As a former believer expressing doubts about Christianity, I’m frequently warned: Be careful. What you’re doing will have eternal consequences (translation: I’m headed to hell).
What B.S.
Here’s what I know. I looked, with all my heart, for God. I searched far longer than was logical for my faith to reappear. It didn’t. I didn’t make a choice to turn away from the Lord. My beliefs just evaporated, and there was nothing.
There is no way a loving God would hold that against me come Judgment Day (which I now have no doubt is a myth). A good father would say, “Son, you tried your hardest. You did the best you could. You reached the wrong conclusion, but I would never hold that against you for eternity. I love you too much.”
Many Christians want to make heaven an exclusive club only believers in Christ can get into. I think that says more about them than the God they worship.
I don’t think I’m wrong in concluding that there is no personal God who looks after me. But if I’ve screwed things up, I’m confident God is a big enough God to forgive me.
The Latest on Faith and Doubt
17 responses so far ↓
1 Butch // Jul 26, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Agreed 100%. I de-converted and this sounds like you’re speaking from my own experiences. I have no reason to think any god exists, but any god who would damn a person to unending torture for honestly searching and losing faith is not worthy of worship .
2 Alexander // Jul 27, 2008 at 12:08 am
But if I’ve screwed things up, I’m confident God is a big enough God to forgive me.
Hedging a bit, are we?
3 Art // Jul 27, 2008 at 7:16 am
What a shock it will be when all the believers wake up dead. In an eternal dark void of nothingness. Tough. We will die like everything else and only our human capacity for insane self-delusion allows anyone to think otherwise.
But have the Christians give us just a minimal hint about what eternity will be like. If as a ChristianI was blown to pieces by an American bomb–something we are good at–will I be constituted in a beautiful body? If I die horrible death from cancer I get to choose to be 19 again? If only our spirit lives on and there is not sensory realm in paradise (nonmolecular I guess) how will we recognized and enjoy each other? I mean all those silly Mormons are expecting one long family BBQ? But what will we do all day? Float around and sing to God? What a bore!!! What about great TV? Fantastic sex? Magnificent forests and gorgeous sunsets? Christians are ludicrously empty headed about what paradise will be like and another component of their BS they take on “faith” like cretins. So Christians have non-atomic non-molecular parallel universe components in their bodies called souls? How funny! Bottom line, if heaven is just a bunch of disembodied souls floating around singing God’s praises for eternity what a torture!! Who wants such an unending hell? Eternal existence would be a curse.
4 Please watch and discuss with me // Jul 28, 2008 at 3:23 am
I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS this seems to make the most sense.
5 pat // Jul 28, 2008 at 11:35 am
On Zeitgeist there’s a big emphasis on comparing sun worship and worship of the son. Those are both English words and their counterparts in other languages don’t sound anything alike. For example, the Hebrew word for son is “Ben”. I heard a discussion about it by Gary Demar, but I hadn’t seen the movie so wasn’t listening too closely. In earlier religions there was an emphasis on worshipping something created (sun, moon, stars) rather than the Creator who fashioned them. It is easier to worship something seen rather than the unseen God. And that’s where all the faith and doubt question emerges again. I have heard of another movie coming out in which the Muslims introduce their Jesus who is to come as a helper to their Mahdi (sp ?) when their apocolypse happens. They truly believe what they do, also. They have the same prophets as in the Bible, etc. but they do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God as Mohammad said, ‘Allah had no son.
6 Jerry // Jul 29, 2008 at 2:42 am
ah, thank you pat. I dont see the literal translation to be son vs. sun (words that sound the same) but the explanation of the sun’s travels through the heavens and 3 day death and
“resurrection”, virgin birth etc to be the same story in so many belief systems and that the story of a fictional Jesus was not the first to embody those facts. Just the personification for our ages.
How could these same stories have been passed down even before a Jesus was around to personify them, as Joseph before him and all the stories can be found in the “Book of the Dead”
7 pat // Jul 29, 2008 at 6:12 am
It all goes back to the Tower of Babel when God had to come down and “confound the language” so people would discontinue their quest to be God. People migrated to other areas, but their memories of what they knew of the scriptures was still there. Their culture changed and each generation came to understand the past stories differently. Perhaps some were embellished with myths. So all over the world the cultures who had once lived together and spoke the same language remembered stories about the flood. It became defined according to the cultures they lived in and how people understood things. I’m just giving a short description. Zeitgist is done in such an authoritative way, but most of what’s said has been researched over and over and books have been written. Jesus was before the foundation of the world, by Him all things were created. In the Old Testament there’s often a reference to Angel of the Lord and this is what’s called a Christophany, appearance of Christ. At that time, that’s the way God spoke to men. There was no written scripture early on, so the Jewish people instructed each other constantly to learn the truth.
8 Jerry // Jul 29, 2008 at 9:21 am
God had to come down Pat?
He had to?
Oh my.
He didnt come down for 9/11, but he came down for the construction of a babel building? He seems to be getting more picky about what sets him off I guess.
Perhaps there was nothing written back then so they needed to create stories of why nights get shorter, when planting food needs to happen, when to expect rain, where the sun sets and then why the days get longer. And these anthropomorphisms became your savior.
