David Bowden

Aye, too often, too often. I am glad that I was in the habit of keeping a journal before my religious 'crisis'; I have a very complete record now of what I felt, and when, and what I was reading and doing "in real life", throughout the experience. Were I to write a spiritual autobiography (not that I would foist that upon the world beyond II), I could cite this set of journals, or just quote it at length. I would love to read Lewis', if he kept one. Does anyone know if anything like that has ever been published?

Yes, this is true. And, in America at least, few churchgoers have any idea what any other religion is like.

I read his Why Christianity Must Change or Die; I'd agree with you that his sort of Christianity seems wildly heterodox... I like to call Spong a "jellyfish in sheep's clothing": no real threat to the bible-believing flock, no matter how much they squawk about his tolerance of gays and his ideas about a non-theistic deity. I don't know anyone who really "digs" him; maybe a small subset of "believers" which likes its secular lifestyle with a little semi-organized spiritualness on the side? He would have galled Lewis, I think.

The sense of the 'numinous,' the "enormous bliss" that Lewis experienced - I had that as a Christian and I continue to enjoy it and wonder at it, but I do not believe in any personal agency behind it, behind reality, and no Paraclete is necessary to intercede between me and the joy, the rightness of things. (If there is such a thing, then God's apparently reconciled with me despite my views on Christianity!) Really, though, I don't think it's necessary to have a god to explain the deep joys, or to satisfy and absorb the intense feelings that we experience. Some things are just wonderful, natural, and overwhelming.

Definitely. I thought I had to become a depressed nihilist or some sort of new-agey 'seeker' if I couldn't depend on Christ, or (*gasp*) a member of another religion. That was a mistaken assumption on my part, as I was happy to learn. A complete and good life without a god is possible - but for former believers (or for believers in crisis), engaging reality without reference to god seems to almost always require some getting used to. At least this has been my experience and my wife's, and I've read some posts in SL&S that seem to reinforce this idea.

As I read him, Lewis seems to have become progressively less happy up to the point of his conversion, and increasingly willing to consider the testimony of Chesterton et al. I do not blame him for reconsidering faith; the atheism he describes seems more or less juvenile and he was unable to find a secular worldview that could sustain him. (There were times after my doubts began that I considered chucking it all, and going back to fundamentalism, for simplicity's sake.) That "New Look" of Lewis' was bound to fail him at some point; had he been surrounded by IIers during his time of redefinition, perhaps Lewis would have become the 20th century's premier spokesperson for unbelief.

Shock; horror; indifference; curiosity - the whole spectrum. No one has questioned my previous salvation (Nazarenes believe you can fall from God's grace just as Adam did), and my experience was as genuine, privately and publicly, as anyone's. (I sound like St Paul going on at length about having been a Pharisee's Pharisee ) Two people have asked whether there was "something else" which led me to reject Christianity (one implied that it was sin, the other didn't), and of course there's no way to prove otherwise, but my conscience is clear in that regard. Had it not been, I'm sure the last few years of my life would have been very, very confused.

I think what's interesting is how they occasionally notice that I'm not into drugs, strip clubs and whatnot. There is this persistent thinking among more traditional Christians that, there being no legitimate reason to leave Christianity, you could only decide to leave in order to be naughty, or to wallow in nihilistic anger or self-pity, or experiencing total misery whilst God teaches you a lesson.

That's not been true in my case; besides, I wanted my faith to survive, until it became evident that for me to say, "I believe" about any part of the creeds would be untrue. I did not run from the gospel; in a way I saw it collapse all around me.

I did attribute it to the Holy Spirit, when I believed in one, yes.

Still way off-topic, but hopefully the Lewis/Tolkien stuff redeems this post.

Oh, I do!! It's just that the only gods I'm concerned about displeasing now are II moderators!

-Wanderer

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: wide-eyed wanderer ]</p>

repoman

wanderer,

your last post is fantastic, especially at the end where you said:

"I think what's interesting is how they occasionally notice that I'm not into drugs, strip clubs and whatnot. There is this persistent thinking among more traditional Christians that, there being no legitimate reason to leave Christianity, you could only decide to leave in order to be naughty, or to wallow in nihilistic anger or self-pity, or experiencing total misery whilst God teaches you a lesson."

I have been trying to put my finger on that for a long time, and you state it so cleanly. My grandfather (fire and brimstone preacher) and other people (Christian camp etc...) planted this seed in my head a while ago and it has sort of neurotic effect on me. I think it is the nagging self doubt that they use to gnaw on people's minds to wear them down. At least they didn't call me a backslider -- whoever thought that word up would make Goebbels proud.
I wonder about how you said that the gospel collapsed around you, because this involves another christian technique. When *some* christian converts get better from the trauma that brought them to be christian (No not all people convert this way) they just abandon it until the next serious crisis. I knew a bible belter who said that "they're treating Jesus like an old shoe" (WTF?) as a way to make sure that he wouldn't do the same thing. Obviously this ad hominem attack didn't work on you.

