quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

As I am typing this, I am listening to "Into my Arms" by Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds. Appropriate opening lyrics, I think....

---

That's my "is the piano working?" warm up in church, is that.
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
The most specific incident for us was praying at the breakfast table with family and specifically praying for protection (I always liked the ones in the Compline service). One hour later, in the bright summer sun, one of our children was attacked and nearly murdered.

I distrust single events, camels and straws, and the Damascus story; I suspect Paul was not completely open about prior personal crises. The attempted murder event was one of a series of awful and horrid events, but the crowning one, like Paul's. I could not continue to say nonsense about God hearing prayers as I looked into my child's eyes in hospital, the police station and court, or dropped her off for therapy appointments. Frankly, to adopt any of the prior "God is personally involved in our lives" orientation would betray blunt experience that shows it just isn't true. This incident and all of the others. I was willful about not adopting what I hold true now 40 years ago. And now because it is more than me, I can't. So I won't, because this would betray my child. Argumentation about the ineffable nature of God works intellectually - this is the one put forth by well meaning people, but it doesn't work at all in the experiential mess of actually living it. Intellectual explanations are irrelevant in the context really living the disasters. In fact it makes it worse. Because, in addition to being brutally harmed, now God is at minimum a Bad Samaritan, who passes by and ignores. Better to see a God who withdraws from the world and watches, not violating the free will of all the good and evil people and all of the natural processes.
 

---

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
My miscarriage was quite a big step along the way, I think. I'm very lucky, I've only had the one, and it was early on in pregnancy, but it was awful. It seemed thoroughly capricious of God to take my baby - that's how I saw it. It was very minor suffering, in comparison to what so many people go through. I had always struggled with the idea of suffering in a theoretical way, but that brought a little of it home to me.

Would I rather it hadn't happened? I don't know.

This was against the background of feeling, increasingly, "Hang on a second, this is all just a bit.......daft, isn't it?" which had been slowly developing over the previous couple of years. And sermons of the type rachel describes - it's easy to have faith, let's ignore this vast chunks of the Bible (sacrifice of Isaac, Jephthah's daughter always spring to mind) so that we can tell this nice tidy story. I felt patronised. And, arrogant so and so that I am, I don't like it.
 

---

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
[XP with no prophet.]
Bloody hell, np.
 

---

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
It seems the problem of evil/suffering is both a way in and a way out of faith. Some people credit God for psychological or physical survival, others blame God for requiring it - or rather, God as they concieved him could not have permitted this therefore he could not be - or could not be as they conceived him to be.

It is a problem I have never seen a faith tradition answer convincingly.
 

---

Posted by Potoroo (# 13466) on :
 
There were several straws which broke the camel's back, for me. Firstly there were quite a few years where my prayers weren't answered. Any prayers. This was a blow, as I had considered myself an intercessor.

Then there was me answering God's call to overseas mission, trusting God for my future and going to a residential Bible College for an MDiv. I worked my way, to pay for college, but it didn't cover the holidays when the college kitchen was closed, and I was hungry. Very hungry. For 3 years. I was practising faith; why didn't God or his people provide?

Then finally, I had a severe nervous breakdown. During this time I lost most of my Christian friends, and was struggling with my faith. Where was God? It seemed he had struck me down. I always believed in his omnipotence, but where was his love, and the support of his people?

And yes, I know the argument that I had got it all wrong and that God didn't want me in overseas missions. However, it was confirmed over many years in the tried-and-trusted way: the Word, inner conviction/prayer, and friends/church leaders. So what went wrong?

Now, of course, I can't understand why I was so crazy - of course I am not suitable for missions and never was, and I think of my previous plans with horror. I still believe God is there, but I don't want anything to do with him.
 

---

Posted by TallPoppy (# 16294) on :
 
Your story is a very sad one Potoroo. The alienation from a God you still believe exists - that must be very painful.

There isn't a hug smilie, but if there was one, I'd post it now.

TallPoppy
 

---

Posted by Potoroo (# 13466) on :
 
Thank you for your kind words, TallPoppy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TallPoppy:
The alienation from a God you still believe exists - that must be very painful.

---

Actually, it is not painful, as I am still angry at God. Not as angry as I was. But to me, he is not a loving or kind God.
 

---

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
I was a minister and so I believed in GOD.

Slowly, I came to believe that the church, being in major decline 'n all, was sometimes a nasty place and an irrelevance in today's society (I could qualify that, of course). But I stayed and tried my little bit to bring about change, particularly in styles of worship.

Then I retired and began to ask questions that I dare not face whilst 'in the pulpit'. Coming from a fundamentalist background I believed in an omnipotent God, an intervening God, I believed in the flood and the death and resurrection as a means of salvation. The problem was that I had come to believe that 'the church' stood for evil things and thought evil thoughts. So I asked myself ..... why doesn't a God who intervenes, stop this nonsense? Why doesn't GOD come to the support of gay people and act against the church for what it does? Why doesn't God do something about the way that the church treats women? Why doesn't God stop the church keeping its wealth locked away? For me, it was no answer simply to say that God works through people - GOD clearly wasn't doing that in relation to those three things.

Then I radically broadened my reading. And that was that. And it came with real relief and, I dare to say it, joy and contentment.
 

