ex-preacher

I think I can sympathize somewhat with your situation. I studied myself right out of Christianity while I was a minister and a Bible professor at a conservative Christian university. My Dad and my father-in-law are ministers. For a while I thought I would just quietly resign, move into a different field and never tell my wife, 3 children, parents, or anyone else. My wife realized that something was wrong, so I broke down and told her. She broke down and told her parents. The my parents figured it out. Finally we decided to tell our kids. I just couldn't lie to them about what I believed. I still haven't told my grandmother or my wife's grandmother. I hope they never find out. That is really the reason I use "ex-preacher" as my moniker instead of my name.

<STRONG> The good news is that I have been able to preserve - and even strengthen - my marriage, our family is strong, and I am able to be honest with those I love most. I won't say it's been easy, but I'm glad I took this route.

<STRONG> I attend the Unitarian Universalist church. I consider myself politically independent (I'm a John McCain Republican) and mostly pro-life (I draw the line at brain activity).

<STRONG> Amen! Check out the Secular Lifestyle & Support Forum.

-DM-

You probably have no idea, really, if Dan Barker was more responsible than was his wife was for breaking up their marriage--or whether it would have survived had he not "come out," or even if it would have survived had he not deconverted. In any case, she could have "seen the light," so to speak, and deconverted with him as did my wife, and as did Farrell Till's wife (who was, like Farrell, also a missionary), and as have numerous others whose spouses deconverted.

You could be a closet atheist, forget the Darwin fish (I don't want one on my car), and skip the Unitarian Church altogether (I don't see it as much more than a halfway house for recovering religionists and I don't consider it worth my time). And you certainly don't need to hate the President; I don't (in fact, I don't hate anyone). You see, none of these things necessarily goes along with being an atheist or coming-out as an atheist. What I would suggest is that you do what you feel most comfortable doing providing that you can do so without being a liar and a hypocrite.

What you seem to be saying is that you have a new, liberal, personally-redefined Christianity-of-convenience. That is, I think, what Bede has. HelenSL too. Of course, your personal Christianities don't agree with each other's personal Christianities, but never mind, I do understand (even if I seem a bit contemptuous of the need for a religion of one's own making).

--Don--

[ August 17, 2001: Message edited by: Donald Morgan ]

Sergey

Oh, who are you kidding Ron, we all know that these are all metaphors, so there is nothing wrong with Rich's belief system! He knows what Jesus really meant!

[ August 17, 2001: Message edited by: Sergey ]

[ August 17, 2001: Message edited by: Sergey ]

-DM-

Perhaps "God's" and Jesus are metaphors. Can Rich and/or Bede prove that they are not?

--Don--

Amos

God is love and Lord God is life. Love creates life and since love is an illusion life is an illusion. The good thing about this is that we can change it and make something of our life which now means that we are not our life but merely contributors to our life . . . which itself is real. So the illusion is that "we are" (never mind "I think therefore I am") because if indeed "we are" we would be the negative stand that we positively effect with changes while alive. So thank God for illusions to make change (evolution) possible.

Amos

Amos

Ex-preacher, you remind me of the "Rich Man" who jumped ship before it was too late. You are to be commended for the courage it took to do this.

Amos

Rich

Ron...do me a favor and don't quote a book of something you don't believe in to me...anyone can pull verses out to support their position and you doing it is meaningless because you don't believe in the truthfulness of them anyway. Oh and this is a common tactic of fundys who can't support their position with rational thought.

-DM-

1.) If you believe any part of that book, then Ron and anyone else who wants to do so can make legitimate use of that book to make a point.
2.) I have known many "fundys" who are just as capable as you are of supporting their position with rational thought and logical reasoning based on the Bible and what it says. In fact, I have far more respect for the fundamentalists that I have known who can do so than I have for the liberal Christians who corrupt the fundamentals of Christianity with their revisionist approach to that which they find unsavory.

--Don--

cartman

Who gets to determine what constitutes the fundamentals? Jerry Falwell, or Marcus Borg? (BTW, Borg would argue that his views aren't revisionist but a part of the Christian tradition, just not popular Christianity.)

You may prefer the Fundamentalists, but I'll take Crossan over Kennedy anyday!

-DM-

If I had to choose one "picker" of the fundamentals, a "picker" which exists today, I would choose the faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary.

What I have respect for (in terms of these discussions and in terms of belief systems) has nothing necessarily to do with what I prefer.

--Don--