So did the illusion of safety from Jesus allow you to better develop a more resilient and balanced personality and more confidence? What became of all the energy in the misplaced trust in Jesus that you once had? It seems to me that you still have a lot this trustingness (is this a word?) inside of you.

One sad thing to me is people who are expecting massive personality changes from becoming christians, especially with issues of neuroses, trust and anxiety. Think of it this way, whatever ability these people have to moderate these problems is being solely focused on Jesus. When they don't get better it is a suggestion that jesus might not be real, adding to more anxiety and more debasing prayer in front of him to prove that he is indeed be real.

I assume that if they CAN'T feel 'Jesus' inside thenselves as a warm glowing cosmic force (or at least mild comfort) then they won't be able to take this illusion elsewhere in their life when they find the bible intellectually bankrupt.

Well, any input?

Krieger

This is why I don't like Tolkien. Pesky Xians...

owlafaye

It is a wonder born again christians can't see that their lives don't improve.

By the way, Catholics posting here are committing a "mortal sin" according to the Roman Catholic Church. The church encourages members to seek answers within the church and it's teachings.

Just as attending another faith's services is also a "mortal sin".

"Impending calamity" The whip of Catholicism.

David Bowden

oh, now, see, I'm blushing...

No; I think that's pretty manipulative and abusive, and I just don't cave in to pressure that easily - I was a pastor, and pastors have to develop a thick skin when it comes to criticism or "suggestions." I tend to be stubborn when it comes to peer pressure anyway - I grew up in "hedonistic" late-20th century America, instructed to resist all the things that my church told me was wrong - so in a way Christianity had trained me not to cave in to anything except my own conscience - I don't think it was ever expected that that resolve would ever have to take a stance against Christianity itself.

Also, growing up, I had been exposed to some malicious talk about people who strayed from faith, or who, as nominal believers, did things our denomination condemned - but I caught on, while still pretty young, that a good person shouldn't demonize anyone, especially a struggling Christian or a person you want to bring back into the "community." Maybe that understanding of the Christian/ humanistic ideal immunized me somewhat to any bitter reaction.

Anyway, I just tried to let that sort of thing slide past, because I knew that they were under some stress about my decision, and they "knew not what they did," so to speak. Some of the things people said stung briefly, but I think that "turning the other cheek," and showing my former 'faith circle' some tolerance saved a lot of bridges from being burned.

Maybe that's claiming the moral high ground; in any case, it worked, and I never got any death threats.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here (probably because I'm writing at 2AM and should be sleeping) - are you asking about how growing up in a Christian home affected my character development?

Overall, my Christian upbringing was imperfect but not all that terrible - I had decent role models and was appropriately disciplined, I think - but I also know and admire some people who have never been Christians - so Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on paideia, the proper raising of children. I think that a well-established secular subculture would tend to produce children with the traits you mention; the threads I've read here at II concerning child-rearing greatly encourage me that this is so.

If that didn't address what you're asking, I'd love to try again.

Well, a short answer is I always had wanted to do good things for God. Now I want to do good for its own sake. Increasing 'goodness' factors in the world pleases me, and I want to do it when I find appropriate ways for me to do it. So, to put it as generally as I can, I spend my still-abundant energies that way.

As far as "trust" goes - I think that there are things you can change, and things you can't, so I say: work on affecting the things you can, for the good, and don't worry overmuch about what you can't affect (but be as aware of your changing context as you can be, and act accordingly). I suppose you could say that I do to some extent "trust" the way things are, and at the same time I trust my own (admittedly fallible - but correctible) moral sense - and I just live life as best I can.

There's something each of Stoicism and Epicuranism in that mindset. Since I no longer have an Absolute, no immutable ideal, no Platonic or Christian God to appeal to or to shape my life for, I have to trust myself. This is not ideal, and it's not the same sort of equilibrium promised by Islam or Christianity, but I see no viable alternative; it appears to be the way things really are, and so finding a new equilibrium is necessary, and I think I've found mine.

The "trust" I place in the way the universe operates is sort of like the bargain we as citizens make with a government, I guess - "You don't squash me, and I'll just do the best I can with what finite means I possess." We don't really have much recourse if things turn against us as individuals, but we've evolved to survive on this planet, and I'm not overly worried about the system crashing down around me. So with a little luck and a lot of diligence, we can make good in this life. And I believe that we can, over time, affect our own luck - or at least that of future generations, thus catalyzing long-term systemic change for the better.

&lt;/windbagging&gt;

Yes; in college I minored in Psychology, and we budding ministers were taught to avoid confusing mental illness issues from faith issues. A properly prepared minister would know better than to allow a parishoner to engage in that kind of self-torture... but an understanding of even basic psychology is sadly rare among ministers, and self-destructive superstition like what you describe abounds in conservative churches.

The more liberal Christians I know are more aware of the distinction between health issues and faith, and perhaps this helps them cope - they do not place ridiculous expectations on the Object of their faith, although they certainly do believe that their faith is a factor in whatever healing can and does occur. But they know to seek medical help for medical issues.