---

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :
 
For me there was no final straw. I got really tired - emotionally as well as physically. I went through a time when I was stressed and struggling with new challenges at both church and work. The difference was that at work I had people who were in it with me and empathetic. At church...? Well I'll be charitable and say that lots of people around me were struggling too. But I was "fired" from the fairly minor leadership role I'd taken on and I felt both relieved and hurt. After that it was easier to give up. The overwhelming feeling I had was one of needing to take a break, like a holiday, from it.

So none of it was about doubts or faith really. I just felt like I couldn't "keep it up".

So there was no "straw" leaving but there was one coming back. A relationship I'd relied on heavily ended.

The irony is that I'm back at church now and all the things that never bothered me before - problem of suffering, the trustworthiness of the bible, the usual dead horse issues - and which hadn't been a factor in me leaving, are very present with me now.
 

---

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
I've been in and out of faith twice now.

As a child, once we started going to church regularly, when I was 9, I believed everything. (Actually, earlier than that we would go very very sporadically, and the things I learned then remain incredibly important to me, even as much of the Christian superstructure on top has fallen apart for me. But that's a whole nother post.)

Then I went to college and it all fell apart. I was having serious questions and the traditional teachings didn't make sense to me. In the library studying one day, I found the book "Faith of a Heretic" by Walter Kaufmann, and what he said exactly described everything I was thinking.

I hung on going to church for about a year after that, but the final straw for me was that I lost my virginity and the next Sunday at church thought "there's absolutely no-one here I can talk to about this" and that was the end.

For a long time I didn't go to church, except sporadically in times of great stress -- yes, the church remained the place I turned to in times of stress (and it worked to help my stress!). I don't know quite what that means about my understanding of faith and church and stuff, that the church building and service remained so important to me in that way.

I felt like there were things I believed in very strongly about, in terms of the things that were important in life and why, and how to be a good person, so in some ways I would say I had a very strong faith (and I'd say the same now, too), but it wasn't the traditional say-the-Nicene-creeds faith of Christianity that I learned as a child.

Then I audited an introductory religion course, and learned about "myth as things that are truer than truth", and came to realize that the myths that formed me were the Christian myths, and also the next time I had a deep crisis I thought "I believe in some things very strongly, and I don't know quite what to call them, but it seems like 'God' is the best name I know of for them". So I went back to church, and this time instead of my sporadic attendance from my time away from faith, I found myself back in faith and became very involved at the church and stayed in for 15 years, going to church every week.

About 8 years ago all of a sudden a sense I'd had for a very very very long time, of being in touch with some sense of holiness in the world, vanished. I've been through stages of grief about it -- trying desperately to get it back, feeling deeply pained that it was gone, feeling deeply pained that it was gone but accepting that it wasn't coming back, accepting the new state that it was gone and not feeling bad about it -- each of those stages took about 2 years.

Through that time I was participating in the Christian study/discussion group I've mentioned elsewhere on this board; first as a participant and then as a facilitator. But the end result of all that study has been that the more I read and study and think about Christianity, the less sense its core doctrinal teachings make any sense at all to me.

And then one day I woke up and realized that I didn't need to call the things I believed in deeply 'God' -- that other words would do just fine. So that initial bargain that had brought me back to church "I don't know what else to call this, so I'll call it 'God' because that's the only word I know for it" fell completely apart. And that I think has turned out to be the final straw for me in this second time in my life of losing faith.

I still feel very tied to some aspects of the church and the church service -- I'm not angry at it, or disillusioned, or anything. But there seems to be a progressive process of... I don't know if it's falling away, or what.

I think I've gotten to a point where rather than be in shock or denial or grief about the changes that have been happening in the past year or so, since that "I don't need to call these things 'God'" change, and feeling bad that I can't accept the Christian faith as I've experienced it being taught, that I'm sort of ready to start accepting the changes, and re-finding the core of things that I think are really important -- and have always thought are really important, ever since those few very sporadic encounters in Sunday school that I mentioned at the very beginning.
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
I was a minister and so I believed in GOD.

Slowly, I came to believe that the church, being in major decline 'n all, was sometimes a nasty place and an irrelevance in today's society (I could qualify that, of course). But I stayed and tried my little bit to bring about change, particularly in styles of worship.

Then I retired and began to ask questions that I dare not face whilst 'in the pulpit'. Coming from a fundamentalist background I believed in an omnipotent God, an intervening God, I believed in the flood and the death and resurrection as a means of salvation. The problem was that I had come to believe that 'the church' stood for evil things and thought evil thoughts. So I asked myself ..... why doesn't a God who intervenes, stop this nonsense? Why doesn't GOD come to the support of gay people and act against the church for what it does? Why doesn't God do something about the way that the church treats women? Why doesn't God stop the church keeping its wealth locked away? For me, it was no answer simply to say that God works through people - GOD clearly wasn't doing that in relation to those three things.

Then I radically broadened my reading. And that was that. And it came with real relief and, I dare to say it, joy and contentment.

