I'm getting a jump start on my reading list for 2012. My wife bought me two of the books for Christmas and I ordered the other four books on Amazon. I've started reading Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis and I'll make some comments on the first few chapters.
Lewis is a great writer and I'm a fan of his Narnia series and I love the recent movies as well. He starts out Mere Christianity making an argument that all humans have a built-in sense of right and wrong and that things should be fair. It is the argument for absolute morality and he does it very carefully and gives replies to some common objections. I've given this some thought. Do we want things to be fair? Do my kids want things to be fair? Well, yes, ... when it is in their favor! They want to take turns when they are not the one playing the Wii, but they'd be perfectly happy not taking turns if they were the one playing it. Does everyone have the same standard of fairness or morals? or is it subjective? Some people think it's o.k. to eat animals and others don't. Some people are racist. Do they KNOW "deep down" that they are wrong or do they simply have a different opinion of what WRONG is? I think it's easy to see that everyone has their own opinion of what is right and what is wrong.
I'm not a philosopher so perhaps I'm missing something critical. Is Lewis instead asking why do we even think in terms of right and wrong in the first place? Well, it's true, as humans we DO think in terms of right and wrong, but don't animals (the more advanced ones) possess this ability too? I have a big, friendly Labrador Retriever. He knows that it is wrong to go in the house and you can tell he feels awful if he has an accident and will slink around with his tail between his legs. If God did create us and gave us this ability to perceive a "right" and a "wrong", I find it odd that he would give those same abilities to animals as well. And if God embedded this ability as a perfect standard, why do different cultures have different standards?
While I've always thought that there are some good arguments for an intelligent designer, I can also imagine that there might not be one. I also think that Christian apologists take a great leap when they go from an intelligent designer to the god depicted in the bible. For some reason, they think if they can prove that a god exists then it almost automatically means the Christian god exists.
Rather than reading a book from cover to cover I plan on jumping back and forth between books..... so my next post will be.......................you guessed it.... random.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Is God changing?
A Christian can answer no to this question before even reading my post, but I'll ask anyway... Is God Changing? For this post I am going to assume for a moment that the God of the Bible is real. Here come one of my random thoughts...
How come God does not interact with us anymore?
God chose to reveal a lot of things to people in ancient times, but has become very quiet lately. He also had a lot of prophets a long time ago and did a lot of large-scale miracles, but that stopped. There is no more confirmation from God whether we are on the right track or not. In this modern age when there is so much doubt about things like our origins, new testament authorship, a global flood, denominations, etc. - wouldn't it be worthwhile to make some things clear? Why do we have to rely on the writings of a people that lived a long time ago, when superstitions were so common?
How come God does not interact with us anymore?
God chose to reveal a lot of things to people in ancient times, but has become very quiet lately. He also had a lot of prophets a long time ago and did a lot of large-scale miracles, but that stopped. There is no more confirmation from God whether we are on the right track or not. In this modern age when there is so much doubt about things like our origins, new testament authorship, a global flood, denominations, etc. - wouldn't it be worthwhile to make some things clear? Why do we have to rely on the writings of a people that lived a long time ago, when superstitions were so common?
Focusing on the resurrection
I've seen a lot of apologists do this as well as skeptics. They target in on the resurrection and try to make a case for it or against it. It makes sense too. If the resurrection happened then this would be serious proof for the truth of Christianity and if it did not happen then this would be a show stopper for Christianity. But it can't be proven either way. This is an event that happened in the past and all we can do is come to a conclusion on the likelihood of whether it happened or not. So is it good to focus on just the resurrection? I think not. Since we are considering the likelihood of an event, we need to consider ALL of the claims being made.
I almost ended this post with the first paragraph because there's no way I could list all of the claims of Christianity, but I'm going to list a bunch from the top of my head: Christians claim that...
I almost ended this post with the first paragraph because there's no way I could list all of the claims of Christianity, but I'm going to list a bunch from the top of my head: Christians claim that...