&lt;disclaimer&gt; BTW, in case it's relevant or in case what I've previously said seems overbearing, I don't equate faith with mental illness or intellectual deficiency. Those things can and do follow a person from faith to atheism, or the other way around, and there have always been admirable and stable minds in Christendom (also true I'm sure for Judaism and Islam and other faiths). Neither belief nor unbelief in God guarantees a healthy perspective on life as a whole. &lt;/disclaimer&gt;

I suppose not. Former fundamentalists seem to crash hardest, and carry the bitterest memories of their prior religious experience. I grew up in a conservative church, but my long journey to unbelief allowed me to consider more liberal views (privately), so I'm not as consistently negative concerning Christianity as some are, but I'll admit there are times when I wish I could just solve all of society's ills at once by flushing religion down the toilet.

Many moderate-to-liberal Christians, however, on leaving their faith, seem to have no trouble looking at what was once for them sacred scripture, and continuing to incorporate whatever they deem salvageable into their own lives.

Well, did this cover what you were asking, repoman? I hope I won't log on tomorrow and regret writing this post so late...

-Wanderer

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: wide-eyed wanderer ]</p>

HelenM

What you wrote is very interesting to me…
I’m not aware of one. I thought Surprised by Joy was very introspective but as you have said, it is a later synthesis and processing of his thoughts earlier in his life and who knows whether they changed over time? Although one could argue that maybe his later thoughts are better/more meaningful to us for that very reason…it depends what one believes.

I suppose not many people here believe “John’s Gospel” to be written by an elderly John the Apostle. However, if it was then that in itself would be interesting – to read in John and I,II,III John what someone who knew Jesus and had had decades to reflect on him and his teaching and what had developed subsequent to his departure from the earth , thought needed to be said, to the world. Well, then there’s Revelation &lt;AHEM&gt;. Mind you, some very love-focused people, when they get angry…WHOA!!!…so maybe even that isn’t entirely inconsistent. I don’t know.

Anyway, I read something by Henri Nouwen that was his private journal at a very difficult time for him emotionally, that he later allowed to be published. It’s odd to read something that says ‘you’ and realize the author was writing to himself! (For once, a Christian author who isn’t ‘lecturing’ me! ;-))

This is part of a wider failing of many Americans to take interest in most anything outside their own world. Which is not challenged by such things as news which focuses almost entirely on America as if there were hardly a rest of the world; and in their American focus ‘human interest’ stories arbitrarily push out things of wider significance (imo). News outlets do what they do to make money so they gather ‘news’ that people want to hear, of course. In the end each person knows what they want to know; these days one can get world news etc. without much trouble. If one wants to

Many Bible-believers seem to see it as part of their calling to take offense on God’s behalf and proclaim their indignant outrage at people like Spong. (And yes, Lewis would probably have written against what he believes as clearly non-orthodox) It’s probably fair when Bible-believers protest “If you don’t believe your church’s doctrines, be honest about it and resign”. He has now, so that’s resolved. Bible-believers get annoyed about the amount of press someone like him receives compared with them. But then…news is news. What they have to say has been around a while. He’s the one making waves (or who could, to the extent they might sell a story on him) so it’s not surprising that he draws attention. Same with the Jesus Seminar in the mid-90s. I only just realized that that was when a bunch of their books came out – no wonder that’s when they were getting quite a bit of media attention – relative to any other time, that is.

Nothing is much of a threat to most Bible-believers because they don’t listen to anything except what comes from within, to avoid being misled. Doesn’t matter whether it’s Spong or anyone else – I’m sure you are aware of all Paul’s strong words warning believers about ‘false teachers’ – and bible-believers take those seriously! As you also will know.

I daresay Spong has a few enthusiastic followers, as do many people who are relatively visible…did you read what I wrote after going to a course about Jesus at the local UU congregation? I put it on my site; it’s <a href="http://home.att.net/~shmildenhall/writings/course.html" target="_blank">here</a> if you’re interested. It was printed in the local newspaper.

It’s very uncomfortable to change beliefs significantly, in my opinion.

To someone who believed Jesus was ‘real’, to let go of that…well, it’s a definite loss. Suppose you were personal friends of the President. You didn’t have much contact with him but you knew he was a friend you could go to if you needed help…or so you believed, anyway ;-). I think that would give you a sense of security that would be gone when someone you don’t know takes his place. (And maybe rightly so – if one reads Exodus 1 which says that as soon as a Pharaoh arose who didn’t know Joseph, he began oppressing the Jews&#8230 . Or think of when a friend moves away, or a loved one dies.

The more you believe Jesus to be a person who is a real friend, who you can rely on, the greater the loss would be if you came to believe yourself wrong about that. Not because he betrayed you but because – there was no ‘he’ in the first place…

That’s how it seems to me, it would be.

The process is probably very much like John Nash deciding to ignore his hallucinations…if you’ve seen A Beautiful Mind…


As I said, transitions are always hard!

