"The Line Must Be Drawn Here!"
I believe correct reasoning is definitely an acquired characteristic. It is something we develop if only we are fortunate enough to start this life with the basic cognitive abilities nature provided.
I believe a good analysis on a position comes by knowing where to draw a line and whether or not a line has been crossed. What constitutes A? What constitutes B? What are the deciding differences between A and B? At exactly what point does A end and B begin? Then there is the ability to troubleshoot one's own thinking. How blurry is the line between A and B? Do A and B really deserve separate categories? Are the distinctions I have drawn between A and B to constitute a categorical change in thinking warranted, or am I drawing a distinction without a difference? Making a distinction without a difference happens to be a very common fallacy.
What made my departure from Christianity possible was the time I had to think and re-think the quandaries that troubled me. When I found no resolutions, it was only as my faith began to erode that I was finally able to see why I couldn't resolve the issues -- because I was unable to draw satisfactory lines between the available positions I was compelled to choose from...
- I considered how the faith-healer and the charismatic Christian who prayed at a revival meeting for someone to be healed of cancer, expecting "a miracle right now", differed little from the traditional Catholic or Protestant who believed in God's healing providential hand over time. The aggressive evangelicals who demand an immediate healing are saying little different than what any average Christian believes, that God will somehow bend the laws of reality to heal them of their infirmities.
- I considered how the same militant charismatics who believed in modern miracles differed little from those of my former religious persuasion, who believed in just the Bible miracles. The only difference is the time period, and realizing that, it only followed to wonder why God would perform miracles back then and not today when they would be no less needed.
- I considered how the extremist flat-earthers and geocentrist Christians differed little from the literal creationists who argued for a 6 day creation, or those progressive creationists who accepted an ancient earth, but rejected classical Darwinism -- all were in support of supernatural perversions of natural evolution; the literalists basically denied evolution altogether, accepting only "micro-evolution" occurring between God's created "kinds", and in the case of the progressives (depending on which breed you talk to), the evolution only occurred in the animal world, and some time later, God decided to transform an ape into a man and call him Adam, a hoky form of God-directed evolution!
- I considered how those who maintained belief in modern day Jesus and Virgin Mary apparitions were no different than those who believed that Samuel and Moses heard and spoke to God, or that Constantine saw a cross in the sky and received a commandment to conquer in it's name.
- I considered how the Catholics esteeming the pope and the church authoritative, and the Mormons following their own "12 apostles" of the new age whom they consider to be authoritative, is fundamentally no different from my former belief that the original 12 apostles (14 if you count Matthias and Paul) were authoritative as they spoke the will of God on earth.
Similarly, I found that those who stood in the more liberal Christian camps, and who held to the position of a local Noahic flood as opposed to a global one, that the days of Genesis 1 were figurative as opposed to literal, or that the Preterist's view of Revelation was correct, tended to differ little from secular commentators and higher critics, the same class of thinkers who might subscribe to later dates for the Bible books or accept the idea of Thought Inspiration instead of Verbal Plenary Inspiration.
I get asked all the time why I didn't accept a more liberal version of Christianity when I defected from the faith. Well, the answer should already be apparent, but if it isn't, here it is; I found it impossible to identify with any one liberal or conservative alignment of beliefs. I couldn't properly draw the dividing lines that allowed me to make the necessary distinctions to preserve some, and not all, of that superstitious scrapheap known as the Bible. Consequently, I had to reject it.
I cannot put myself in the same camp with someone who denies Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and then claims that such a position is consistent with the New Testament's Jesus, "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me." (John 5:46) I cannot put myself in the camp with those who have no problem lopping off the first 12 chapters of Genesis as mythical, while accepting only the other parts of the book that are more believable to the modern world, and yet hasten to tell me that I should believe in a crucified and risen savior-god. It just doesn't jive! I am respecting neither Christianity, nor science (not to mention myself) by half-heartedly trying to believe them both.
And one must ask, is there any real incentive seeking out solace in a dethroned Jesus, a Christ robbed of his deity, one who's ass has been kicked by reason and modern science? If I want to learn from and admire a humanitarian, I'll read Gandhi. If I want a self-help specialist, I'll read Dr. Phil.
For me, the findings of assessing Christianity had only one consistent pull -- away from being considered the products of any divine origins at all. The pieces of the puzzle had to fit, and they finally did. I was forced to naturalize what had been pounded into my head as supernatural. Those horses and chariots of fire that took Elijah to heaven had to mean something that would click with my rational mind. Well, in time, they did, but the answer I came to did not bring God any glory. The Bible was a complete work of fiction. That was the answer I came to embrace.