---

quote:

---

This is a story I've heard before. What exactly prevents people from saying the hard things to themselves and sorting it out while they're employed as church leaders? Does the pay cheque cause it and the responsibilities to family and bills etc? Is it too much immersion in the world of church that you never have the time to surface above and see what you see later? Is the pulpit a prison to open thought?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I've been in and out of faith twice now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
This is a story I've heard before. What exactly prevents people from saying the hard things to themselves and sorting it out while they're employed as church leaders? Does the pay cheque cause it and the responsibilities to family and bills etc? Is it too much immersion in the world of church that you never have the time to surface above and see what you see later? Is the pulpit a prison to open thought?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macrina:
I don't think for me it's specific moments as such. I do want desperately to live a life that's more than just consumerism and 'this is it-ness' because I don't think that this IS it. It's more that I just cannot handle the politically motivated, elitist, out of touch and harmful idiocy that the Church preaches over and above the message that Jesus gave it.

Christianity has been the West (and yes the East I'm ex Plot) has connected with a higher sense of its own humanity for so long. It's wrapped inside our culture in ways we can't quite appreciate and is hard to ignore.

So for me the hard part about not being in Church, and in fact being deeply angry, depressed and turned off by what the Church has become is that I've struggled to find a voice to the innate sense of spirituality and holiness that I know I need and want.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the famous rachel:
.... and am almost feeling guilty about how shallow my own story seems.

Guilt goes out of the window, surely, when we stop doing GOD?

.... The only other option, he suggested, was a very strange and rather nasty God who answered comfortable middle-class people's prayers about trivialities, but ignored a huge amount of suffering.

But many a true word ....?

Put like that, it was an argument I found difficult to side-step and I found that it influenced how I thought about prayer and made it difficult for me to pray about either big issues or trivialities, except when under stress (when I don't philosophise so much and just get on with it!).

Rachel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
This points-up something that is important for me. Surely GOD does, in fact, answer the prayers of the poor and disadvantaged? GOD does it by the motivation that corporate prayer brings to those who are doing the praying.

---

Interesting point, which somewhat turns the notion of prayer on its head. Still, if that's the best answer God's got, I can't say I'm impressed.

R.
 

---

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
But it's got nothing to do with GOD
 

---

Posted by the famous rachel (# 1258) on :
 
I did write a longer version of the previous post, which said something like "If that's how God answers the prayers of the needy, we'd be better off cutting out the middle man and getting out there and getting on with it". But I decided that sounded a bit smug. Nonetheless, it's possibly true!

Rachel.
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
There's always God as the personification of good, the good we use to align ourselves to in prayer, and if we do that things do work out better for those around up. But a omnipotent, all-seeing, all-knowing, every sparrow that falls God, not so much.

Straws? Several ~ the realisation that I was too heretical to be welcome in any groups, so there was no community for me, am increased emphasis on youth that rendered the worship noisy, lacking in space and full of crappy choruses, a spur added to the sound system in such a way that it caused feedback at a pitch that gave me tinnititus, an insistence I kept running the pram service even though I was desperate to stop, and losing the fair trade stall which was all that got me along some Sundays in the kerfuffle. And then the CofE deciding to get entangled in SSM, women bishops and headship bishops.

The pram service required me to lead unaccompanied singing and I really can't sing, so weekly mortification, every bloody week.
 

---

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
For me the straw was the licensing of someone else as a Reader, when I had been refused licensing. In fact, I had been refused licensing at 3 separate churches.

This was not the "reason" I left. It was the final straw. If I am to be involved in a church, I need to have some acknowledgement of my skills and experience. I need to feel that my position is listened to.

The final final straw was when the vicar objected to my website as it was for complaining about church. It isn't - it is for supporting those for whom church has failed them. That lack of understanding was crucial.
 

---

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
For me, I can't think of a particular straw.

There were two issues which had been troubling. The first was, ironically, a result of my Lenten reading. So many of my Lenten readings were medieval mystics, whose relationship with God was "Mea culpa" I am a worm. Increasingly I couldn't accept such negativity.

Alternatively I was studying Islam a bit and recognising that the views of the divinity of Jesus were completely incompatible, although I was desperately hoping that the Christian version was right.

But then one morning on the commuter train it suddenly struck me it didn't matter. Like a flash I thought there is no god and I don't believe in one. Strangely it didn't worry me. There was no guilt or soul-searching. Instead I started from this new position and tried to work out "Why?".

For me it has never been a case of disapproving of, e.g the old Testament God. God could not stop existing simply because we disapproved of its actions, although we can still reject such a God. For me it is a case that given the vast age and size of the universe the idea of a god that over only the last couple of thousand years suddenly takes an interest in a species/turns up on an offshore planet is completely implausible. Possibly I could accept a Deist God - but what's the point? But a theist one? No. It is basically demand led. It is much more plausible that the writers of the Bible made him/her/it up.

All of the arguments I have read that aim to counter this have completely failed to convince me.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
For me it is a case that given the vast age and size of the universe the idea of a god that over only the last couple of thousand years suddenly takes an interest in a species/turns up on an offshore planet is completely implausible. ... All of the arguments I have read that aim to counter this have completely failed to convince me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Neither ancient Judaism nor classical Christianity believe that God just happened to take some interest in an arbitrary species on some backwater planet at some point. Both assume to the contrary that man was created as the crown of material creation, and that material creation was supposed to be governed by man.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
For me it is a case that given the vast age and size of the universe the idea of a god that over only the last couple of thousand years suddenly takes an interest in a species/turns up on an offshore planet is completely implausible. ... All of the arguments I have read that aim to counter this have completely failed to convince me.