Of course, it’s impossible to know. Calvinism would say otherwise .
Ah, I’m not used to being around people who believe that. All the Christians I hang out with believe in eternal security so this is more of a thorny issue for them, I suppose…(it’s somewhat swings and roundabouts but overall I prefer that view so that believers aren’t always worrying about whether they are going to lose their salvation because of some sin or other…but then, perhaps not all of them in traditions like your former one worry that way; I wouldn’t know)
Yeah…did you see the post on these forums recently from “Kelli” who simply said “I don’t believe in God anymore. Am I going to hell?”

I hear that one a lot…they left the faith…they can’t really be happy; inside they are miserable and God is going to bring them back someday. (But of course, they make claims like yours of being happier than ever…they must be ‘in denial’ I suppose…;-))

That’s what I’ve read from ex-Christians. I think it’s fair to say, though, that what actually happened is that you went from being closed to any possibility that what you believed was wrong, to being open to considering it might be. Little by little you made decisions of openness (or maybe it was more dramatic than gradual) to it not being entirely true, that one day tipped your internal ‘scales’ to “NOT TRUE” from “TRUE” – as it were. And at some point in there the door to ‘true’ was closed because it seemed too untenable to you, any more.

Do you think you felt the same thing before your conversion and relabeled it afterwards, or would you say your conversion to Christianity did ‘increase’ your joy and peace, at least, initially? (Disregard if you were converted to Christianity early in life so you don’t have a ‘pre-conversion’ experience of life)


Very wise!!!

[replying to some of your other post, which was just as interesting…]

You’d think congregations would be nicer…doesn’t John’s gospel say “love one another”…*sigh*

[quote] I tend to be stubborn when it comes to peer pressure anyway - I grew up in "hedonistic" late-20th century America, instructed to resist all the things that my church told me was wrong - so in a way Christianity had trained me not to cave in to anything except my own conscience - I don't think it was ever expected that that resolve would ever have to take a stance against Christianity itself.[‘quote]

So ironic, isn’t it?

One thing I’d love to do is persuade Bible-believing Christians that demonizing all outside the Bible-believing-Christendom is counter-productive – well, and just plain disrespectful, imo.

Great perspective. I’m impressed!

I sure hope so.

No; it’s just doing what Christians are supposed to, actually!

Oh, he (?) was probably assuming you were converted to Christianity as an adult – if you weren’t, you can’t compare how it was before and after...so much for one of my questions then…!
I think this is fascinating in that some people do seem more intent on ‘doing good’ or ‘making the world a better place’ than others. It seems to me that conversion in or out of Christianity doesn’t especially create or remove this deep-seated desire; it only ‘reframes’ the specifics of what it means to ‘do good’ in the world we live in. In other words, if you’re a Bible-believing Christian it means to convert and disciple as many people as you can and to role-model what it’s like to be faithful to God – something like that anyway; this – I think – ought to necessitate involvement in the lives of others in very practical and material ways…if you’re not a BBC then the social involvement might be similar in some ways but without the need to oppose certain lifestyles etc and to try and convert people. Or maybe you would get into opposing Christians in what they say…depends…

You could have just quote the Serenity Prayer…

You gained freedom and lost some security and certainty, I’d imagine…and you’ve learned to adjust to that, enjoying your gains, accepting your losses – the only other choice is to ‘live a lie’ so you don’t really have a choice therefore…am I somewhat close?

I don’t know I’d call that ‘trust in the universe’ – you don’t need to be that New Agey do you? You could simply say that you’re espousing a general optimism that it’s worth trying to make the world better…couldn’t you?

Yes indeed…it’s not only that untrained pastors let parishioners engage in self-torture but by not understanding their own psychological make-up they can add to the suffering of others by their own dysfunctional ways of interacting that they never learned to address…I wish they’d teach how to have healthy interactions and relationships in seminary as well as homiletics!!! I fear that the most important things are left to hit-and-miss on-the-job training; I’m sure some pastors learn from experience as you sound like you did; others never do learn it and so they go through life with impeccable doctrine, from a BBC point of view, and yet one-on-one…&lt;AHEM&gt;. Mind you there are jerks everywhere and I’m not thinking of anyone in particular!!

I think they deal with this relatively well in my tradition. BBCs who stress the ‘sovereignty of God’ have to accept that God can decide to say ‘no’; He’s in charge after all…at some point this view seems to merge into “if you can never count on God to do what you ask anyway, and if He’s promised to to what’s the best for you anyway, why pray? What is gained by even believing in Him?” I haven’t maybe explained that very well but perhaps you see why one does lead to the other eventually – I mean, why it could!!

Indeed.
No-one can be magninamous all the time…

To BBCs, though, this may be no better than leaping off into Satanism or becoming a mass-murderer…in fact it may be worse because ‘liberals’ seem to be nice decent people who are proclaiming a ‘satanic’ message…right?

Thanks for all your comments!

