What's your beef with Christianity?

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

The conditions of the bible are that you love God and your neighbor. If you do that, you believe in Jesus. If you don't do that, you are already in hell and no one sent you there.

I keep this real simple because I can get real "heady" at times.

Oversimplified. It is possible to love God and love one's neighbor without believing in Jesus. Someone is sending you there, because one certainly doesn't go their of their own accord.

[Mato Kinze]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

God is Love. And when love is a verb, it is Christ. What does it mean to have faith in God? To me, it means making love the priority over how much money I have or how right I might be. Maybe it's flimsy reasoning, but when my daughter hugs me, I know why it is the foundation of my life.

Merc, I get that for YOU Love is Jesus and vice versa. This is not the case for all. Much of what's being debated here seems to be the literal versus the interpretational or alagorical meanings behind the dogma associated with the Christian Bible.

I don't know too many rational people who will argue that Jesus of Nazareth (or Jesus the Nazarene - two different things) existed as a historical figure. I also don't think there's too many here that disagree that the message Jesus preached (so far as we can tell more than 2,000 years after his death) based on writings that have survived were those of love and compassion. Show me someone who thinks that Love and Compassion are "wrong" emotions or "bad" and I'll show you someone who's not in touch with ANYTHING spiritual.

That being said, the original question was not, "What's your beef with Jesus?" It was "What's your beef with Christianity?" I'll take that to mean what the "religion" of Christianity has been made to be by hundreds of generations of Human Beings attaching their own personal interpretations of what Jesus MEANT by his message as well as those who seem to think that they somehow "know" they're right.

[SmartAlx]

Actually Mato,

It seems to be an argument partially about what the definition of Christianity means to each of us. This is a good point.

I think the argument is that many people believe that Christianity is judgment, dogma, rules and rituals.

Those of us who have studied the Bible with an open mind though say that real Christianity is about a personal relationship between each of us and God, as well as a book on how we should be treating one another, and if the world were open to this belief, more people would be willing to study the Bible as a book of wisdom, or an instructional manual.

So, there we have the argument. We Christians are trying to open the world mind, not necessarily with the immediate intent of converting everyone, but moreso with the intent of repairing the damage done by bad examples of Christians.

[pianoperformer]

Oh, I don't think anyone can argue that the morals taught in the Bible are good to follow. However, I would argue that they are mostly universal. I've not met anyone who thinks that stealing is good, for example. Nor do I think most people, regardless of their religion, believe that it is preferable to treat other people poorly.

However, I disagree about the motive. if I say that I have a good relationship with God, and that I also treat other people well, or at least am working on doing so better, I don't think you would be satisfied. You would invariably say something to the effect of, "No you don't have a relationship with god because you don't accept Jesus as your savior," and then we are back to the start, because your definition of having a relationship with God is different from mine, and you cannot prove to me that mine is wrong without using the Bible, and I do not believe that the Bible is correct in such matters, just like I would not accept the Koran as inspired.

You use an interesting word though. "Not with the immediate intent...." But it is definitely an intent. This cannot be denied because the Bible itself promotes such practice.

Also one cannot say that one has a closed mind, if one has already opened one's mind to the Bible, and found it lacking, therefore moving onto other things. I study many beliefs. If I find that the belief fits me well, or that it makes sense, then I adopt it. I gave Christianity such a chance, indeed gave it three chances, and have found it lacking each time. Therefore, I don't have a closed mind, I have just moved on. this is in response to you saying you are trying to open the world mind.

[torilink]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Actually Mato,

It seems to be an argument partially about what the definition of Christianity means to each of us. This is a good point.

I think the argument is that many people believe that Christianity is judgment, dogma, rules and rituals.

Those of us who have studied the Bible with an open mind though say that real Christianity is about a personal relationship between each of us and God, as well as a book on how we should be treating one another, and if the world were open to this belief, more people would be willing to study the Bible as a book of wisdom, or an instructional manual.

So, there we have the argument. We Christians are trying to open the world mind, not necessarily with the immediate intent of converting everyone, but moreso with the intent of repairing the damage done by bad examples of Christians.

well, Christianity THE CHURCH will want to quantify "relationship with God", what it really is saying is a "relationship with God as we define God".

and as for treating one another in any way, it is according to what??? there are many cases of those "Beloved of God" not treating others well. I'm thinking of a King who killed tens of thousands and arranged for the husband of the woman he lusted after to be killed.... so, really I don't think it is that clear cut and always is determined by "The Church" which isn't God.