---

Neither ancient Judaism nor classical Christianity believe that God just happened to take some interest in an arbitrary species on some backwater planet at some point. Both assume to the contrary that man was created as the crown of material creation, and that material creation was supposed to be governed by man. The scale of the universe is basically irrelevant for this, other than for scaling our amazement at the power and generosity of God. So to classical Christianity your conclusion simply relies on a false premise.

---

quote:

---

For me it is a case that given the vast age and size of the universe the idea of a god that over only the last couple of thousand years suddenly takes an interest in a species/turns up on an offshore planet is completely implausible. Possibly I could accept a Deist God - but what's the point? But a theist one? No. It is basically demand led. It is much more plausible that the writers of the Bible made him/her/it up.

All of the arguments I have read that aim to counter this have completely failed to convince me.

---

Pre-Cambrian, I am totally with you there. Only I am still trying to reconcile a God with my knowledge of the universe/cosmos/multiverse. So far it hasn't happened, but somehow, like others on this board, I feel rather scared NOT to believe in God.

Not very intelligent or intellectual, but I don't know.......

 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I totally get Pre-cambrian's point. IngoB is right that it's not a complete "therefore there can't be a God", but the fact remains that rational humans are incredibly latecomers to this planet, which is a bit of a latecomer to the universe, in an undistinguished position in the suburbs of the Milky Way. And humanity in its current form ish having been around for 100,000 years ish has only recently taken to the idea of monotheism as far as we know. Having been a theist for so long I need something more than that to jettison the concept, but I do understand the issue. Why now?
 

---

Posted by the famous rachel (# 1258) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I totally get Pre-cambrian's point. IngoB is right that it's not a complete "therefore there can't be a God", but the fact remains that rational humans are incredibly latecomers to this planet, which is a bit of a latecomer to the universe, in an undistinguished position in the suburbs of the Milky Way. And humanity in its current form ish having been around for 100,000 years ish has only recently taken to the idea of monotheism as far as we know. Having been a theist for so long I need something more than that to jettison the concept, but I do understand the issue. Why now?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I totally get Pre-cambrian's point. IngoB is right that it's not a complete "therefore there can't be a God", but the fact remains that rational humans are incredibly latecomers to this planet, which is a bit of a latecomer to the universe, in an undistinguished position in the suburbs of the Milky Way. And humanity in its current form ish having been around for 100,000 years ish has only recently taken to the idea of monotheism as far as we know. Having been a theist for so long I need something more than that to jettison the concept, but I do understand the issue. Why now?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
For me it is a case that given the vast age and size of the universe the idea of a god that over only the last couple of thousand years suddenly takes an interest in a species/turns up on an offshore planet is completely implausible. ... All of the arguments I have read that aim to counter this have completely failed to convince me.

---

Neither ancient Judaism nor classical Christianity believe that God just happened to take some interest in an arbitrary species on some backwater planet at some point. Both assume to the contrary that man was created as the crown of material creation, and that material creation was supposed to be governed by man. The scale of the universe is basically irrelevant for this, other than for scaling our amazement at the power and generosity of God. So to classical Christianity your conclusion simply relies on a false premise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
This probably deserves a Purg thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think it depends on where you start from, or point of view. If I start from the present moment, I am often impressed by a sense of the numinous or transcendent, and then it's quite a smooth slide to God, although maybe not the Christian version.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
..... Yes, I agree.

But there is no 'Christian version' of God as far as I can see. There seem to be as many versions of God as there are Christians! (which is part of the problem imo, why doesn't God reveal herself more clearly? - she has it in her power to do so, after all. She could at least give us a consistent picture to accept or reject.)

---

This is partly why I find non-theism such a helpful concept. It allows me to have no GOD whilst accepting that other people, from their imaginations, create gods that are meaningful, challenging, comforting, whatever - IMHO. So long as their belief does not harm / hurt others, it's ok by me.
It also allows me to reject any idea that GOD could intervene.
 

---

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the famous rachel:

My translation is: God made us because he wanted to, he made us able to choose to turn away from him, because he wanted to, he let temptation come our way, because he wanted to. He then wanted us to resist temptation. We failed. He didn't get what he want, so he stamped his foot and cast us into the outer darkness. This is what I call my "toddler God" model of Christian theology. (My 4 year old son used to react quite similarly to not getting his own way, only he didn't have the power to cast me into the outer darkness*. He's starting to grow out of it now.) Now, I suppose it is possible that the toddler God exists, but I don't want to worship him! (This is all the same problem as the "God is not good, he's holy" issue in the OP!).

Admitting that my toddler God picture is slightly a parody, nonetheless, if God is both loving and all-powerful and has made us as the pinnacle of his creation, I am definitely left with the question "Why didn't he do a better job?"

So I feel like God is either...
(a) so unlikely as to have a vanishingly small chance of existing
OR
(b) incompetent
OR
(c) mean.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think it depends on where you start from, or point of view. If I start from the present moment, I am often impressed by a sense of the numinous or transcendent, and then it's quite a smooth slide to God, although maybe not the Christian version.

---

Yes, I agree.

But there is no 'Christian version' of God as far as I can see. There seem to be as many versions of God as there are Christians! (which is part of the problem imo, why doesn't God reveal herself more clearly? - she has it in her power to do so, after all. She could at least give us a consistent picture to accept or reject.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:

I've yet to have a satisfactory answer to the question "Why did God put the tree there?"