Love
Helen

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]</p>

David Bowden

Speaking of Nouwen... here's a quote from him that's fairly relevant to something this thread has covered. For your consideration and edification, be ye secular humanists or otherwise:

"...for a man with a deep-rooted faith in the value and meaning of life, every experience holds a new promise, every encounter carries a new insight, and every event brings a new message. But these promises, insights, and messages have to be discovered and made visible." (from The Wounded Healer)

quoting Wanderer:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In America at least, few churchgoers have any idea what any other religion is like.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with you completely, Helen. I wish I knew how to get more Americans to pull their heads out of their backsides and look around more.

(I think he retired.) But he still speaks his mind wherever he can get an audience - including at a Methodist church in my town last year - so, yes, apparently Spong does have a following. I can relate to those who "hunger and thirst after righteousness" - in this context, thirst after a more intellectually honest Christianity - and he is quite frank concerning what conservative Bible-believing Christianity is (unfortunately has to be) dishonest about. But I think what he's offering them is not Christianity, certainly not as the writers of the gospels and the drafters of the ancient creeds seem to have understood it, and I think there's even more honesty in saying so. This doesn't stop Spong, of course.

I don't know whether I like him for trying to lead people out of a burning building, or dislike him for leading them into yet another fire-hazard: what else is this nontheistic Deity-worship in the name of a savior who saves only to the extent that we do the saving of ourselves? Or something like that; it's been awhile since I read him, and once again, I'm writing past 2AM...

Yes - the way moderates get annoyed whenever the Religious Right gets headlines. All POVs have a legitimate grievance in this, I think. The media dumbs everything down to the soundbites spouted by polar opposite camps, and the 'dumb consumer' just swallows and too often forms his notions of reality from this overly processed material. What Lewis says about loathing the Collective would apply, I'm sure, to our media-intoxicated culture.

That's true. Biblicism has an almost unbeatable corruption-defense built in. The problem is that Biblicism itself is also flawed... &lt;sigh&gt;

I'll check it out - BTW, you have an impressive and extensive website - and really cute kids!!

It seems to be; at least, until one learns to hold beliefs provisionally and also learns how to evaluate and keep them integrated with experience. Some people never even begin to do this, and it would also seem that most of us who do make some headway in this regard, still occasionally get jolted.

I would basically agree with that. My own "experience of the Christian God" wasn't as anthropomorphic as most evangelicals' - I guess I was a conservative evangelical mystic?? The hymn that goes "He walks with me, and talks with me, and tells me I am his own" was never something I could relate to, and as I grew older I considered such sentiments to be just a milk-concept for folks unable to digest the meaty truths about "relationship with Christ" (and I often felt like such a "high-church" snob for thinking that way, too! but I couldn't help it.) I was hooked on "Be Thou My Vision" before it became trendy.

So I concluded way back then, and continue to believe, that such concepts as "personal relationship with Jesus", taken anywhere near literally, are juvenile and foreign to historic Christianity - a sort of heretical psychobabble that's been adopted into the popular evangelical idiom; a demented, degenerate pietism crossed with imaginary-best-friend language. In addition to the difficulties you describe above, that concept has also made it hard for some people to understand how I (to speak from personal experience yet again) could "not love Jesus anymore" - as if I'd gone and dumped him and left him crying on a park bench in the rain, or something. I didn't "know Jesus" except in an abstract or recreated-from-media-depiction way, like we "know Caesar," "know Homer," or "know Gandalf." As I articulated it then, God in all three persons "was there with me" via the Spirit, but "knowing" God was... numinous, different, more personal and more "holy" than what I understood "personal relationship" to mean. Maybe there's something in that statement for an evangelical to grab hold of and claim that I wasn't really saved to begin with. But when I prayed, that's what I got; when I walked the Christian walk, that's what was there with me.

I'm sure I was in the tiniest of minorities in my denomination in thinking that way. But I was always conscious of my dislike for it as an adult, and never preached or taught anything that overtly encouraged it, though I also never disparaged it in others - one has to pick one's battles carefully, and I wasn't sure I could edify anyone by ripping into that particular superstition.

As I've mentioned in previous posts, the joy of relating to what I then thought of as "God" did not cease after I left Christianity and it continues to be a "real experience" despite the fact that I don't attribute it to supernatural causes. I suppose you could say that some essence of my Christian experience continues as a very fulfilling but secular experience of natural reality - score one for romanticism, as you mentioned earlier.

So anyway, while I can see where an ex-believer, like the one described above, is coming from, I can't say that my experience was the same.

Haven't; but I plan to soon, maybe this weekend.

quoting Wanderer:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That "New Look" of Lewis' was bound to fail him at some point; had he been surrounded by IIers during his time of redefinition, perhaps Lewis would have become the 20th century's premier spokesperson for unbelief.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL! I was raised Wesley-Arminian - they're a little less... certain about how much of our experience is predestined.