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by Mato Kinze

That being said, the original question was not, "What's your beef with Jesus?" It was "What's your beef with Christianity?" I'll take that to mean what the "religion" of Christianity has been made to be by hundreds of generations of Human Beings attaching their own personal interpretations of what Jesus MEANT by his message as well as those who seem to think that they somehow "know" they're right.

I understand what you are saying and I think I have been a bit of a Pollyanna about the whole deal. I felt that I had created this monster of a thread that I hadn't intended to create. My question was wrong.

Let me point out exactly what initiated me to start this. It was this comment from Shnu in the "philosophy is a joke" thread:

While I respect many Christians, I regard the idea of a heaven, where all is good, and all questions are answered, as a childish fantasy. Epicurus had a grown up view of humanity's place in the world: the gods do not obsess over weighing up our every action and devising rewards and punishments for them.

God will not answer your questions if you make no effort to. And he might not help even if you try.

To me, a comment like this has nothing to do with theology or the underlying meaning of Christ's teachings. It's just plain insulting. This person is really saying, "I act like I respect Christians, but really I think they're all mental infants."

This gives no credence to the thousands of human beings who have done more than wax philosophic about the Bible or to the individual he's talking to.

And for all the discussion about Christians being judgmental and dogmatic, what was 12345's response to this statement?

Likewise, while I respect non-Christians, these two bible verses actually affirm that we *must* have the faith of a child to enter heaven.

Mark 10:15 (King James Version)
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

Luke 18:17 (King James Version)
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

God bless you, shnu.

I could give you other examples from this thread itself.

For me, no matter what another person believes, I respect that person enough to not insult them. But when it comes to Christianity, it seems this level of respect goes out the window.

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Oh, I don't think anyone can argue that the morals taught in the Bible are good to follow. However, I would argue that they are mostly universal. I've not met anyone who thinks that stealing is good, for example. Nor do I think most people, regardless of their religion, believe that it is preferable to treat other people poorly.

However, I disagree about the motive. if I say that I have a good relationship with God, and that I also treat other people well, or at least am working on doing so better, I don't think you would be satisfied.

Is it up to him? Is he judging you? Or is he telling you what he believes and giving you an offer? So you don't take the offer. That's your choice. His mission is to be available when someone does want to take that offer... he doesn't have anything to do with whether someone accepts it or not. That's between that person and God.

You would invariably say something to the effect of, "No you don't have a relationship with god because you don't accept Jesus as your savior," and then we are back to the start, because your definition of having a relationship with God is different from mine, and you cannot prove to me that mine is wrong without using the Bible, and I do not believe that the Bible is correct in such matters, just like I would not accept the Koran as inspired.

What is your definition of having a relationship with God? I'm not asking so that I can argue with you about it, but because I would like to know.

You use an interesting word though. "Not with the immediate intent...." But it is definitely an intent. This cannot be denied because the Bible itself promotes such practice.

Also one cannot say that one has a closed mind, if one has already opened one's mind to the Bible, and found it lacking, therefore moving onto other things. I study many beliefs. If I find that the belief fits me well, or that it makes sense, then I adopt it. I gave Christianity such a chance, indeed gave it three chances, and have found it lacking each time. Therefore, I don't have a closed mind, I have just moved on. this is in response to you saying you are trying to open the world mind.

Actually, this isn't the way people are converted. It's not a philosophic debate. More like a surrender. And no one can force you to do that. In reality, no one is. It's something you have to want and it has to come from your experience, not what you read in a book.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

Is it up to him? Is he judging you? Or is he telling you what he believes and giving you an offer? So you don't take the offer. That's your choice. His mission is to be available when someone does want to take that offer... he doesn't have anything to do with whether someone accepts it or not. That's between that person and God.

Very true. But sadly, very many Christians are a little over-zealous in their attempt at conversion.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

What is your definition of having a relationship with God? I'm not asking so that I can argue with you about it, but because I would like to know.

My view of God is rather impersonal as compared to that of Christianity, I suppose relationship might not be the right word. My goal then is to find my purpose and fulfill it, while trying to serve others. Also it is to try to spread more love and joy rather than negativity. Doing so, I feel it brings me closer to I guess what one could call source. I do believe that duality is illusory, but fear, guilt, anger, etc, only serve to perpetuate that separateness.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

Actually, this isn't the way people are converted. It's not a philosophic debate. More like a surrender. And no one can force you to do that. In reality, no one is. It's something you have to want and it has to come from your experience, not what you read in a book.

