ripped open."
Even if one horrifically granted
that "rebelling against God" should justly
result in a massacre, why are
foetuses to be punished? Again, would you use
the "because they rebelled
against their God" defence at a war crimes
investigation? Would you have done
this if you were one of Moses tribe? If
you thought God told you to kill
boys, sucklings, little ones and hamstring
horses, would you do it or would
you start to wonder if it really is a
"good god" giving these
commands?
I used to wonder just how awful the bible god has to be before
some
Christians would notice that something is up. My time on the
ex-Christian
mailing list taught me that some Christians are so deeply
wrapped up in
Christianity that nothing would have shown them how immoral
some bible
passages are. Until the perceptive ability dawns to see baby
massacre as
wrong, even for a god, then there really is no hope for
compassion. After
all, some people really do perform such deeds, and are able
to rationalise
it as just to themselves. However, the perceptive ability to
recognise how
awful this is can and does eventually fully dawn for some
people, so there
is a point in discussing it. I find it hard to believe you
would feel this
massacre was justified if you watched it happening with your
own eyes.
"the Lord says ... kill both man and woman, infant and
suckling, ox and
sheep, camel and ass" (1 Samuel 15:3) etc.
Under what
circumstances is a divine command to do this good? Do you believe
2 Timothy
3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable
for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness"?
Do you believe that the bible really is "God's word"? If so,
why and how do
you believe the bible God is good in the face of such
passages?
How
are divine commands to kill sucklings etc. good for instruction
in
righteousness? Imagine I was a doubting Christian asking such a question
to
my church elders. As I said, some people have left for precisely
this
reason.
<Begin Quote - from the ex-Christian
archives>
On the other hand, my friend's grandmother had been a Christian
for over
65 years, and we converted her in one evening. A record to be
sure,
but it was so easy because she valued her own judgement over
the
comforts of the Christian religion. With her, it all started when
Troy
(my friend, her grandson) mentioned something about God ordering
the
death of babies. She said "there ain't no such thing like that in the
bible."
We showed her, and she was shocked. To her, morality is
more important than
faith, and after 65 years of Christianity, she
said "Why I had no idea, I
can't believe I have been worshipping this
shit all my life." [....] The
quote was 1 Samuel 15:2-3
<End Quote> http://rabendary.tesp.com/ex-tian/ex-tian.htm
To
further illustrate the extent of the lack of moral insight of the bible,
in
Deuteronomy 22:20 etc. we are told that if a man marries a woman,
and she
isn't a virgin, she is to be stoned to death. (Note no stoning for
non-virgin
husbands). In the same chapter, we are told that if a man
rapes a married
woman, he is to be stoned. However, if he rapes an
unmarried woman, he
has to marry her and pay her father 50 pieces
of silver. So, in the first of
these last two cases he isn't stoned for
violently violating a woman, it is
because he dishonoured his fellow
male (i.e. the punishment is a function of
her marital status!) If a woman
is not married and is raped, the man's
punishment is that he has to then
marry (and hence presumably provide for)
the woman he raped. How
she feels about spending the rest of her life with
her rapist is not even
considered!
Is God really able to do anything
at all and still be thought good by a
Christian? If so what meaning is there
to "good" for Christians? If I
suggested that maybe the universe was created
by a malevolent being
who set about to confuse his creation and engineered a
horrific system
(easy to miraculously anaesthetise himself on a cross)
whereby millions
would be tortured for ever whilst the others praised Him for
eternity for
His divine justice and love, how could one distinguish this
wicked being
from the Christian god? What a power trip for such a
being! Does
"anything go" for the Christian god and is he beyond
reproach or criticism?
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1996/2/2front96.html
<<
I accept I have not satisfied you - I'm saying I have done my best,
something
I alone can judge competently. >>
You put me at ease by explaining
you choose to write back to me, and while
you continue writing, you obviously
think you do have more to say. One is
sometimes not the best judge of ones
own abilities, hence peer review,
teaching etc. Rather than merely accept
your low judgement of yourself, I
would like to test it by my asking more
questions and probing further and
see if you have anything to say. But there
is more that makes me dubious.
I am not baiting you here, rather it is a
serious question which may show
that Christianity is more uncertain to
Christians than they admit. Have you
really nothing to say about why you have
not given away all your money to
the poor (Luke 18:22, surely you must have a
reason), why "The Lord said to
Joshua [...] 'you are to hamstring their
horses.' " (Joshua 11:6), why "the
Lord says ... kill both man and woman,
infant and suckling, ox and sheep,
camel and ass" (1 Samuel 15:3)
etc.?
There is so much I have asked that is very basic. I find it very
hard to
believe that an intelligent person does not have an opinion on
this.