No; worry isn't characteristic - although it's entirely possible to become stressed or neurotic about "sins of omission" or "unknown sins" when you're trying to pin down exactly why you're having a really bad day or not "feeling like a Christian" - I saw lots of this as a pastor, and experienced it myself on occasion. But a mature Christian of the Wesley-Arminian persuasion technically ought to have a constant spiritual witness, and a sensitive and well-enough trained conscience that the possibility of falling from grace just keeps you minding your P's and Q's.

quoting Wanderer:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and my experience was as genuine, privately and publicly, as anyone's. (I sound like St Paul going on at length about having been a Pharisee's Pharisee) Two people have asked whether there was "something else" which led me to reject Christianity (one implied that it was sin, the other didn't), and of course there's no way to prove otherwise, but my conscience is clear in that regard. Had it not been, I'm sure the last few years of my life would have been very, very confused.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes - it choked me up a bit to read that. (...although the net-wary cynic in me wonders, in retrospect, whether it was just somebody trolling for reactions.) Armchair psychoanalysis is largely a waste of time, but if I can indulge in it for a second: belief in one's own inherent awfulness can last longer than belief in God, and apparently belief in eternal punishment lasts longer, in some people, than belief in God. This boggles my mind, but perhaps it has to do with exposure to more negative Christian teachings than positive ones. Fire and brimstone and fear, over against love and invitation and nurturing. The problem is that Christianity (as the Bible teaches it) requires hell, so BBCs will never surrender it, and ex-BBCs will tend to be a little jumpy until they've resolved that hell is part of the package they've rejected.

From Charles Darwin: "I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine."

Indeed, I think it is, too.

quoting Wanderer:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think what's interesting is how they occasionally notice that I'm not into drugs, strip clubs and whatnot. There is this persistent thinking among more traditional Christians that, there being no legitimate reason to leave Christianity, you could only decide to leave in order to be naughty, or to wallow in nihilistic anger or self-pity, or experiencing total misery whilst God teaches you a lesson.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In denial," or "Watch out; God's (or Satan's) not through with you yet!" The former is them projecting on me their own state of mind concerning my post-saved life; the latter is reactive fear-mongering. Both reflect a rather perverse desire to see someone's life go to pieces, I think.

quoting Wanderer:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not been true in my case; besides, I wanted my faith to survive, until it became evident that for me to say, "I believe" about any part of the creeds would be untrue. I did not run from the gospel; in a way I saw it collapse all around me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can see it in those terms, if we set the focus wide enough; even as a strong Christian, though, I had to deal with the possibility that some things I believed in were not true. My "decisions of openness" I think are more properly called "characteristic openness" - an openness which continues to characterize me - although I make use of something like Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit, which makes me an openminded skeptic.

The "eternal security" and "Do people really go to hell if they die without even hearing the gospel" questions were on my mind as a young person, along with the nature of the inspiration of scripture (I got philosophical at a very young age) - and my resolutions to those issues was provisional, not absolute, no matter what my pastor or my church's statement of belief said.

So I'm really not sure that I was ever "closed to any possibility" that what I believed was wrong, except at the macro scale: God exists but is separated from us, and Jesus, having been crucified by men and resurrected by God, is the Way to God if for no better reason than because God decided to do it that way. The rest could be cast into doubt or fall by the wayside without affecting my faith in the gospel. (God could tolerate mistaken doctrines but not open rebellion against himself and his offer.) Those were the only essentials; I long considered them axiomatic and basic to the structure of reality.

Even on those key points, however, I was always willing to learn and to be corrected and refined in my understanding - probably because I believed that God would never let me down, and that all truth led to Him, and that the more you knew about anything, the more you knew about Him. At some point in my reflecting, though, the gospel itself came into question, and despite my pleading that God would help me reconcile it with my understanding of reality, the truth-value of the gospel collapsed - it fell off the scale, and the scale then snapped to "Not True."

After saying all that, I think I'm basically agreeing with you: "seeing the gospel collapse" is another way of saying that my internal scales tipped at a point in time, resulting in my awareness that I didn't believe in the Christian message anymore.

Now, that would be a miracle. The "self-preservation code" in the Christian message (as understood by BBCs) gets in the way of that: "productive" and "respectful" are only relevant where God's will is concerned, and if demonizing the 'other' is God's will, then what we'd call reasonable appeals fall on decidedly deaf ears. once more: &lt;sigh&gt;

quoting Wanderer:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, a short answer is I always had wanted to do good things for God. Now I want to do good for its own sake. Increasing 'goodness' factors in the world pleases me, and I want to do it when I find appropriate ways for me to do it. So, to put it as generally as I can, I spend my still-abundant energies that way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, it appears to depend on a lot of factors, but early childhood training and/or perhaps some key event afterwards seem to be crucial to the formation of a personality where "being good" and "doing good" define the character. I would love to find a way to guarantee that every child born into humanity would have this... whatever it is, innate goodwill. If I can't get that, then all I want for Christmas is a way to treat the lack of benevolence in the worst people.