I see your point but also disagree. My beliefs must make sense to me, or else I can't honestly say I believe them. Sure, nothing can be proved 100%, but if something in my soul says it just doesn't feel right or make sense, then I can't accept it. After that, i can work on installing that belief so to speak, and then experience can ensue.

[fwellers]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Actually Mato,

It seems to be an argument partially about what the definition of Christianity means to each of us. This is a good point.

I think the argument is that many people believe that Christianity is judgment, dogma, rules and rituals.

Those of us who have studied the Bible with an open mind though say that real Christianity is about a personal relationship between each of us and God, as well as a book on how we should be treating one another, and if the world were open to this belief, more people would be willing to study the Bible as a book of wisdom, or an instructional manual.

So, there we have the argument. We Christians are trying to open the world mind, not necessarily with the immediate intent of converting everyone, but moreso with the intent of repairing the damage done by bad examples of Christians.

I personally have no issues with Jesus being the Saviour, and people coming to "heaven" ( which I also interpret is full spiritual realization ) through him. If the bible is taken as a spiritual message, seeing past the outer, into the inner, then it makes sense in a lot of areas.
However, I also believe people can get to full spiritual realization through Buddha, or Krishna, or Allah. They can get there through Taoism, Paganism etc... Heck, nobody needs a "religion" to grow all the way up.
I am coming to an understanding that, since in many ways our reality is an illusion anyway, there is more than one "truth" from the level of human understanding.

That's the thing about Christianity ( also other religions ) though. They make zero room for any other beliefs. Christ is the ONLY way.

Here's a statement that 99+% of christians will outright reject until the cows come home.

If the christian bible never existed, there would still be "heaven" and everyone would still get there eventually.

[Ree]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Actually Mato,


So, there we have the argument. We Christians are trying to open the world mind, not necessarily with the immediate intent of converting everyone, but moreso with the intent of repairing the damage done by bad examples of Christians.

And therein lies my main beef with Christianity: This strange need y'all have to spread Christianity to every corner of the earth. Y'all seem to have a burning need to affect others and the way they feel about Jesus and Christianity and Christians, to the point that you alienate most normal people.

There may have been a definite need for the spreading of the word 2000 years ago when Jesus walked on this planet, but I think the word is pretty much out there these days.

The world doesn't really need anything from Christianity. Perhaps if you truly spread around some of the Christian love you brag about all the time. Unfortunately from what I've seen it,s mostly lip service. Deep down inside, if you will be completely honest I think you'll admit that you dislike those of us who don't believe as you do and that's why you want to convert us.

[fwellers]

Yup. Jesus said to be ready to explain the light within you.
So that means to me, that you should just live your truth, and if your love shines through enough for someone to ask about it, then you tell them your truth. Otherwise, just go about your life, without trying to convert.
You only can convert through action. Not through the normal means christianity has used.

Jesus also said to pray in your closet. In other words, keep your spiritual practice to yourself, don't go out in the world and make a big deal about it, and try to flaunt it, sell it, or otherwise make the world bend to it.

There is plenty about christianity that doesn't jive at all with what Jesus supposedly said. ( and I say supposedly, because all we really have is the flawed translations of what others said he said ) .

[SonoranBob]

I don't know if I would paint the whole of Christianity that way, that might be a little presumptuous. It is certainly a valid general observation about the fundamentalist branch for sure, and often is true elsewhere.

My thought is that all religions, philosophies, and belief systems I've looked at fail to bring about a fundamental shift in the human condition. If Christianity really did anything useful for the human condition I would expect that after two millennia, we'd be long since living in paradise.

Look the world over and you will look in vain for any creed that has a broad spectrum of humanity lining up in the street to get some of what they got. When I see that happening on a sustainable basis and within weeks or months I see vast changes for the better as a result -- when I see people experiencing joyful ease while still in possession of their God-given brains and their wallets -- then I will sit up and take notice.

Until then I take everything with a very big grain of salt. I mean, it is inherently impossible for us, as parts of a much greater whole, to adequately comprehend the whole. It is impossible to be both a participant in life, and be an objective observer of it. It is impossible to obtain accurate, reliable information, especially of general applicability, when the information itself will impact your perceptions and your actions will change reality on the fly.

This is why we work with metaphors, similes, rules of thumb, and other mental shortcuts. We don't have the equipment to see the entire picture and we don't have the brains to deal with it properly if we did.