But now that society has calendars, the belief system needs to continue by world leaders in order to blindly control the masses and point the finger at other evil doers for our own homeland security and as a threat to do no evil or you will be eternally damned.
Like I read earlier, Ben said “god is a concept by which we measure our pain”
A catholic priest once told me that “religion is the opium of the people”. He also told me that the church leaders know this and it is their job to carry on the myth. And bring people to their opium dens.. I mean churches. ”
and, btw, my mother still keeps holy water in a jar in her closet which that same priest “blessed” for her. It has turned into, “if it makes her feel better then what is the harm”.
If there was no religion, would our world be in anarchy? Maybe.
9 Thranil // Jul 29, 2008 at 9:57 pm
“Perhaps some were embellished with myths.”
Perhaps? Some? Embellished? Pat, you really could benefit from a study in comparative religion.
10 Tom (Iron Pol) // Aug 2, 2008 at 1:07 am
First, I’d have to agree with Alexander. Holding the belief we can do whatever we please in our lives because God is forgiving and will do just that is a cop-out. God provided the means to forgiveness. It’s up to us to accept or reject it. We have the free will to tie God’s hands when it comes to eternity. Reject him and the choice is made.
And Jerry, you seem to have your leader’s confused. If a priest told you “religion is the opium of the people,” he either was or was quoting Alduous Huxley’s Brave New World. Or he said, “Religion is the opiate of the people,” quoting Karl Marx.
11 Thranil // Aug 4, 2008 at 10:32 pm
“God provided the means to forgiveness. It’s up to us to accept or reject it.”
Forgiveness for what? Every single ’sin’ we have in arsenal he gave to us. Is he forgiving us for his own mistake?
12 Mark // Aug 4, 2008 at 11:24 pm
You are looking at the wrong subject. It is not about you or what you search for or what you do or do not believe in. It is what God has done for us through Jesus. It is not our righteousness, but His that covers us. You relfection that God wouldn’t hold it against you is very close to the reign. He won’t, but only becuase of Christ.
13 Tom (Iron Pol) // Aug 5, 2008 at 12:03 am
“Forgiveness for what? Every single ’sin’ we have in arsenal he gave to us. Is he forgiving us for his own mistake?”
Was it a “mistake” to provide free will? Have you ever seen “AI?” If not, go watch it.
If you have, answer this. Is it love if a “person” is created with no option BUT to love? Apply that to creation of people. If you will stipulate for a moment to the existence of God, could God really say his creation loved and obeyed Him if they had no option but to do so?
I’d say no. In order for love and obedience to have any meaning, an alternative must exist. For alternatives to exist, free will must exist.
As you put it, there is no free will because everything we do is God’s responsibility. If that’s the case, then I can see why you would take the atheism approach. You don’t believe in free will.
14 Thranil // Aug 5, 2008 at 1:06 am
“Is it love if a “person” is created with no option BUT to love?”
Let me answer by asking you another question: Is it love if a person is coerced into that love for fear of suffering (eternal or otherwise)? When one person does that to another, we typically define that as abuse…
“I’d say no. In order for love and obedience to have any meaning, an alternative must exist. For alternatives to exist, free will must exist.”
Good recitation of theology, but that still doesn’t answer the question: who/what created evil. You haven’t given me a creator other than your god, so thus far, we have your god as the primary candidate for having created the evil that he despises.
“As you put it, there is no free will because everything we do is God’s responsibility. If that’s the case, then I can see why you would take the atheism approach. You don’t believe in free will.”
Wow, you’re really making me wish that I was still corresponding with pat… at least she appeared to understand these simple concepts.
Look, it’s simple. Your god is supposedly all-knowing, all-powerful, etc, right? Typical christian theology here. Now follow me closely, because this is where it gets interesting: Assuming your god knew what was going to happen BEFORE he created anything, and assuming that your god had complete control over the creation of everything, then he is clearly responsible for what has happened with his creation. This is simple logic, do you understand?
15 Tom (Iron Pol) // Aug 5, 2008 at 3:41 am
I understand a great deal, Thranil. And you make the same basic mistake my best friend makes regarding Christian theology.
You choose to accept those things that “prove” the non-existence of God. My friend does, too. You like the “basic” logic, so this shouldn’t throw you too far. Can God create a rock he can’t lift? Can God make a building from which He can’t get out? Can God make a bathtub which He is unable to fill with water?
Yeah, we’ve all seen them, the mutually exclusive constraints that “prove” God isn’t “all” powerful. He is unable to do those things, so He somehow fails the “god” test.
You raise a question and make yet another extremely faulty leap of logic. How about just answering the question posed. If a person has NO option but to love, is it really love?
Your question and logic flaw simply deflect the question. But I’ll answer them, anyway.
No person can be coerced into loving another. We can be given good and bad alternatives to our emotional responses, and sometimes they are abusive and other times they are reasonable.
Consider the parents that exercise “tough love” on their children. They set ground rules, identify consequences, and hope for the best. Understanding the child can still think for themselves, the parents cannot force a set of actions, they can only encourage the set they prefer.