I believe the matter boils down to this; if I'm going to fudge the laws of reality to make room for the possibility of a supernatural god who intervenes in nature, then there are lots of gods to choose from, less defined gods to whom I can assign whatever positive attributes I see fit. But if I want to stay with the Christian God, even preferring a nicer, more scientifically pliable version of him to posit as my creator, I cannot find the consistency to do so; if I can fudge the laws of nature to make room for a supernatural being, then I can fudge a few more laws to preserve the Bible's testimony of who this god is and what he has done, and indeed, I must do so.
If I want to start a new line of Superman comics, my readers are not going to be very happy with me if my rendition of Superman doesn't have X-ray vision, heat vision, and the ability to fly because those are three of the characteristics of Superman. If I am going to expect people to identify with my portrayal of the character, the image I portray of him must be characteristically identical with he who is known as "Superman." Otherwise I would just be stealing his name and creating a new character.
In precisely the same way, one should not be expected to identify with a new version of the Christian God, divorced from the characteristics that make him who he is known to be. But this is exactly what modern theologians want you to accept, a re-made Yahweh for the new age, severed from his barbaric past, one who cares more about science, about having his believers set up abortion protests, racial equality, and preachers in suits and ties, praying non-judgmentally and with tightly clutched hands at social events and the dinner table.
Contemporary apologists want you to forget that it was this same god of old who has been an opponent of science (I Timothy 6:20-21), the cause of abortions (Hosea 13:16; Numbers 31:15-18), racism (Genesis 9:24-27), and a fierce bringer of judgment on his many enemies (homosexuals, Leviticus 20:13, witches, Exodus 22:18, Sabbath breakers, Exodus 31:14, and those who worship other gods, Exodus 22:20, see also Luke 19:27). Yes, today's refined theologians are trying to sell you a new and improved Jesus, one who cares less about crusading against Jews and Muslims, and more about tolerance and compassion for the infidel. This is definitely not the god I read about in the Bible! Yet if the Bible itself is what serves as the basis for one's belief in the God of the Bible, then how can I but rely on that same testimony to define who he is?
Realizing this, I am now compelled to go down the list of less than admirable qualities and fantastic ideas attributed to this deity and accept the biblical testimony about him. The God of the Bible made the sun stand still (Joshua 10:12-13), an ax head float (2 Kings 6:6), and a chariot of fire, led by actual horses of fire (2 Kings 2:11) to take Elijah to Heaven. The God of the Bible is a vengeful war-god who kills seventy thousand men for one man's sins (I Chronicles 21:14). But since all of this smacks of nonsense and savage cruelty, I cannot square these things with sensibility or civility, so I am compelled to go the only other route I can find and accept that the Bible is not of divine origins at all and must be rejected as the testimony of a god in it's entirety. The line must be drawn here!
(JH)
What made my departure from Christianity possible was the time I had to think and re-think the quandaries that troubled me. When I found no resolutions, it was only as my faith began to erode that I was finally able to see why I couldn't resolve the issues -- because I was unable to draw satisfactory lines between the available positions I was compelled to choose from...
- I considered how the faith-healer and the charismatic Christian who prayed at a revival meeting for someone to be healed of cancer, expecting "a miracle right now", differed little from the traditional Catholic or Protestant who believed in God's healing providential hand over time. The aggressive evangelicals who demand an immediate healing are saying little different than what any average Christian believes, that God will somehow bend the laws of reality to heal them of their infirmities.
- I considered how the same militant charismatics who believed in modern miracles differed little from those of my former religious persuasion, who believed in just the Bible miracles. The only difference is the time period, and realizing that, it only followed to wonder why God would perform miracles back then and not today when they would be no less needed.
- I considered how the extremist flat-earthers and geocentrist Christians differed little from the literal creationists who argued for a 6 day creation, or those progressive creationists who accepted an ancient earth, but rejected classical Darwinism -- all were in support of supernatural perversions of natural evolution; the literalists basically denied evolution altogether, accepting only "micro-evolution" occurring between God's created "kinds", and in the case of the progressives (depending on which breed you talk to), the evolution only occurred in the animal world, and some time later, God decided to transform an ape into a man and call him Adam, a hoky form of God-directed evolution!
- I considered how those who maintained belief in modern day Jesus and Virgin Mary apparitions were no different than those who believed that Samuel and Moses heard and spoke to God, or that Constantine saw a cross in the sky and received a commandment to conquer in it's name.
- I considered how the Catholics esteeming the pope and the church authoritative, and the Mormons following their own "12 apostles" of the new age whom they consider to be authoritative, is fundamentally no different from my former belief that the original 12 apostles (14 if you count Matthias and Paul) were authoritative as they spoke the will of God on earth.