Hence, all religions can only very roughly approximate reality -- on a good day. Maybe.

Some new age and neo-Buddhist types speak now of a coming world-changing fundamental shift in consciousness, implying that we are evolving better spiritual, mental and emotional equipment to take in more of reality and deal with it better. Whether this is yet another illusion of false hope to keep people interested or if it actually happens remains to be seen.

In the meantime I stick with those things that cause a shift in MY world and make IT a better place and I gauge the strength and reality of such shifts based on how the lives of those I have contact with are enriched (or not).

--Bob

Originally Posted by Ree

The world doesn't really need anything from Christianity. Perhaps if you truly spread around some of the Christian love you brag about all the time. Unfortunately from what I've seen it,s mostly lip service. Deep down inside, if you will be completely honest I think you'll admit that you dislike those of us who don't believe as you do and that's why you want to convert us.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by fwellers

Here's a statement that 99+% of christians will outright reject until the cows come home.

If the christian bible never existed, there would still be "heaven" and everyone would still get there eventually.

The problem isn't the first part about heaven existing. We know that period of time in which the world has had a bible is shorter than the period of time in which there was no Bible. There were scriptural teachings, but as an example, before Solomon, the books that he wrote didn't exist, right? We know that.

Anyway, the problem is the socond part, which I highlighted.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by Ree

And therein lies my main beef with Christianity: This strange need y'all have to spread Christianity to every corner of the earth.

Didn't you read what I said? not necessarily with the immediate intent of converting everyone

Y'all seem to have a burning need to affect others and the way they feel about Jesus and Christianity and Christians, to the point that you alienate most normal people.

and read this...
but moreso with the intent of repairing the damage done by bad examples of Christians

The world doesn't really need anything from Christianity. Perhaps if you truly spread around some of the Christian love you brag about all the time.

That IS what the world needs from Christianity. You are contradicting yourself.

Unfortunately from what I've seen it,s mostly lip service.

You are only paying attention to the bad examples.

Deep down inside, if you will be completely honest I think you'll admit that you dislike those of us who don't believe as you do and that's why you want to convert us.

Absolutely NOT! I love everyone! And I feel for people who are not on the right path with God. My abilities aren't evangelical so I put the non-believers in God's hands. I pray for them.

[SonoranBob]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Absolutely NOT! I love everyone! And I feel for people who are not on the right path with God. My abilities aren't evangelical so I put the non-believers in God's hands. I pray for them.

Isn't dividing the world into a duality of believers and non-believers inherently sanctimonious and elevating you onto a superior plane? Yes, yes, I know, you'll protest that it's not -- when I occupied your shoes I couldn't see it either. But I've come to believe that.

I think it's better to pity the poor ignorant unbelievers and pray for their wretched souls than it is to torture and burn them at the stake, but it still seems to me that your condescending pity for those less wise than you contains the seeds of those greater evils. And this is what makes people react negatively to evangelical approaches.

The French provide an extreme viewpoint that illustrates the problem. They consider religion a very private matter. They tend to be aghast at us here in the States, that we would even discuss our personal religious views in mixed company, much less try to convert anyone. One of them told me that to the French, evangelization is as gauche as discussing your masturbation technique. Cut it out already, is their reaction.

The other aspect that people react negatively to is that the idea that there is but one way to God -- yours -- is inherently arrogant. As I posted earlier, no religion can possibly have exclusive and perfectly accurate knowledge nailed down. Those who claim to, and insist on being taken seriously as such, will always be proselytizing and even if they are lower key than Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses (or suicide bombers!) it's all cut from the same cloth and people don't like it because they don't like being condescended to and they are instinctively wary of the implications of such an attitude if it's ever allowed to be carried to its logical extreme.

--Bob

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by SonoranBob

Isn't dividing the world into a duality of believers and non-believers inherently sanctimonious and elevating you onto a superior plane? Yes, yes, I know, you'll protest that it's not -- when I occupied your shoes I couldn't see it either. But I've come to believe that.

I think it's better to pity the poor ignorant unbelievers and pray for their wretched souls than it is to torture and burn them at the stake, but it still seems to me that your condescending pity for those less wise than you contains the seeds of those greater evils. And this is what makes people react negatively to evangelical approaches.

Again, someone replies to something they don't read.

Don't put words in my mouth please. It's bad for arguments and it's awful logic. It doesn't belong in a forum like this.