- The four gospels contain eyewitness testimony
- Only the four gospels are inspired and the rest are not
- The gospels were written while the eyewitnesses were still alive
- Paul was an inspired writer
- Early Christians were not superstitious
- Oral tradition was not subject to embellishments
- Early Christians did not borrow any ideas from other sources
- Writers in Jesus day had no reason to record any of the large-scale miracles
Well these are just a few of the claims surrounding the new testament. There are a lot more. There is a lot to consider. There is also the old testament claims, philosophical claims, theological claims, etc. To top it off, there has been more written about these subjects than any person could read in a lifetime. So it certainly is a daunting task and much more involved then just a small examination of the resurrection.
The Holy Spirit
If Christianity is true, it would seem that the best evidence available to us in the 21st-century is the holy spirit. In all my years as a Christian I never understood completely what this was exactly. I've read the Bible and I've listened to a lot of sermons so here is my feeble understanding...... the holy spirit is God's way of having an influence on the thoughts inside of our head. So... not only do we have our own, unique spirit (soul) that thinks inside of us - but a Christian also has a second spirit (God's spirit) that generates thoughts as well. So for example, a Christian will say that the holy spirit pricked their conscience to do some good deed, or the holy spirit is giving them a guilt trip for something bad that they've done. But here's my simple question... how do you know whether a thought is from the holy spirit or from your own spirit? What if everything we think is just coming from our own mind? I'm also open to the possibility that I've never experienced the real holy spirit. If this is the case, I'd like to ask Christians who feel certain that they've experienced the holy spirit: what is it like? ... and how do you discern between your own thoughts and those that come from the holy spirit?
Friday, December 9, 2011
Jesus, the apocalyptic prophet
In my opinion, one of the most devastating arguments against Christianity is the failed prediction that Jesus made that he would return within the lifetime of his generation. A very informative article on this subject by Edward Babinski is available here. I'm sure there are many books written about it, by Christians, skeptics and others. As someone who is examining whether Christianity is man-made or not, this certainly appears like a tell-tale sign that it is man-made. It seems that almost all of the new testament authors felt that the end was near and I'm sure if you lived during those times you may have felt the same way. Similarly, I've heard that people who lived during world war 1 and 2 felt that the end of the world was imminent. I'd like to do more reading in this area and study how apocalyptic thinking started and how it has affected various civilizations.
I should mention that there are Christians who believe that Jesus already did come back a second time, see Preterism.
I found it interesting that the author of 2 Peter felt compelled to give an explanation of why Christ had not yet returned. 2 Peter is one of the latest writings of the NT and is estimated to have been written around 100-160 A.D. Perhaps it is amazing that Christianity outlived this failed prophecy of Jesus, but similar circumstances have been repeated in history so it is not unique. Even in our times, people still listen to Harold Camping even though he has been wrong repeatedly about the end of the world. A new excuse is made, a new date is set, and people continue to believe. It's kinda sad.
I plan on making some kind of database / spreadsheet that lists all of the evidence and arguments for and against Christianity. I need to use something like this because it's hard for me to remember all of them. Then I plan on giving numbered weights to the strengths and weaknesses of each side. Obviously this will be a subjective exercise (based on my opinions of the weights), but it's the only way I can think of to arrive at some kind of definitive answer about Christianity. I don't know what the end result will be, but it certainly seems like the failed prophecy of Jesus is going to be a tough argument to counteract.
I should mention that there are Christians who believe that Jesus already did come back a second time, see Preterism.
I found it interesting that the author of 2 Peter felt compelled to give an explanation of why Christ had not yet returned. 2 Peter is one of the latest writings of the NT and is estimated to have been written around 100-160 A.D. Perhaps it is amazing that Christianity outlived this failed prophecy of Jesus, but similar circumstances have been repeated in history so it is not unique. Even in our times, people still listen to Harold Camping even though he has been wrong repeatedly about the end of the world. A new excuse is made, a new date is set, and people continue to believe. It's kinda sad.