quoting Wanderer:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as "trust" goes - I think that there are things you can change, and things you can't, so I say: work on affecting the things you can, for the good, and don't worry overmuch about what you can't affect (but be as aware of your changing context as you can be, and act accordingly).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heh! Pretty nearly - Epictetus teaches something like this in the Enchiridion, but it's not in the form of a prayer, and Epicurus I think exemplifies serenity itself in his Letter to Menoeceus. &lt;/shameless plug for dead pagans&gt;

quoting Wanderer:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose you could say that I do to some extent "trust" the way things are, and at the same time I trust my own (admittedly fallible - but correctible) moral sense - and I just live life as best I can.
There's something each of Stoicism and Epicuranism in that mindset. Since I no longer have an Absolute, no immutable ideal, no Platonic or Christian God to appeal to or to shape my life for, I have to trust myself. This is not ideal, and it's not the same sort of equilibrium promised by Islam or Christianity, but I see no viable alternative; it appears to be the way things really are, and so finding a new equilibrium is necessary, and I think I've found mine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I guess I've lost the *sense* of security and certainty that I once had. It's sort of like doing a home inspection and discovering that your foundation's cracked so badly that demolition's necessary. You and your family slept in it just fine the night before, but you would never feel right setting foot inside there again. The security and certainty I had with Christianity were misplaced; this became apparent to me during a prolonged 'home inspection,' if you will. That's not a perfect analogy, I admit.

I think everybody ought to make the effort of examining the foundations of their life, but it isn't something that's guaranteed to make one happy, but as Socrates says, "The unexamined life isn't worth living." Whether it drives one to make responsible improvements to a well-loved house or to leave it altogether for other lodgings, as long as one has become better aware of one's situation in general and acts with prudence, then that is a very good thing.

I'm willing to allow Lewis and less doctrinaire religious believers in general some room to worship their gods and practice their rituals, understanding it to be more of an aesthetic preference than a truth/lie issue. Lewis and many believers - and perhaps you, Helen; enlighten me on this, if you will - wouldn't agree with categorizing faith under Aesthetics, but thinking of it in those terms keeps me from shifting into "Stamp out the Lies and Ignorance" gear.

quoting Wanderer:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "trust" I place in the way the universe operates is sort of like the bargain we as citizens make with a government, I guess - "You don't squash me, and I'll just do the best I can with what finite means I possess." We don't really have much recourse if things turn against us as individuals, but we've evolved to survive on this planet, and I'm not overly worried about the system crashing down around me. So with a little luck and a lot of diligence, we can make good in this life. And I believe that we can, over time, affect our own luck - or at least that of future generations, thus catalyzing long-term systemic change for the better.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitely; I was trying to put it in the terms repoman used. I wouldn't say I "trust in the universe" outside this context. New agey talk gives me hives.

quoting Wanderer:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The more liberal Christians I know are more aware of the distinction between health issues and faith, and perhaps this helps them cope - they do not place ridiculous expectations on the Object of their faith, although they certainly do believe that their faith is a factor in whatever healing can and does occur. But they know to seek medical help for medical issues.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes.

quoting Wanderer:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many moderate-to-liberal Christians, however, on leaving their faith, seem to have no trouble looking at what was once for them sacred scripture, and continuing to incorporate whatever they deem salvageable into their own lives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah - there's that hyper-efficient, borg-like, corruption-defense issue again. And any appeal to them to "chill out!" just reinforces their opinion that we're out to weaken their resolve so as to inject evil humanist/satanic ideas into their pure, Christ-filled minds. (One good &lt;sigh&gt; deserves another.) The memetic defenses some folks wield are like mobius strips - twisted and seemingly infinite.

Well, thanks for drawing them out, all of you. I hope I've said something of some value; I feel like I've completely stolen the spotlight from C. S. Lewis. (-how often does that happen?!) I'm not accustomed to expounding like this, especially while drawing on personal experience. Perhaps I ought to have channeled some of my logorrhea into questions aimed at highlighting Lewis' apparent desire to be converted before he had found an intellectual justification for it, but I'm not sure how to relate them to the OP, and being aware that this has been nicely mixed (atheist/Christian) company, I'm not keen on asking questions that could wreck the tone. I'm a fan of both these men as authors, and I have a serious interest in their spiritual life as "highbrow" believers. Please: nobody go off thinking I like to toot my own horn, alright? I'm normally very reticent on the II boards.

If it's okay with everyone, I'm going to shut up about myself now, and go re-read The Abolition of Man, and see what everybody else has to say about Lewis and Tolkien.

-Wanderer

HelenM

He’s offering them a ‘changed’ Christianity; many would agree with you that that’s no Christianity at all.

Yeah but he holds onto Jesus as a particularly good representation of – what a human ought to be – and therefore there is a sense in which Jesus would be ‘saving’ people from being the worst they could be. Not only that but his Jesus therefore is mysticized and isn’t that what ‘Christ’ is? He doesn’t focus on the angry confrontational young man part of Jesus. He doesn’t stop to wonder what Jesus would have said if Jesus had been anti-gays, for example…really, the gospel evidence, I think, is far from presenting a person who is meek, mild and always loving. Jesus is presented as often making people extremely angry with his outspoken remarks and his lack of conforming to [human] authority. He really was a young rebel as portrayed in the gospels.