---

That's my problem in a nutshell (although I have never believed in the creation narrative in any literal sense). Parenthood threw this one into stark relief for me. If you have a toddler, you will have encountered situations where your child knows that they really shouldn't do something, but somehow just can't help themselves. One of the things I try to do, as a parent, is to avoid putting my child into such situations if I can foresee them (often I can't). When I fail on that, I try not to come down on him like a ton of bricks when he succumbs to the temptation I failed to spot. Often I fail but that's my failure not his. I am the adult in the situation.

In the Adam and Eve story we have the all-powerful creator, and the newly-formed naked humans with no knowledge of good and evil. I reckon God is the adult in that situation, and I find his behaviour difficult to square with something Jesus is meant to have said: "If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!".

Thanks Jemima - it's a relief that somebody else recognises this characterisation, to be honest.

Best wishes,
Rachel.
 

---

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
You're welcome.

And you underline the point I'd not thought about in detail - that the humans at the time had no knowledge of good and evil. I suppose my next questions (not to you, in general) would be - why is such knowledge a bad thing? And what does it mean, in that situation, for them to have that knowledge?

Perhaps the story isn't there for any particular reason. One of the additional dangers of my evangelical upbringing is the assumption* that all the Bible stories are there for us to learn something from. Or, worse, to imagine ourselves as part of the story. It doesn't really seem to be on to respond to a sermon with "Nope, I'm sorry, I don't recognise myself in any part of that story. It holds no challenge or encouragement for me. It's just weird".

Especially when that story is the calling of Isaiah. Being sermonised at by someone half my age about stepping out of one's comfort zone was pretty galling. I think people should be banned from preaching until they're at least 40 and have had at least one seriously shitty life experience.Yes, yes, I know the latter could well have been true in his case and I shouldn't assume otherwise*

And whilst we're at it with the assumptions, what's with assuming that we'd want to worship this toddler God?
<awaits lightning strike >

*Assumption, as we all know, being the mother of all fuck ups.
 

---

Posted by the famous rachel (# 1258) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:


And whilst we're at it with the assumptions, what's with assuming that we'd want to worship this toddler God?
<awaits lightning strike >

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thyme:
Belle Ringer, thank you. This is my story too.

---

And lots of people, hearing your tale, insist the problem is you, right?

Two things have helped me a lot. One is the book Sacred Pathways which says different personalities have contrasting ways to best (or worst) connect to God.

For example, some thrive on the deeply meaningful (to them) highly symbolic visual/sensual theater of liturgy, a perfect icon through which to "see" God; for others, liturgy is annoyingly rigid, lifeless, artificial and empty ritual, an anti-icon that blocks people from God. Both views are correct!

Intellectual vs experiential, large group vs two or three, structured vs spontaneous - it's rare for anyone to love both sides of any of these; Shipmates commonly scorn whichever side doesn't work for them.

No church can benefit more than half of the "spiritual types" the book describes.

The second thing, new to me, is the parasympathetic nervous system. The brain turns on the health producing system when you are doing things that fulfill you, and turns it off (turns on adrenaline instead) when confronting negative environments (or negative thoughts).

A stressful (for you) church turns off the parasympathetic system, destroying your body, mind and soul. You MUST leave. Others may thrive there, but it is literally killing you, cutting years off your life while prolonging colds and other illnesses. The struggle to "fit in" and to "contribute" (through grit teeth), is deadly wrong.

There can be life situations worth risking your health for, but church membership is not one of them.

Now the trick is to find the other church escapees: they, not church people, are your (and my) potential friends of shared spiritual language and behavior.
 

---

Posted by Beenster (# 242) on :
 
I remember, I remember! As well as my disintegrating faith, there was some poor people experiences. I put in place some structures to make things work for me whilst I hope my faith returned and one of the structures was to go to a homegroup but not to go to church - I did some work at another church. I was really happy with this arrangement, as a chronic introvert (I know that now), I foudn the prospect of going to church too scary and so these two small groups felt ok.

However, the curate of the church went to my homegroup and I got an email from him saying he had never seen me at church and that the belief was that homegroup was a subgroup of mainsteam church. I didn't have the confidence to tell him of my neurosis and I can't remember what I said suffice to say I led him to believe I would try to go to church. Fast forward a few weeks - and another email saying he hadn't seen me in church and therefore I was no longer welcome at home group.

However, at the same time, he was moving to a new parish which happened to be just down the road to where I was moving to - in London. And so, I went to one last homegroup - it was the end of term. I mentioned this to said curate and he looked at me square on "i don't want my church to be another white middle class church in an inner city area" (it's hardly inner city but slightly deprived area - or it was). Now interpretation is --- as it is --- and i understood that to say "don't darken my door of my church."

Another friend of mine (a christian who has disappeared) got really stuck in at that church adn far more middle class than me.

I regret not having the guts to stand up to him, or tell my homegroup leaders of my dilemma who I am sure would have been supportive. I regret not having the confidence to say how much church panicked and scared me.

Anyways. I asked around and was pointed in the direction of a more liberal church - although was warned about the priest. I went a couple of times and then had a break and went again and this was awful. There had been a meeting during the week about volunteering in the community and it hadn't been well attended. Those that had gone to the meeting were called to the front. The rest of us were shouted at by the priest. I should have walked out at that point but I didnt have the guts. It was quite funny - the priest was jumping up and down saying "i want to be proud of you." I just shrunk into myself and realised that I had gone looking for a love and it was being denied me.