I plan on making some kind of database / spreadsheet that lists all of the evidence and arguments for and against Christianity. I need to use something like this because it's hard for me to remember all of them. Then I plan on giving numbered weights to the strengths and weaknesses of each side. Obviously this will be a subjective exercise (based on my opinions of the weights), but it's the only way I can think of to arrive at some kind of definitive answer about Christianity. I don't know what the end result will be, but it certainly seems like the failed prophecy of Jesus is going to be a tough argument to counteract.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Goals for 2012
Although it's hard to find time to sit down and read when I'd rather spend time with my family, I am going to make some goals which do not seem too daunting. I'd like to read six book in 2012 (I think this is a nice, low number that should be no problem to accomplish). Three books are written by Christians and three are written by skeptics. Here's my list as it stands at the moment:
1) Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis
2) Forged by Bart Ehrman
3) Reasonable Faith by W. L. Craig
4) Why I became an Atheist by J.W. Loftus
5) The reason for God by Timothy Keller
6) The human faces of God by Thom Stark
I'm not sure which order I'll read them in. Even though I've seen some of these at the library, I may end up buying them - I usually don't have enough time to read a book before it's due back.
1) Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis
2) Forged by Bart Ehrman
3) Reasonable Faith by W. L. Craig
4) Why I became an Atheist by J.W. Loftus
5) The reason for God by Timothy Keller
6) The human faces of God by Thom Stark
I'm not sure which order I'll read them in. Even though I've seen some of these at the library, I may end up buying them - I usually don't have enough time to read a book before it's due back.
Misconceptions
I grew up as a Christian. Once I finally decided that I could no longer call myself one, I began to realize some misconceptions I had had. I was now in a different worldview. Christians had told me that non-Christians have a deep-down feeling that they need to get right with God. That is not true. I think most people just don't know if there is a personal God or not.
As a Christian I was told that being saved meant that I had a personal relationship with God. I don't think they should use the word relationship. I'll give an example of what I mean. Let's say I wrote a letter to my wife. In it I explained that I had locked myself in the attic. I was going to come out some day, but she could never see me until then. I asked her to talk to me as much as possible and read my letter, but I would never respond. Imagine me, listening in the attic, as my wife pours out her heart, begging me to say something. In short, this would not be an actual relationship. So I think this is a bad word to use to describe what a Christian has. Christians know that their God speaks to people, because he did so in the Bible. So... they believe they have to listen really hard and hear a still, small voice speak to them. I fear this is only their imaginations, but if it is possible, I wish I knew how to hear it and how to tell if it was God or not.
Another misconception is that non-Christians are immoral. This is not true. Some are and some are not. It seems to me that morals are agreed upon by society and those who go against them are punished. There are Christians who break these rules as well as non-Christians. Christians will ask, "If there is no absolute lawgiver then why not do whatever you want?" Well, you can, but you may have to face some consequences. If you cheat on your wife, you may destroy your marriage and your family. If you break your society's laws you will have to pay the price. You could ask a Christian, "You mean the only thing keeping you from being immoral is that you think God is watching?" Or in other words, "What's better - being good on your own or being good because you have to be good?" From my experience, some non-Christians are very moral. They make good choices, they give to others and they do things to benefit society. They even do all this without Sunday sermons. For more on this topic see: Thoughts on values, morality.
As a Christian I was told that being saved meant that I had a personal relationship with God. I don't think they should use the word relationship. I'll give an example of what I mean. Let's say I wrote a letter to my wife. In it I explained that I had locked myself in the attic. I was going to come out some day, but she could never see me until then. I asked her to talk to me as much as possible and read my letter, but I would never respond. Imagine me, listening in the attic, as my wife pours out her heart, begging me to say something. In short, this would not be an actual relationship. So I think this is a bad word to use to describe what a Christian has. Christians know that their God speaks to people, because he did so in the Bible. So... they believe they have to listen really hard and hear a still, small voice speak to them. I fear this is only their imaginations, but if it is possible, I wish I knew how to hear it and how to tell if it was God or not.
Another misconception is that non-Christians are immoral. This is not true. Some are and some are not. It seems to me that morals are agreed upon by society and those who go against them are punished. There are Christians who break these rules as well as non-Christians. Christians will ask, "If there is no absolute lawgiver then why not do whatever you want?" Well, you can, but you may have to face some consequences. If you cheat on your wife, you may destroy your marriage and your family. If you break your society's laws you will have to pay the price. You could ask a Christian, "You mean the only thing keeping you from being immoral is that you think God is watching?" Or in other words, "What's better - being good on your own or being good because you have to be good?" From my experience, some non-Christians are very moral. They make good choices, they give to others and they do things to benefit society. They even do all this without Sunday sermons. For more on this topic see: Thoughts on values, morality.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
My Deconversion Story
Let me start by saying that this will not be a comprehensive list of all the reasons that I think Christianity is man-made. This is just my story of how I left Christianity and it does not contain any of the research that I did.