You assume that when I hear that someone doesn't believe that I immediately tell them something like, "oh you poor thing. I pity you. I will do you a favor and pray for your wretched soul. You can thank me later in heaven. Meet me at the plaque that lists the thousands of souls I saved." When did I ever infer that I do anything like that?

No one feels condescended to when they learn that I am a Christian. I hope they think, "oh, of course. That's why he's so nice."

Keep your business out of my mind please. I am allowed to think whatever I want. If I am not then you are just as judgmental as you think I am.

[Ree]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

No one feels condescended to when they learn that I am a Christian. I hope they think, "oh, of course. That's why he's so nice."

Which infers that those of us who are not Christian are NOT nice??!!

[Ree]

Originally Posted by SonoranBob

Isn't dividing the world into a duality of believers and non-believers inherently sanctimonious and elevating you onto a superior plane? Yes, yes, I know, you'll protest that it's not -- when I occupied your shoes I couldn't see it either. But I've come to believe that.

I think it's better to pity the poor ignorant unbelievers and pray for their wretched souls than it is to torture and burn them at the stake, but it still seems to me that your condescending pity for those less wise than you contains the seeds of those greater evils. And this is what makes people react negatively to evangelical approaches.

The French provide an extreme viewpoint that illustrates the problem. They consider religion a very private matter. They tend to be aghast at us here in the States, that we would even discuss our personal religious views in mixed company, much less try to convert anyone. One of them told me that to the French, evangelization is as gauche as discussing your masturbation technique. Cut it out already, is their reaction.

The other aspect that people react negatively to is that the idea that there is but one way to God -- yours -- is inherently arrogant. As I posted earlier, no religion can possibly have exclusive and perfectly accurate knowledge nailed down. Those who claim to, and insist on being taken seriously as such, will always be proselytizing and even if they are lower key than Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses (or suicide bombers!) it's all cut from the same cloth and people don't like it because they don't like being condescended to and they are instinctively wary of the implications of such an attitude if it's ever allowed to be carried to its logical extreme.

--Bob

Bob, you said this beautifully. Thank you for this post

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

You assume that when I hear that someone doesn't believe that I immediately tell them something like, "oh you poor thing. I pity you. I will do you a favor and pray for your wretched soul. You can thank me later in heaven. Meet me at the plaque that lists the thousands of souls I saved." When did I ever infer that I do anything like that?

It is not that anyone thinks you say this. It is that even the act of trying to "save" others means that they are viewed as lower. To think that one has the only and absolute truth is arrogant. Is it not true that you view others, who hold different beliefs, as ignorant? That only you, the Christian, have the truth? You may say you don't actively try to convert, but you do believe that those who don't hold your precise beliefs are not going to get into heaven. It is almost elitist.

[fwellers]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

The problem isn't the first part about heaven existing. We know that period of time in which the world has had a bible is shorter than the period of time in which there was no Bible. There were scriptural teachings, but as an example, before Solomon, the books that he wrote didn't exist, right? We know that.

Anyway, the problem is the socond part, which I highlighted.

I know you have a problem with the second part. That's the bulk of my beef with christianity. It teaches christians to believe that hogwash.
according to the christianity, the bottom line is that we are all put here, deserving of hell, right from the get go. I was destined for hell the second I was born, that is, unless I do some certain think that their bible tells me to.

Sorry, but the creator(s) of the universe do not have that kind of sick mentality as to create sentient beings with the default position being hellbound.

[fwellers]

Originally Posted by SonoranBob

Isn't dividing the world into a duality of believers and non-believers inherently sanctimonious and elevating you onto a superior plane? Yes, yes, I know, you'll protest that it's not -- when I occupied your shoes I couldn't see it either. But I've come to believe that.

I think it's better to pity the poor ignorant unbelievers and pray for their wretched souls than it is to torture and burn them at the stake, but it still seems to me that your condescending pity for those less wise than you contains the seeds of those greater evils. And this is what makes people react negatively to evangelical approaches.

The French provide an extreme viewpoint that illustrates the problem. They consider religion a very private matter. They tend to be aghast at us here in the States, that we would even discuss our personal religious views in mixed company, much less try to convert anyone. One of them told me that to the French, evangelization is as gauche as discussing your masturbation technique. Cut it out already, is their reaction.

The other aspect that people react negatively to is that the idea that there is but one way to God -- yours -- is inherently arrogant. As I posted earlier, no religion can possibly have exclusive and perfectly accurate knowledge nailed down. Those who claim to, and insist on being taken seriously as such, will always be proselytizing and even if they are lower key than Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses (or suicide bombers!) it's all cut from the same cloth and people don't like it because they don't like being condescended to and they are instinctively wary of the implications of such an attitude if it's ever allowed to be carried to its logical extreme.