I quoted:
>1 Peter 3:15 "... be ready always to give an
answer to every man that
>asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you
with meekness and fear:"
You replied:
<< In context this clearly
means: be ready to give in humility an exposition
of the faith. That is not
the same thing as debating whether it is true or
not. I take my cue from
scripture itself, which never debates whether God
exists but rather speaks of
God. >>
Well, I initially enquired why you became a Christian and
you refused to
explain, which is your right (I am not condoning scripture). I
know what
your "hope" is, I wish to know the "reason" for it though. To
explain why
you have such "hope" is surely more accurate than interpreting
this passage
to mean "an exposition of the faith." To merely state what
Christianity is
claimed to be does not explain why somebody believes it to be
true or why
anyone else should believe it. A mere "exposition of the faith"
turns
Christian exegesis into a school R.E. lesson.
You previously
advised me that doubters should take their questions to
elders, whereas now
you are saying that Christians should only expound the
faith (which is hardly
answering my questions or assuaging doubts). It is
again very easy to find
Christians who disagree with you over this.
Glenn Miller, of the famous
"Christian Thinktank" at
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/
, heads his site with 1 Thessalonians
5:21 "Critically examine everything:
hold on to the good." Miller certainly
thinks that every question should be
tackled and has a wide Christian
readership and admiration. He has engaged in
lengthy learned debates with
critics and does not shy away from
"gut-wrenching questions," as he calls
them. I wrote to him last February
about the asymmetry of conversion and he
is planning a response.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/glennmiller.html
There
are plenty of other examples like this if you want me to list some
of
them.
Scripture does seek to persuade that God exists rather than
merely assume
the Christian god's existence. Paul says in Romans 1:20 "For
the invisible
things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen,
being
understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and
Godhead
so that they are without excuse." That sounds like he is trying to
use the
argument from design, or possibly the cosmological argument or the
argument
from religious experience (he is not very clear), to persuade that
doubters
have no reason for disbelieving in God's existence. Paul also goes
to some
length to persuade people of evidences for the resurrection in
other
passages. At various points he criticises people's behaviours and
attempts
to persuade them to act differently etc. We are not party to the
other side
of the conversation, but for Paul to argue against beliefs and
practises of
others sounds pretty much like "debate" even if not
formal.
There is also the story of Baal versus God lighting a fire (1
Kings 18:19
etc.). That sounds like a vigorous demonstration of who exists
and who does
not, rather than a mere assumption or just "speaking of
God."
<< I doubt we would ever "get to the bottom", or even reduce
it to a
comprehensive set of yes/no propositions on which we take opposite
sides. >>
Perhaps "get to the bottom" was an over optimistic phrase
of mine. At
another point I said, "I merely wish to investigate, to seek, and
to get as
deep into the big questions as possible" which is more
realistic.
Nevertheless it certainly is possible to get very far indeed as I
have
already pointed out. I have many examples of very intelligent Christians
who
debated and discussed at length and found that the argument certainly
did
not go round and round. e.g.
http://www.infidels.org/electronic/email/ex-tian/Ed_Babinski.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/beyond_born_again/intro.html
I
do not know what << even reduce it to a comprehensive set of
yes/no
propositions on which we take opposite sides >> means exactly
but it sounds
rather sterile and not the all-encompassing search that I am
after. Even a
little reflection and new insight (on both sides) would be
good.
You say << an argument not settled in over 2000 years was
unlikely to be
settled in the timescale of my reading. >> However, as I
have discussed, the
argument very often is settled. Arguments are accepted or
not by
individuals, institutions notoriously hang on for longer but even
they
change their positions. Even modern fundamentalists are a long way
from
Martin Luther's view of the world, and as for the C of
E....
There are still communist parties around the world, generations
after Marx
and Engels; does this mean that there is no point arguing over
whether
communism is the way to live? Even more pertinent for yourself,
the
argument over creationism is still not settled for many even
since
Darwin, but you still think it an argument worth
discussing.
Concluding that Christianity is false (or true) and even
changing ones
opinion generally takes some years, rather than "over 2000."
The argument
is far from pointless and is often settled in the time-scale of
people's
reading. Ironically it is a lack of reading of critical material
that often
seems to keep Christianity going - that's the asymmetry of
conversion!
<< I have thought about them, but I find that beyond a
certain point the
debate just goes round and round and meanwhile life must go
on. >>
Possibly for your personal past experience, although I
wonder if you are
doing yourself an injustice. However, often and for many
people these
discussions are more decisive. Whilst you reply to me then it
looks like the
debate is not going around and around, it looks rather that
you have more to
say and I have more to reply to. I am quite happy to put
your statement to
the test and see how far we get, which as far as I am
concerned is something
of an experiment.