First, someone will ask, how do you know that you were a Christian? Well, at one time I really believed that Jesus had come to earth, died for my sins in my place, rose in 3 days and was back in heaven, listening to my prayers and I "put my trust in him" believing he would save me from eternal punishment. I believed that the Bible was inspired by God. I believed that the Genesis account was history. I believed I was saved from hell and that I needed to tell others about Jesus to save them as well. I do think that it is possible to believe something at one time and not believe it at another (such as believing in Santa when you're little, but no more when you're grown). The point is, I believed - I prayed - I read my Bible - I went to church - I served - (you get the point).
So what happened? Well, I guess you could say I think too much. I was always thinking about how to make sense of things in a Christian worldview or in a Biblical framework. Certain things bothered me. I would put them out of my mind, but they would come back again. In Sunday School we were learning how to "Share Jesus without Fear" (a video series) and something really bothered me. You were supposed to ask the person you were witnessing to this question: "If what you believed, were not true, would you want to know?" This seemed arrogant to me. You are basically asserting that they are wrong and if they want to know the truth you'll show them the truth in some select Bible verses. This left me with two thoughts: (1) What if Christians are wrong, would they want to know? and (2) Do I really believe this enough to share it with someone else?
Next, I began to really question the Bible. Why do Christians think that it is God's word? On what authority do they base this? I understand that they believe Jesus endorsed the old testament, but what about the new testament? I ended up doing a Google search for "Is the Bible God's Word?" and I read this essay. It is written by a skeptic, and it was the first of many things I would read written by a skeptic. A skeptic is someone "who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual" (dictionary.com). At this point I realized that it was not wrong to read arguments that were against Christianity. After all, if Muslims only read things written by supporters of Islam they would never think of converting to Christianity. I decided that if Christianity were true then it would stand up to any criticism against it. At this time I made a choice to step down from the ministry I was heading at my church. I knew that I could not take a serious look at Christianity without it affecting the rest of my life. My growing doubts combined with what I was reading by skeptics and ex-Christians led me to a state of disbelief. I hope to write about some of the things I discovered in future blog posts.
I cannot say with certainty that Christianity is not true, so I refrain from arguing with Christians because they are entitled to their own beliefs. I have not tried to de-convert anyone and my wife is still a Christian. She is now in charge of where we go to church and she has been taking us (we have four kids) to a nice church that is more contemporary than our previous church. I don't expect to find answers to my questions in church. No one wants to discuss contradictions, skeptical viewpoints, etc. For the most part I just read a lot.
I do want to say that I enjoy not being a Christian. There is no more guilt about always having to be a better Christian. I like a fresh perspective and this has given me a new way of looking at things. I have been able to spend more time with my family as we have less church-related obligations. We don't really pray at meal times anymore unless one of my children volunteers (once in a while). I also like being able to read alternative viewpoints. I read through debate transcripts and carefully look at the claims being made by both sides. I read blogs and I read through comments made by people of various worldviews. The sense of freedom I have from no longer being close-minded is hard to describe.
First, someone will ask, how do you know that you were a Christian? Well, at one time I really believed that Jesus had come to earth, died for my sins in my place, rose in 3 days and was back in heaven, listening to my prayers and I "put my trust in him" believing he would save me from eternal punishment. I believed that the Bible was inspired by God. I believed that the Genesis account was history. I believed I was saved from hell and that I needed to tell others about Jesus to save them as well. I do think that it is possible to believe something at one time and not believe it at another (such as believing in Santa when you're little, but no more when you're grown). The point is, I believed - I prayed - I read my Bible - I went to church - I served - (you get the point).