That was the last time i went to church. A struggling faith, social awkwardnesses and shitty people it all culminated to my freedom.

The really good thing, I have stopped looking and started working on my social awkwardness and so such situations are no longer threatening and how to say what I feel.
 

---

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beenster:
I foudn the prospect of going to church too scary and so these two small groups felt ok...he hadn't seen me in church and therefore I was no longer welcome at home group...

...The rest of us were shouted at by the priest... I had gone looking for a love and it was being denied me.

That was the last time i went to church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
I was a minister and so I believed in GOD.

Slowly, I came to believe that the church...was sometimes a nasty place and an irrelevance in today's society (I could qualify that, of course). But I stayed and tried my little bit to bring about change, particularly in styles of worship.

Then I retired and began to ask questions that I dare not face whilst 'in the pulpit'...

---

This is a story I've heard before. What exactly prevents people from saying the hard things to themselves and sorting it out while they're employed as church leaders?...

---

quote:

---

Admitting that my toddler God picture is slightly a parody, nonetheless, if God is both loving and all-powerful and has made us as the pinnacle of his creation, I am definitely left with the question "Why didn't he do a better job?"

---

I don't know if this will be at all helpful - but for me the idea of 'better' is pretty much synonymous with the idea of 'God' - both require faith, and ultimately are resistant to reason. Therefore, if you are prepared to sacrifice a rational meaningless universe and hope for something 'better' then perhaps

quote:

---

...I feel like God is either...
(a) so unlikely as to have a vanishingly small chance of existing
OR
(b) incompetent
OR
(c) mean.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pimple:
...cruelty and bigotry and hatred and stupidity and pride. And it seemed to me that there were as many perpetrators as victims in the churches and other religious institutions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
Here's an amusing and short way of seeing it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The Derren Brown stuff is creepy and quite scary. He is a master of utilising the means of manipulation that all sorts of people use to manipulate us (not just religious - all salesmen use it, to various degrees, for example).

The thing is, these techniques are just about how we communicate with each other. Some of these techniques are Interview Techniques, that most of us have used, or skills for getting on in a working environment. We all use some of them, with various degrees of skill and success.

The problem comes when these techniques are deliberately used to manipulate (in particular when claiming that this is divine inspiration) or when these are the techniques that are in play unwittingly, and seen to be divine gifts. This does not, to me, disprove that these gifts can be real. It means that they can be faked.

I remember the programme Brown did about religious conversion, where he showed that many of the outward signs of conversion could be induced by him. What this showed for me was that some of the outward signs of religious fervour can be "drummed up" by the appropriate environment - something that anyone who has been to the big events will know - but that this doesn't disprove or refute the reality of many conversions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
Prove the existing of a single 'spiritual gift'. They've all either been debunked long ago or have much more reasonable explanations. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary (or even ordinary) proof. It isn't there.

---

A month or two ago I explained on the Ship in some detail why I decided not to spend $1000 to fly across the country plus hotel and rental car to hire the doc with the original records and x-rays examine me and verify that I had been instantly healed in a prayer meeting of a not-curable-by-doctors nor by passage-of-time problem.

The expense and time out of work wouldn't help me, I was enjoying dancing and hiking and didn't need a doc to tell me I was now able to. Nor would anyone else be convinced by any proof I brought back, because people believe what makes them comfortable. Many find the concept of an actively involved God uncomfortable.

Even in natural alternative healing, I have seen people look at before and after xrays and continue to insist "it's a scam, it can't work, so I won't try it."

I have a friend with neuropathy who rejects every treatment I find - "I smell a quack." The most recent "quack" (in his dismissive opinion, without looking past the title on the web page) is approved by FDA and covered by Medicare! But it's a "quack" because his doc says there is nothing to help, and a world in which the doc cannot be relied on is too scary.

Most people reject earthly testable healing methods even though they can personally track down and question any of thousands of individuals reporting success and not collecting any money from anyone, so of course most people reject reports of God healing anyone! Proof is not the issue or they would not be rejecting natural methods that work.

If it doesn't fit a person's existing world view, "it's a scam" because if it's real, the worldview has to change, and that's always unsettling.

There are fraudsters in the sacred and secular professions; and gullible people who believe the fraudsters. Fraud by some or many doesn't mean there is no *real* that the fraudster is pretending to imitate. But proof? People reject it when shown. So I no longer try to prove anything.

"If you want me to believe it you have to prove it to my satisfaction." What you choose to believe is not my responsibility! Neither do I have any obligation to doubt the reality I have experienced just because someone else (who wasn't there) insists -like my friend with neuropathy - anything he doesn't already believe in is "quackery."

I have solid experiential reason to believe in the real world effectiveness of a number of "spiritual gifts." I get mad at God for the infrequency! No skin off me if anyone or everyone else chooses to disbelieve; I still enjoy the concrete fruits of those gifts.
 