--Bob

excellent response Bob. You say it with eloquence. As to your previous response to me, where you said you think it's mainly only the fundametal christians that think that way, I will beg to differ. If pressed on their beliefs about hell, most protestants will take the party line.
Catholics are a little different. I don't know that much about them, but the ones I've talked to, while maintaining strict dogmatism and ritualism in many areas, seem more open to the fact that there isn't an eternal hell that is determined while we live here.
The whole purgatory thing throws a kink in it, leaving the possibility for all to be "saved" after death.

But you know I still think it's a thoughtless and childish belief system.

[SonoranBob]

SmartAlx,

No one feels condescended to when they learn that you are a Christian? I'm here to tell you that I felt condescended to when I learned it, and apparently so did some others.

I didn't put any words in your mouth. I simply said that your choice of words inherently reflect an attitude that is inescapably elitist.

From the age of not-quite-six, when I had my conversion experience, into my late twenties, when the gap between what is and what's supposed to be according to evangelical dogma began to become intolerable, I thought as you do and would have taken just as strong an exception as you just did to be called on it. But I now regard that period of my life as my "know-it-all religious a__hole period". Sorry. Not my proudest moment. And I was even more low-key and deniable about it than you. I still felt smug inside, I just couldn't see it until I had some distance from the whole evangelical scene.

Are there Christians who don't come across this way? Yes. But they are people who do not take their religion (or themselves) so seriously. My best friend is a devout Catholic but is cheerfully promiscuous about who his friends are. You don't have to be Catholic to be respected by him. He will never try to convince me that I should be a Catholic, or opine, publicly or privately, that he is praying for non-Catholics like me. He sees his religion as a framework for understanding and dealing with the world that works for him; nothing more and nothing less. He practices integrity and has honor, and he is one of the most thoughtful persons I've ever met (in both senses of that word). And guess what -- his integrity, honor, curiosity and considerate nature would do much more than anything else to make Catholicism attractive to me. If it weren't for the inquisition thing or the pedophile priest thing, I might be tempted to go to church with him ;-)

--Bob

[pianoperformer]

SonoranBob, if you dont' mind, I'm curious what encouraged your realization about christianity? That is, what prompted you to leave it.

[SonoranBob]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

SonoranBob, if you dont' mind, I'm curious what encouraged your realization about christianity? That is, what prompted you to leave it.

Hm. No one has ever asked me that one. It's a long story, so I'll try to cram it into a few paragraphs.

The super-short answer is that it did not work for me. It was a gradual thing over a period of 20 years or so. It was no single thing, and it was a gradual awakening.

Conservative evangelical Christianity did a very poor job of preparing me for the real world. It gave me totally unrealistic expectations for my life to go in a manner befitting a child of God. I believed there was a benevolent God in heaven, a God with whom I was reconciled and therefore an adopted son, which implies certain ... benefits. Protection. Wisdom. Enlightenment. The teaching of my mentors was a very formulaic and simple set of guidelines based on what I now consider the fallacy that absolute truth can be known, and in fact is laid down in the Bible. These guidelines met the complexity of Actual Life (tm) and blew up in my face. And I was too much in denial to see it.

By fitting me with strong taboos (for example, a strong taboo against divorce, and against any admission that things aren't always automatically going rosy for a Good Christian), my faith effectively trapped me in a soul-crushing and abusive relationship for the first 15 years of my adult life. A relationship I entered into despite all sorts of obvious danger signs, because love and faith conquer all, and I was after all marrying a Christian Girl. You can't go wrong with a Christian Girl, right?!

Another basic fallacy was that if you have problems in your life as a Christian, it's your fault somehow -- it can't possibly be that you need a different approach. They say the definition of madness is that when something doesn't work you keep doing it over and over again, in hopes of a different result. That was me, and I had the full support of my faith.

This thread runs through the whole belief system. As evidence I offer the words to a popular song we were taught as children (as best I can remember it): "Once my life was filled with discord -- my life was in a minor key. Then I met the Man of Calvary -- now my life's a symphony! Life is a victory since the Man of Calvary turned my discord into song -- now I'm singing all day long!"

This is the unrealistic expectation that was set for me, over and over. As a child I accepted this totally. A good Christian is happy, trouble free, and victorious -- even when he's not!