So what happened? Well, I guess you could say I think too much. I was always thinking about how to make sense of things in a Christian worldview or in a Biblical framework. Certain things bothered me. I would put them out of my mind, but they would come back again. In Sunday School we were learning how to "Share Jesus without Fear" (a video series) and something really bothered me. You were supposed to ask the person you were witnessing to this question: "If what you believed, were not true, would you want to know?" This seemed arrogant to me. You are basically asserting that they are wrong and if they want to know the truth you'll show them the truth in some select Bible verses. This left me with two thoughts: (1) What if Christians are wrong, would they want to know? and (2) Do I really believe this enough to share it with someone else?
Next, I began to really question the Bible. Why do Christians think that it is God's word? On what authority do they base this? I understand that they believe Jesus endorsed the old testament, but what about the new testament? I ended up doing a Google search for "Is the Bible God's Word?" and I read this essay. It is written by a skeptic, and it was the first of many things I would read written by a skeptic. A skeptic is someone "who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual" (dictionary.com). At this point I realized that it was not wrong to read arguments that were against Christianity. After all, if Muslims only read things written by supporters of Islam they would never think of converting to Christianity. I decided that if Christianity were true then it would stand up to any criticism against it. At this time I made a choice to step down from the ministry I was heading at my church. I knew that I could not take a serious look at Christianity without it affecting the rest of my life. My growing doubts combined with what I was reading by skeptics and ex-Christians led me to a state of disbelief. I hope to write about some of the things I discovered in future blog posts.
I cannot say with certainty that Christianity is not true, so I refrain from arguing with Christians because they are entitled to their own beliefs. I have not tried to de-convert anyone and my wife is still a Christian. She is now in charge of where we go to church and she has been taking us (we have four kids) to a nice church that is more contemporary than our previous church. I don't expect to find answers to my questions in church. No one wants to discuss contradictions, skeptical viewpoints, etc. For the most part I just read a lot.
I do want to say that I enjoy not being a Christian. There is no more guilt about always having to be a better Christian. I like a fresh perspective and this has given me a new way of looking at things. I have been able to spend more time with my family as we have less church-related obligations. We don't really pray at meal times anymore unless one of my children volunteers (once in a while). I also like being able to read alternative viewpoints. I read through debate transcripts and carefully look at the claims being made by both sides. I read blogs and I read through comments made by people of various worldviews. The sense of freedom I have from no longer being close-minded is hard to describe.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Looking down from the tree house
I am calling my blog "random thoughts" because I don't expect I'll be able to make a very organized blog. It would be nice to be able to give a concise outline of what led me to say that I am no longer a Christian, but instead this blog will just contain whatever comes to mind. If you are the organized type that does not like random then I'd suggest reading a different blog.
My current situation is that I no longer call myself a Christian (I'll explain this in other posts), but that I also have not taken the leap to say that I'm an atheist. I don't want to jump from one extreme to another without giving it a lot of consideration. You could say that I am "on the fence". I have an imagination, so I'll say that I am in the tree house looking down at the fence and the people on both sides. If you are "on the fence" you might be hasty and jump down to one side or the other, but from up in the tree house you can take your time and really do some thinking.
And I've been doing a lot of thinking. Probably too much thinking. I don't want to waste my entire life thinking, but you also have to realize that as a former Christian I once believed that much was at stake. Like where I would spend eternity. Right now, for me, the odds of heaven and hell existing are fairly low. If there is no eternal life, then one should be very careful to make the most of this life. This could be the only life we are given.
My current situation is that I no longer call myself a Christian (I'll explain this in other posts), but that I also have not taken the leap to say that I'm an atheist. I don't want to jump from one extreme to another without giving it a lot of consideration. You could say that I am "on the fence". I have an imagination, so I'll say that I am in the tree house looking down at the fence and the people on both sides. If you are "on the fence" you might be hasty and jump down to one side or the other, but from up in the tree house you can take your time and really do some thinking.
And I've been doing a lot of thinking. Probably too much thinking. I don't want to waste my entire life thinking, but you also have to realize that as a former Christian I once believed that much was at stake. Like where I would spend eternity. Right now, for me, the odds of heaven and hell existing are fairly low. If there is no eternal life, then one should be very careful to make the most of this life. This could be the only life we are given.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)