Something convinced you to
become a Christian. Even if this was a religious
experience you will have
believed this to be veridical enough to have faith
in, rather than it being
some idle thought. To be persuaded by something is
a form of
argument.
If Christianity is false in its divine claims, and truth lies
outside of it,
would you want to be a Christian? For my part, if Christianity
(or another
religion) is true then I would want to follow that true path.
Before anyone
asks me to make the "sinners prayer" remember that I, and
others, have
spent a lot of time doing such things in our pasts and that
until we have
any reason to suspect that Christianity is the true religion we
also have
to pray to all the other gods we don't believe in. Even if I work
through
all the possible gods and religions alphabetically, (Aeolus, Aether,
Aethon,
Aglaia, Allah, Amphitrite, Ananke, Anteros, Apatis, Apeliotes,
Aphrodite,
Apollo, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Astraea, Astraeus, Ate, Athena,
Atlas,
Atropos, Aura, Baal, Bacchus, Bia, Boreas, Caliope, Carpo, Chaos,
Charis,
Charites, Charon, Chloris etc. etc. ) it may still be a while
before
reaching the Christian bible god. I don't think Christianity would be
of
special interest to me if it wasn't in my culture and personal
past.
A great deal of what I ask goes unanswered in your replies. I have
little
doubt that you have more native intelligence than I and can think
these
questions through. You previously told me that those with questions
should
take them to their elders. If these elders refuse to or cannot
answer
difficult questions then since it has been legal to air such questions
for a
while now (unlike most of Christian history), this could be another
reason
why Christianity may continue its decline. Indeed it is laughable, if
not so
tragic, that you state that the truth of Christianity is an argument
not
settled in 2000 years. The "truth of Christianity" has largely
been
maintained by powerful churches and religious states with
ruthless
persecution and murder of heretics. There were people trying to
discuss it,
but freedom of thought is a relatively new phenomenon. Death for
heretics
and atheists is rare now, persecution is more psychological and
religious
people save their killing for other religious people. It was once
seriously
debated whether there even is such a thing as an atheist, but now
there are
many millions and we are pretty obvious. The Arch-Bishop of
Canterbury
recently stated that he thought Christianity could be a dead
religion in the
UK within a generation (though, I doubt that) and a recent
large BBC poll
once again found a dramatic decline in religious belief over a
few years.
<< Those Christians who do not hold the same view as me
do not generally
interpret the relevant scriptures differently; they mostly
just ignore them.
>>
I think that might be a contentious claim
amongst Christians, but I'll leave
it for the meantime, because by your
own admission you cannot now ignore
scriptural passages:-
1) 1
Thessalonians 5:21
2) How do you reconcile a scriptural approach to the
bible and a belief in a
good god with divine commands to kill babies and
animals etc? (e.g. 1 Samuel
15:3)
3) Why do you not obey Luke
18:22?
You said earlier:
<< all of the arguments I have
encountered I have pondered on. >>
So what are your thoughts as you
ponder these questions?
<< A Christian is someone who believes that
Jesus is who the bible says he
is and accepts his authority. Such people are
still free to ignore what
Jesus says but it is inconsistent to say the least,
and to them I would add
that it is dangerous and foolish. >>
The
problem is different interpretations of so-called "clear" bible
passages.
There are many different interpretations of "who Jesus says
he is" and much
else besides. Hence the different Christian sects and
denominations, heretics
and inquisitions etc. and even unbelievers.
Those Christians you disagree
with, you may claim are unscriptural.
They will also claim you don't
understand. Remember not to call anyone
"foolish" though.
"But anyone
who says 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."
(Jesus) Mat
5:22
See http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/babble.html#fool
I
wrote:
>It worries me to hear you say:
><< For a Christian to
apologise for his faith is misguided, and also
>dangerous, for Jesus gave
a warning to believers who act ashamed of him. >>
>
>Are you
afraid of what might happen to you, what Jesus might do to you or
>not
give you if you ask questions?
You replied:
<< ???? He warned
about apologising for him, not about asking questions. >>
It still
looks to me that some Christians are worried Jesus is going to hurt
them if
they do something he disapproves of. You said << to ignore what
Jesus
says ... is dangerous >> So what are you afraid of if you ignore
"what
Jesus says" ?
Could you explain what you mean here by
"apologising?" I have asked some
very basic questions that you have not
answered. This does not necessarily
need to involve any "apologising." The
general term for defending Christian
dogma is "apologetics," I trust this
isn't causing confusion, which you have
already engaged in.
Sorry for
another massive email. If you want to respond, why not put me on a
"slow
burner?" I have other low frequency correspondents like this with whom
I have
interesting conversations. It also avoids eating too much into each
others
time and gives more thinking
space.
Regards,
Steve
----------------
Leaving Christianity:
www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html
|