---

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
BR, I'm sorry, but you are going about this all the wrong way. I can see that what you perceive as God's magic powers are important to you and that your experiences, as experiences, are certainly real. Over history more and more aspects of Christian belief (or religious belief more generally) have become untenable. It's a long list: slavery, the flat earth, 7-day creationism, geocentricity, the rights of parents to sell their children, flames coming out of peoples heads as they pray, levitation, and on and on. It's never once gone the other way; where something once attributed to a natural process and/or with a scientific explanation has later been discarded in favour of God's magic as the only possible explanation. If any of the outrageous claims of Christian magic were true, it could be easily verified. I don't need to tell you that it hasn't happened. However, I do believe that as salvation goods, belief in Christian magic is now mandatory—therefore, the stakes are so high that increasingly elaborate hoaxes will continue to appear. That's another story, for another thread. What I, and millions of others, are being asked to believe are not just outrageous stories, but outrageous stories with no proof whatsoever. After literally millions of claims of miracles in the recent decades, not a single one has been proven—and the burden of proof is of the claimant. Moreover, Christianity, like most religions, claims that it, and only it, is true—and completely true. So what about all the other 'miracles' from non-Christians? No proof is offered their either and both sides have an army of apologists, almost none of which are willing to engage honestly in scientific testing of the claims. When rigorous science is employed, no miracle ever emerges. Christians will then employ what I can The Doctrine of Infinite Exceptions. What is absolutely essential, in, I grant, only some quarters of Christianity, is that you do not examine the claims of Christians. You must not examine the lies and exploitation, you must not examine the forgeries along the way, the massive list of narrative and factual errors and inconsistencies in the Bible. You must not—and that is the only response from deep within the bowels of Christian life.

K.
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I suppose the question for me here is whether believing these things is so bad, Komensky. Even if they are just a form of confirmation bias, the placebo effect and so on.. maybe believing that it is possible to get better from these things actually leads to people getting better from these things.

Or to put it another way - does believing in a false myth have some practical benefits?
 

---

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
Mr C, that's a good question! I certainly don't think that some obviously fictional beliefs are necessarily a bad thing. Considering the topic at hand; what is the harm of the culture of faith healing? Well, it is a culture that has not produced a single verifiable 'healing', but has produced hundreds of cases of illness and even death. In some cases those are people who rejected medicine altogether, also those who, in the first instance sought prayer rather than medicine—we also need to consider the broader effects within Christian culture (or other other faith/religious groups that claim a magical healing 'power') that encourages people to believe the demonstrable untrue. Let's say that some people think it is a harmless practice; what do you say about the deaths that result each year from faith healing? Is that part of the plan of a benevolent God? Or is it the product of a deluded and selfish group of people who refuse to face the hard facts of science? This latter group is a parallel to the geocentrics of centuries ago, who, despite all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

I don't think that this example (of the belief in faith healing) is enough to cause someone to lose their faith altogether; but it is an indictment of an aspect of a particular religious culture. These people were not killed because of too much critical thinking.

I was struck by Einstein's comment in his essay 'The Negro Question' (1946): ' I can escape the feeling of complicity in it only by speaking out'.

K.
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Well, I have a lot of sympathy on that point, but practical reality is that I cannot speak out on everything. I have many issues with various aspects of church life which I moan to my love-ones about, but focus on a very small number of issues to actually do something about.

Other than a very small number of 'faith-healers' who maybe should be resisted, I think the general belief in church that healing is possible is a pretty minor thing.
 

---

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
K - if it's any help to you, I have always rejected almost all of "church history" and most of "church teaching." So much of it is anti- love!

One frustration in discussing such things is being accused of believing 6 day creation and a whole lot of other stuff I never believed! But then, I get the same thing in alt med - I healed my diagnosed cancer with nutrition instead of chemo, and get accused of being a nut who believes in crystals and eye of newt.

If my praying for someone who was then instantly healed of severe carpel tunnel was "magic, not God" - that doesn't answer any questions, does it? Something happened that contradicts medicine and contradicts the experience of 99.999% of similar sufferers.

I don't think the word applied - magic or miracle - matters as much as learning how to do it reliably again and teach others too.

Pretending such things never happen just because you don't personally sit in the doctor's office and review the records (which most skeptics then dismiss as "misdiagnosis" rather than admit unexplainable healing), does not negate the reality of the healing and the changed life.

It's the changes in behavior that convince me. When someone I've known a while is suddenly doing something they couldn't, I notice and ask. Not from what they said, from what they did differently, new ability, overnight. I ask. If when the answer is "I was prayed for" - am I suppose to say "no, that didn't happen and you don't have the new ability you are demonstrating, or you have been pretending all decade so you could pretend to a magic trick and call it God"?

A simple "wow" makes more sense than that analysis! "Wow, I don't understand, but I'm glad for you."

Yes there are scams, where there is desire for improvement there are scammers looking to make big bucks. The healing conferences I go to are free.
 

---

Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :
 
The abdication of belief
Makes the behavior small
Better an ignis fatuus
Than no illume at all

(Emily Dickinson)
 

---

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aravis:
The abdication of belief
Makes the behavior small
Better an ignis fatuus
Than no illume at all

(Emily Dickinson)

---

I'm laughing because I'm the first generation that refused to take Latin. My parents were horrified but I insisted I'll never need it. Never have, until your post. Oh well.

(I sing Latin Masses in large choruses, haven't a clue what any of the songs are actually saying. Nice music, though.)
 

---

Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :
 
The Latin might not have helped here! Literally, it's Latin for "foolish fire" but it's the official term for a will o'the wisp, or marsh gas, in other words a light that seems to lead you on to safety but probably won't.