So ... my faith encouraged me to live unconsciously and arrogantly at the same time so that I spent the first 20 or so years of my adult life walking repeatedly into brick walls and the next 10 or so working very hard to shed deeply entrenched illusions and misconceptions in order to deal in something which, hopefully, more closely resembles reality.

I do not paint the whole evangelical world with the same exact brush. Everyone responds differently. I have to accept that I wanted to mindlessly accept what I was being fed and I have to take responsibility for that. Maybe others fare better. However, I had an interesting insight recently. After high school I attended a church-approved "Bible Institute". I left that campus in the mid 70's, and the school went belly up in the early 80's, but recently out of curiosity I tracked down some of my fellow alumni online and lurked on a couple of discussion forums. I was astounded. It was like walking into a time warp. As near as I can tell, no one's vision had budged one iota in over 30 years. The exact same topics and controversies and tsk-tsk mutterings about the evils of modern society. The same admonishments against "backsliding". The same struggling tiny congregations regularly torn apart by petty squabbles about what color carpeting should be laid in the sanctuary. The same drawing of identity from what you're against rather than what you're in favor of. The ghetto mentality of us, the enlightened and favored, against them, the wicked and doomed. We were always ready to be magnanimous, of course, and welcome the repentant into our fold; but aside from that we regarded them in our hearts as a particularly distasteful and possibly dangerous species of witless bottom-feeders.

The only joy in my alumni's communications with each other was the recycling of touching stories from their school days ... shared group experiences in traveling chorale groups and such. Life is pretty long to live off of stuff like that for decades and decades. I didn't detect anything in their current lives that they were happy about. They were "persevering" and "remaining steadfast" and all that other one foot in front of the other slogging using the Special Language of our faith -- but they were not glad to be alive, I can tell you. The evangelical who is advanced in years tends to be something of a martyr. For Christ, of course.

What it boils down to is it's all about maintaining an idealized fantasy world that doesn't correspond with actual life and insulates you from considering the evidence of your own experience; closing your eyes tightly and grimly trudging through that world, all the while berating yourself for your doubts and desires (all of which are evil) and your lack of actual interest in your tepid and shriveled little life.

Personally I count myself lucky to have gotten out with my sanity.

Some of you might get the impression I was part of a really fringe cult that did snake-handling or something. No, it was more like Baptists only more parochial ;-) We were just shy of being Bible-thumpers but I think you would have been uncomfortable being my next door neighbor just the same.

"Believers" who may read this will likely dismiss me as bitter. The truth is that I'm reasonably happy and hopeful and I don't spend time obsessing about the past. That train has left the station. I'm just painfully aware of how this belief system frittered away what should have been the best years of my life in various blind alleys, and I have no doubt it has done the same for many others. It was probably a mercy that I was unlucky enough in life to have some challenges that forced me to acknowledge that the "life map" I was going by was woefully inaccurate and incomplete. If I had married smarter, for instance, I might still be living a life of quiet desperation and my faith might still be working, for some given value of "working". But I think people deserve better than that, too.

--Bob

[pianoperformer]

Bob,

Beautiful post. Thank you for sharing.

I can't say much, because I agree with it all. I can attest to how difficult it can be to get out of the Christian mindset though, even when you no longer believe it is true. Guilt and fear can follow you for a while, until you realize that nothing fear-based can be good for you, nor be the truth. That's how I got out, or am getting out.

[SonoranBob]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

Bob,

Beautiful post. Thank you for sharing.

I can't say much, because I agree with it all. I can attest to how difficult it can be to get out of the Christian mindset though, even when you no longer believe it is true. Guilt and fear can follow you for a while, until you realize that nothing fear-based can be good for you, nor be the truth. That's how I got out, or am getting out.

I commend you for getting this out of the way at the tender age of 19. I distinctly remember thinking when I was 16 that my whole life was ahead of me and now all I had to do was Not Screw It Up. This was not said with anxiety; it was said with glee because I thought I knew exactly what to do. No teenage angst for me! That's for sinners! And then of course I proceeded to screw it up royally, not realizing that I had been primed to!