We all live with guidelines and consequences. It isn’t the fault of the state if I choose to disobey a speed limit. They provided the guideline and I broke it. When writing the law, they KNOW it will be broken. But it isn’t their fault it was broken. They hope for it to be obeyed.
If you are unable to accept that mutually exclusive concepts are a poor means to prove/disprove the existence of God (which can’t really be done, either way), then the concept of omniscience in conjunction with free will is going to be a perfectly logical means to refute the existence of God. Or a good weapon to confuse people. “Well, God is responsible for sin, so if someone commits sin, it’s God’s fault.”
You claim this deep, born again background. It disturbs me that someone with that kind of background would resort to such mutually exclusive concepts to try and “prove” God doesn’t exist.
16 Thranil // Aug 5, 2008 at 4:43 am
“Yeah, we’ve all seen them, the mutually exclusive constraints that “prove” God isn’t “all” powerful. He is unable to do those things, so He somehow fails the “god” test.”
The only one between us that is asserting the ‘mutually exclusive’ fallacy line is you. I am merely pointing out that if god did exist, then it appears that god created evil. If this somehow proves that your god is not real, then that is a constraint you are adding to the issue. Issues like this contribute to my disbelief, but they are not the reason why I left christianity in the first place.
“You raise a question and make yet another extremely faulty leap of logic. How about just answering the question posed. If a person has NO option but to love, is it really love?”
Sure, I’ll do my best, but my expectation is that you’ll answer my question: Who created evil?
I have a problem with your premise, though. My guess is that you see love as something metaphysical… I see love as chemicals firing in the brain which evoke a sensation/feeling. There’s nothing really special about it, and boy can it make us do stupid things! The reality is that we can achieve this chemical reaction in other ways. If I took the right kind of drug, I could probably end up in love with my coffee cup!
But if I have to answer your question in the more metaphysical/philosophical sense… I’ll try.
Well, it could be love. Just because you have no other option does not negate the feeling that you have for that thing/person/deity. If you knew of other options but were denied them, then you might end up resentful, but you could still love the only option you have.
“Consider the parents that exercise “tough love” on their children. They set ground rules, identify consequences, and hope for the best. Understanding the child can still think for themselves, the parents cannot force a set of actions, they can only encourage the set they prefer.”
True, but we as a society will not tolerate parents who take this idea too far. We will not, for instance, tolerate the idea of burning your child with a cigarette lighter, but your god will punish us with eternity in the ‘flames of hell’ if we do not believe in him. That is not the same thing as setting limits or using ‘tough love’ to help a struggling child.
“We all live with guidelines and consequences. It isn’t the fault of the state if I choose to disobey a speed limit. They provided the guideline and I broke it. When writing the law, they KNOW it will be broken. But it isn’t their fault it was broken. They hope for it to be obeyed.”
Absolutely, and they set reasonable limits to what they can do when someone breaks the law. If you speed, for instance, you will not be given a death sentence. However, according to the bible, if you merely look at someone other than your spouse with sexual thoughts, you will burn forever in the ‘fires of hell’… unless of course you ‘come to jesus’. I mean, if god is supposed to be the most just being in the universe, then why do his ways seem so barbaric to our current way of thinking yet so appropriate to the times in which the various books in the bible were written?
“If you are unable to accept that mutually exclusive concepts are a poor means to prove/disprove……“Well, God is responsible for sin, so if someone commits sin, it’s God’s fault.””
What I am pointing out is that it doesn’t make any sense. If god created the universe the way that it is, knowing full well what would happen before it happened, then condemned us for doing what he knew full well that we would do before he created us… and then had to send himself to earth to sacrifice himself to himself so that he could appease himself for people doing what he knew they would do before he created them… and to top it off, if you don’t guess the right god, then you go to hell…. well, I’m sorry, but it just doesn’t make any sense.
“You claim this deep, born again background. It disturbs me that someone with that kind of background would resort to such mutually exclusive concepts to try and “prove” God doesn’t exist.”
These arguments have nothing to do with whether I am a christian or not. I had heard them many times when I a christian and was not affected by them in the slightest (just like you). What killed christianity for me was a thorough study of the bible… who wrote it, why, what does it really say, etc. All the discrepancies, errors, and outright contradictions were the things that started to erode my faith. The lack of evidence of any deity interacting with people. Understanding human psychology and how we can so deceive ourselves into being convinced that a lie is ‘gospel truth’. All these things contributed to my deconversion process. You seem to want to believe that it all happened because I wanted to become an Atheist. Nothing could be further from the truth. It took me 8 years to accept the reality that there is no god… and then it took me another good year to get over being angry about it. This is not something that I take lightly.
It disturbs me that someone who supposedly values thinking for themselves resorts to the ‘free will’ discussion when asked “where does evil come from”. It does NOT answer the question. It doesn’t even come close. It is a non-sequitor.
17 christian // Aug 24, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Let me begin by saying that i really like your site williamlobdell.com a lot
now.. back to the post hehe
I cant say that i agree with what you wrote… care to clear things up for me?
Leave a Comment