Similarly, I found that those who stood in the more liberal Christian camps, and who held to the position of a local Noahic flood as opposed to a global one, that the days of Genesis 1 were figurative as opposed to literal, or that the Preterist's view of Revelation was correct, tended to differ little from secular commentators and higher critics, the same class of thinkers who might subscribe to later dates for the Bible books or accept the idea of Thought Inspiration instead of Verbal Plenary Inspiration.
I get asked all the time why I didn't accept a more liberal version of Christianity when I defected from the faith. Well, the answer should already be apparent, but if it isn't, here it is; I found it impossible to identify with any one liberal or conservative alignment of beliefs. I couldn't properly draw the dividing lines that allowed me to make the necessary distinctions to preserve some, and not all, of that superstitious scrapheap known as the Bible. Consequently, I had to reject it.
I cannot put myself in the same camp with someone who denies Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and then claims that such a position is consistent with the New Testament's Jesus, "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me." (John 5:46) I cannot put myself in the camp with those who have no problem lopping off the first 12 chapters of Genesis as mythical, while accepting only the other parts of the book that are more believable to the modern world, and yet hasten to tell me that I should believe in a crucified and risen savior-god. It just doesn't jive! I am respecting neither Christianity, nor science (not to mention myself) by half-heartedly trying to believe them both.
And one must ask, is there any real incentive seeking out solace in a dethroned Jesus, a Christ robbed of his deity, one who's ass has been kicked by reason and modern science? If I want to learn from and admire a humanitarian, I'll read Gandhi. If I want a self-help specialist, I'll read Dr. Phil.
For me, the findings of assessing Christianity had only one consistent pull -- away from being considered the products of any divine origins at all. The pieces of the puzzle had to fit, and they finally did. I was forced to naturalize what had been pounded into my head as supernatural. Those horses and chariots of fire that took Elijah to heaven had to mean something that would click with my rational mind. Well, in time, they did, but the answer I came to did not bring God any glory. The Bible was a complete work of fiction. That was the answer I came to embrace.
I believe the matter boils down to this; if I'm going to fudge the laws of reality to make room for the possibility of a supernatural god who intervenes in nature, then there are lots of gods to choose from, less defined gods to whom I can assign whatever positive attributes I see fit. But if I want to stay with the Christian God, even preferring a nicer, more scientifically pliable version of him to posit as my creator, I cannot find the consistency to do so; if I can fudge the laws of nature to make room for a supernatural being, then I can fudge a few more laws to preserve the Bible's testimony of who this god is and what he has done, and indeed, I must do so.
If I want to start a new line of Superman comics, my readers are not going to be very happy with me if my rendition of Superman doesn't have X-ray vision, heat vision, and the ability to fly because those are three of the characteristics of Superman. If I am going to expect people to identify with my portrayal of the character, the image I portray of him must be characteristically identical with he who is known as "Superman." Otherwise I would just be stealing his name and creating a new character.
In precisely the same way, one should not be expected to identify with a new version of the Christian God, divorced from the characteristics that make him who he is known to be. But this is exactly what modern theologians want you to accept, a re-made Yahweh for the new age, severed from his barbaric past, one who cares more about science, about having his believers set up abortion protests, racial equality, and preachers in suits and ties, praying non-judgmentally and with tightly clutched hands at social events and the dinner table.
Contemporary apologists want you to forget that it was this same god of old who has been an opponent of science (I Timothy 6:20-21), the cause of abortions (Hosea 13:16; Numbers 31:15-18), racism (Genesis 9:24-27), and a fierce bringer of judgment on his many enemies (homosexuals, Leviticus 20:13, witches, Exodus 22:18, Sabbath breakers, Exodus 31:14, and those who worship other gods, Exodus 22:20, see also Luke 19:27). Yes, today's refined theologians are trying to sell you a new and improved Jesus, one who cares less about crusading against Jews and Muslims, and more about tolerance and compassion for the infidel. This is definitely not the god I read about in the Bible! Yet if the Bible itself is what serves as the basis for one's belief in the God of the Bible, then how can I but rely on that same testimony to define who he is?
Realizing this, I am now compelled to go down the list of less than admirable qualities and fantastic ideas attributed to this deity and accept the biblical testimony about him. The God of the Bible made the sun stand still (Joshua 10:12-13), an ax head float (2 Kings 6:6), and a chariot of fire, led by actual horses of fire (2 Kings 2:11) to take Elijah to Heaven. The God of the Bible is a vengeful war-god who kills seventy thousand men for one man's sins (I Chronicles 21:14). But since all of this smacks of nonsense and savage cruelty, I cannot square these things with sensibility or civility, so I am compelled to go the only other route I can find and accept that the Bible is not of divine origins at all and must be rejected as the testimony of a god in it's entirety. The line must be drawn here!
(JH)