So Spong has mysticized him. I suppose my own view is that Christians do mysticize Jesus into ‘the perfect person’ which of course is to make him in their own image of what perfection in a human would be. To some that is being out there asserting what God says is right and wrong…to others it’s taking meals to poor people…and so each one who has any picture of Jesus has their own view of him…and so it goes…

Speaking of the RR, did you know that the President of the National Religious Broadcasters was forced to resign by the RR (in Feb or March it was) because in January, as he began his presidency he commented in an interview something to the effect that he thought that Christian broadcasting was too political and not enough about Jesus? You can read about it on Christianity Today’s website if you like. They have written quite a bit about it. It seems evident to me that their sympathies lie with the ousted president and not his opponents: namely the [extremest] ‘religious righties’.

It could be a problem that if you can learn to ignore contradiction and illogic there’s no stopping you after that… What do you think?

Thanks! Watch out for what I wrote when I was &lt;AHEM&gt; ill though

Yep!

Ahhh, you were never saved really, then…

But seriously, I’d say then that would have lessened your pain compared with, had you, as you said, ‘had you left Jesus crying on a park bench’. I’m sure many really do go through that sort of emotional loss…it’s probably not something that an ex-Christians rushes to admit though: “Yes, I really did believe that…”

…or could get anywhere by doing so? J

Oh, that’s what you were? I discovered them by reading that William Lane Craig was one. It’s more of a subtle way to get to ‘God will keep you saved’. I.e. when he created everything he chose free-will option x that keeps you saved but by your free-will choices. Rather than the Calvinist ‘he overrules your ‘will’ whenever necessary to keep you saved…’ I’m surprised how many people can’t see that God knowing the future isn’t necessarily the same as God determining it. Seems to me there’s no problem in them not being the same thing.

Anyway, moving on…oh, well, just to say, I wrote to Craig in 1996 to ask him to release transcripts of one of his debates to the Iis…and as a result he agreed to let a Christian site have them and have links between them so it could be seamlessly read…anyway that was very cool to get that kind of a response from him. Just…because…it wasn’t like I knew him or anything. He definitely said it was my letter changed his mind re: having them on the Net at all :-D

Since that’s a heavily emotional thing, Calvinistic beliefs don’t really protect one from it anyway, I’ve found…but there’s always the hope that they will, I suppose…

In theory……*sigh*

I thought she was genuine but you’re right – one never knows. To me, it stood out as a rather unique and plaintive and sad post that I don’t think anyone would have thought to fake, quite honestly.

When you read my site, there’s a 15 page thing I wrote about hell on it, too…I even got my associate pastor to read that. (The specific one I talk/write to). It seems to me that what Jesus said about hell [according to the synoptics] is somewhat different to what evangelicals say about it. But anyway…

I don’t think it’s really true that the negative is always emphasized more in Christianity than the positive. It does seem to be true that most people are quite scared of many things (truth be told) and it takes 1000 positive things to override one negative…that’s how we tend to be…

I think that life lesson #1 ought to be “It’s probably them not you”! It would help a lot. As for perverse desires, how about this prayer of Christians re: my ‘unsaved’ (atheist) husband, for example? “Lord, make him/her miserable until they come to know You”…have you heard that one?
I know, but I can believe in them because I’m not an atheist!

Oh, but where there’s life there’s hope! If I find deaf people I could give them hard stares…I’m of Jewish descent therefore I am stiff-necked and do not give in easily…
Yeah. In my Bible study class this week my pastor quoted someone who just said to him that you could divide the world into people who know they are loved and people who don’t. I might go back to that fear thing I said – most people are afraid. I think 1 John 4 is extremely profound in saying that love casts out fear. Fearful people tend to hurt others in their desperation. Like trapped animals who would claw their way out of a situation. They don’t do it to hurt others but there is an inner desperation. Something like that, anyway…and then one can speculate, when the church ‘works’ is it because the people there know God’s love or because they love each other or both?
That seems like a good one. I’ll bet your sermons were interesting!
Awesome approach! I can strongly identify with looking for ways to disarm myself. As for what faith is, it’s…powerful. That’s about all I know…

That’s why I wouldn’t have read The Demon-Haunted World had atheists not recommended it. I thought Sagan was very New Agey, from what I’d heard. There was the occasional capitalized “Universe” that is a bit of a red flag but nothing worse than that, I found – it was not at all stressed in that book – I was glad!
I figure that while I am in the church maybe I can trick them into listening to me or something…whereas if I wasn’t there they’d know not to…but this makes me sound more anti- than I think I really am. Oh, I don’t know… – I think what I believe depends on the weather maybe. I don’t really like to discuss it directly.
It seems that’s permissible around here. I personally even found it beneficial!

Love
Helen