(A more familiar analogy now would be the "Hello Squishy" lantern fish scene in "Finding Nemo".)
 

---

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Final straws? For me - like Karl - I am more sure what I am not any more than exactly where I place myself on any spectrum.

Having said that, it alarmed me just how confident Christians I came across were that they couldn't be wrong - believing there is a God and an afterlife etc. I thought that everyone seriously considered/challenged that question for themselves. Even on the ship (and with some of those who I really admire) when Karl started a thread about where people were on a scale of 7 from Atheist to totally convinced believer (I think it was a Richard Dawkins' scale) many claimed they were more or less certain. That bothered me.

Being involved in churches that embraced the Toronto Blessing also bothered me because it taught me something about how easily humans (deeply involved in something) can fall for group delusional thinking.

Also most (all?) Christian apologetics just seemed a bit hopeless. I'd read some and thought well clearly that isn't very good there must be some out there who are a little more convincing and little less evasive. Then I realised that I was reading what are considered some of the best.

Luigi
 

---

Posted by Thyme (# 12360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
it alarmed me just how confident Christians I came across were that they couldn't be wrong - believing there is a God and an afterlife etc. I thought that everyone seriously considered/challenged that question for themselves. Even on the ship (and with some of those who I really admire) when Karl started a thread about where people were on a scale of 7 from Atheist to totally convinced believer (I think it was a Richard Dawkins' scale) many claimed they were more or less certain. That bothered me.

---

I am a bit puzzled as to why you are bothered/alarmed about others beliefs. Why shouldn't a Christian be confident about their belief? Maybe they have seriously considered the issues and come to a place of belief from that process. You may struggle to understand why they arrived at these conclusions and have that confidence, but that is your problem not theirs. If it is a problem, but it seems to be for you.

Do you mean they are trying to impose their belief on you?

If so I don't see the difference between that and you saying that they are wrong for having that confidence in their belief.

I remember years ago being shouted at for some time by a couple of friends who wanted me to say that I could be wrong in my belief. They were very aggressive about it and quite frightening in the intensity of their need for me to profess a doubt I didn't and don't have.

They could not grasp the notion that my lack of doubt did not mean I was saying they were wrong in their doubts, just that I didn't share them and didn't see why I should pretend to just to make them feel better.
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I don't have problems with other peoples' expressions of faith, particularly the sort of faith that shines out of a very few individuals I have encountered and comes as an expression of love, albeit tough love at moments. That is awe-inspiring and something I'd like to aspire to.

But ... there are some people who are so sure in their certainty and expression of God who are positively frightening. The sort of people who are certain that God is telling them to refuse to treat a baby of two lesbians, for a current example in Dead Horses. Or can tell others that their form of worship is the only way to God, as often happens on Ecclesiantics. Or that God has told them that they need something and that as they are doing God's will, this has to happen. And they thank God rather than the hands and feet on earth that make whatever happen ... One of my straws has been some Christians like this.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
But Christianity is a pluralistic religion with many competing claims from different quarters, so I'm not sure why other people's conviction about their own doctrines need drive us away from the faith altogether. We just need convictions of our own....

The problem, perhaps, is that other people's certainty will always seem louder and more dominant than our own more hesitant faith. Certainty wows onlookers and creates the public agenda on religion. Noone (apart from sociologists, perhaps) really cares about the beliefs of people who don't look entirely convinced, so I suppose it always seems as if the religious ball is in someone else's court. That can easily become a frustration that drives some people, I suppose.

[ 21. February 2015, 15:37: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
... Drives some people away, I mean.
 

---

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Thyme - did my post come across as aggressive? Yes of course people can believe whatever they like. It is still difficult for me to understand the whole 'I don't have any doubts, at all, ever.'

I'd always assumed - perhaps wrongly - that 'Lord I believe, help my unbelief' was to some degree how all people respond to the Christian faith. Indeed I cannot think of a single area of my life where I would happily say I believe something totally 100% without any doubts. (That is except for things that are so tangible and obvious that to claim you don't believe it would be absurd. e.g. That gravity will still be working tomorrow.)

So the whole 'I think this but I could be wrong' seems to me a logical position to adopt. Hope that makes sense.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Luigi wrote:

Also most (all?) Christian apologetics just seemed a bit hopeless. I'd read some and thought well clearly that isn't very good there must be some out there who are a little more convincing and little less evasive. Then I realised that I was reading what are considered some of the best.

Yes. I was kind of weaned on people like Thomas Merton, and that seemed hopeful, but then turned to reading Lewis and others, and it was quite disappointing. There is some kind of gap which they seem to leap, but really, they sort of wriggle over it. Ah well.

I think some of it is over-cooked - better just to say that these are the ideas and symbols which move me, and have done with it, rather than mounting some kind of over-arching logical defence of them.
 

---

Posted by cynic girl (# 13844) on :
 
I don't know if there was a 'last straw' for me. There was more of a gaping emptiness that grew, and grew... until something else filled it better. I suppose it was growing disillusionment. About lots of things, but at the end, mostly about a lack of inclusion for Christians who are disabled or chronically ill. And other justice issues.

It was only later that there was a sense of betrayal that I'd been taught a religious system that made my pre-existing mental health-type-difficulties worse. (Particularly in particular types of churches, as a child and teen.)
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0