Best to you,

--Bob

[amixa]

i'm sure i'm repeatingwhat a bunch of people already have said but im just giving it a go:

religion is a form of trying to create stability in society. i can understand why they wanted to do this --but as we evolve things need to evolve and they haven't. its just not so simple anymore.
there's a lot of outspoken individuals who just make it a turn off, by saying and believing oppressing views towards others in society.
its also really lacked the spiritual aspect of it and just is a form of repeated empty rituals.
to guilt people into being good is horrible -- especially when its so damaging ironically its what brings people back to it, because they feel if they stop believing they'll go to hell and so they go back -- great tactic
also its form is as if once you grow up and you're no longer a child, the church acts for that absent parent.. to keep you in order.
there is a theory out there that claims that the evolution of the human mind can be reflected in the evolution of society as a whole and clearly the guilt trip and the absent parent is growing out dated. i'm not saying we don't need stability in society but the way the church does it is no longer -- or never has been the best way to deal with things.
its also sexually oppressive -- very destructive and really messed me up.. and this whole waitng for marriage thing is disasterous in a society that no longer usually marries at the ages of 14.
i believe in jung when he said sexual energy is a part of life energy and to oppress that is destructive.
catholicism really wasn't in favour of my upringing after i started learning more about it -- it ruined my spiritual connection and now i'm having such a hard time rebuilding it back to what it used to be.
a lot of its basic theories are terribly written and terribly interpreted in so many ways.. harmful ways.. it really has done enough damage to society.

[SonoranBob]

Originally Posted by amixa

i'm sure i'm repeatingwhat a bunch of people already have said but im just giving it a go:

religion is a form of trying to create stability in society. i can understand why they wanted to do this --but as we evolve things need to evolve and they haven't. its just not so simple anymore.

You are correct. For those who aren't familiar with the mindset, it is the antithesis of evolution. Digging in your heels and rejecting anything new is considered a virtue, because absolute Truth has been handed down and anything that is at variance with it has to be Evil. There is much talk of "contending for the faith that was once and for all [time] delivered to the saints", etc. There is an old revival hymn called "The Old Time Religion" that says it very well ... words to the effect that "[the old time religion] was good enough for my father, and it's good enough for me". Actually enshrining mental suicide in an inspirational song.

But I am talking about a relatively strident form of Christian fundamentalism. There are flavors of Christianity that leave room for, and even welcome, doubt, at least within some kind of range of options.

Another thing you have to realize about organized religion is that there are two kinds of people you will find there: True Believers / enthusiasts, and people who are smarter / wiser than that who are quietly using the church as a vehicle to get things done. Frequently the latter have, covertly or overtly, left the faith and returned to it after a crisis of faith. My favorite example is a Catholic priest who attended a lecture by Andre Compte-Sponville, the French athiest philosopher. The priest commented favorably on Andre's talk, and Andre commented that this surprised him, considering Andre's position on God and the afterlife. The priest waved it off dismissively, saying, "But those are such secondary questions!"

I hope I'm wiser than I once was but I just don't chose to work within that framework anymore. It's too toxic for me, and I think it harms too many people. But for all that, I can still understand and respect people of faith -- some at least.

--Bob

[pianoperformer]

Another thing you have to realize about organized religion is that there are two kinds of people you will find there: True Believers / enthusiasts, and
people who are smarter / wiser than that who are quietly using the church as a vehicle to get things done.

I would add a third type: Those who identify with that religion just because it's what their parents were, or what everyone else is, but really aren't enthusiastic at all. There are many of the follow-the-fold type in Christianity. Of course none can tell you why they believe what they believe—they just happened to be raised that way, so why question it? Or else they stay with it, just in case it's true.

Sorry, but I've come across many of such people in my life. Well, I would argue most.

To be fair, other religions have it, too, I am sure, but it seems to be on a much larger scale in Christianity.

[SonoranBob]

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

I would add a third type: Those who identify with that religion just because it's what their parents were, or what everyone else is, but really aren't enthusiastic at all.

Yes, you are right ... inertia holds a lot of them in place with varying degrees of enthusiasm. They either become ossified (and a lot of the effort of churches is consumed in keeping these people guilty and/or entertained enough to continue attending and perhaps participating to some level) or they become disillusioned. Disillusionment is better, because it leads to an honest examination of their beliefs and an honest search for meaning. But many shrink from that, and that is the other thing that keeps many in church: fear of the unknown. The church's biggest trump card is its claim of special knowledge. The church sells certitude. The church sells security, including unverifiable claims of eternal security.

And they sell the benefits of community. I know elderly or chronically ill people who stay with the church mainly because they don't want to be alone with no one to look in on them or bring by left over roast when they are ill. This is an area where the church often excels and actually does something useful. You can have the same thing if you cultivate a network of good friends throughout your life, but most people don't know how to do that and the church provides this as a built-in.

--Bob