Why I am a member here even though I am a Christian

[Ruth Harris]

(Mods - this thread is not intended to proselytize. I am writing this only to clarify questions I have seen in other threads and a complete explanation involves some statement of my beliefs. I do hope this does not violate forum rules and will not be offended if you question me about some of the statements or need to edit something, but I do think it will make my post less explanatory if you do)

I know that many of you question why someone would join this forum if they are really Christian. Here is my explanation in Q&A format. Feel free to ask questions; I will answer honestly as my time permits.

Are you a Christian? Yes. So how do you prove Christianity is logical and the correct way? I can't – and have no intention of trying. If you are wanting a logic based, step by step reasoning of the truth of Christianity then I recommend you read “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel or “Cold-Case Christianity” by J. Warner Wallace.

So why won't you try to convince everyone here that you are right and they are wrong? Two reasons: first, I am not trained in apologetics, and second that is not what God says is my responsibility. All I am asked to do is proclaim the gospel – so here it is: All people have sinned and lost their eligibility to enter heaven when they die. God is perfect but loves us and wants us to live with him. Christ died on the cross to pay for those sins, and was resurrected to provide everlasting life for those who accept the free gift of salvation in Him through faith. That's it; everything else is window dressing. If you want to know more, there are tons of online resources including bibles, study guides and books. Be wary of those who claim to have the only valid interpretation.

Do you really believe this? Yes. Don't you have doubts? Of course I have doubts! I am not perfect and never will be. I have had many “dark nights of the soul” where I thought that I must be nuts to think that God would ever care about someone like me. But they passed and I am still a believer.

Wait a minute. Aren't you going to tell us that we are hopelessly lost unless we accept everything you say and join the right church? Not a chance, bub. I gave you the entire gospel message above. Churches are filled with people who are sinners just like you and me and they can't do a thing to make you to be saved without your willing acceptance of the gospel message. I have been in a lot of churches where it felt like they were actively hindering the spread of the gospel with their fixation on “rightly dividing the word of God” which is church speak for “Either you believe my way or you are going to Hell!”

Okay, so you are not a fundamentalist with the emphasis on “mental” like so many that descend on us here? Actually, I do consider myself a fundamentalist (but not the “mental” kind!). I believe in the fundamentals of faith – which is the gospel message and nothing more. As for those who come here determined to prove that they can save even an atheist I pity both them and you. They can basically be categorized in one of two ways. There are the ones who are convinced it is their sworn obligation to spread their interpretation of Christianity to everyone and “God will bless” by bringing those who hear it to salvation. Once they figure out that they will be challenged on their reasoning they slink away quietly to nurse their wounds and try again another time and place. The second group is less sympathetic; they come swooping in and make large amounts of noise about their wisdom in biblical interpretation and EVERYONE SHOULD BELIEVE THEM (sorry, couldn't resist mimicking their attitude). The difference with these people is that when their interpretation is challenged they stalk off in high dudgeon stating that they are “turning you over to a reprobate mind” (once again church speak for believe my way or.... well, you know the rest).

My attitude, and that of the other Christians I have seen stay around here, is completely different. I believe that the best way to represent my faith is as stated in Galatians 5:22-23 “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.” And as for thumping others over the head with the Bible and my interpretation, not gonna happen. I can explain this best with another Bible quotation from Luke 18:13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ “ That is me – a sinner. I am no better or more intelligent than you so I am not going to pretend I have all the answers.

So why are you REALLY here? Simple. I like reading conversations between intelligent well informed people, and there are a lot of them here. Of course you have those who can be considered atheist “fundamentalists” with the same attitude as the Christian ones but they are a minority and there are a lot of seriously smart and congenial people here that I can enjoy reading.

Fire when ready

Ruth

 

[funinspace]

Hi old member Ruth.

I don’t care to prove you wrong on XYZ, so this is not why I ask anything. As someone who deconverted a long time ago, I’m often curious as to where each person draws the line on Biblical truths/historicity. This is not to argue minor points of dogma. C.S. Lewis had described some of the yuge miracle events in the OT as essentially fables (like the Deluge and I believe the Tower of Babel). He said that he felt the Bible became more historically accurate around the time of King David/Solomon, I think comparing it to the historical accuracy of some English king circa 1000AD. I never found that sweet spot of the Bible becoming ‘more historical’ as things fell apart theologically. So, I guess some of the things you could give short answers to, is:
(1) Was there a world engulfing deluge and all the accompanying events in Genesis? Or?
(2) Did the earth/sun stand still for Joshua? Or?
(3) Did the Exodus happen generally as described? Or?

So, unless you are a YECer, basically I’m trying to ask where does the Bible within your POV become real history? If you are a YECer…probably never mind…it wouldn’t be worth a chat. Hopefully, I made sense...

 

[Brian63]

Hi Ruth, it is nice to have you here, and we appreciate your kindness as well. We hold different religious views, but we can still be friends here.

Don't you have doubts? Of course I have doubts! I am not perfect and never will be.

It is that sort of response that is a problem though. That you associate having doubts with imperfection, flaws, and something to try and minimize, reduce, and avoid. We should instead be looking at doubts of our beliefs as something to embrace, to encourage, to see as a very helpful tool that allows us to identify which of our beliefs our supported by logic and evidence, and which ones we should discard (in favor of other ones that are supported). On any other topic or subject that is the approach we use as to determine which statements are likely to be true or false. Doctors run tests, scientists perform experiments, etc. It is because of the concept of doubt that people find flaws in their beliefs and then can discard them in favor of other beliefs which are more likely to be valid. We should not be encouraging people to be closed-minded and not open to doubt, not open to changing their views in light of invalidating data. Having doubts should not be associated with an imperfection in yourself, as if you are closer to perfection by never doubting yourself. That is an unhealthy approach to living life, both for the individual and especially when a whole population of people takes such a stance. I hope you are willing to doubt your views and to then instead see this as a very healthy approach, not something that you should be avoiding.

Brian

 

[blastula]

Hi, Ruth. Some questions for you if you don't mind. Curious how you first found the forum and what kind of topics do you like reading? Have your doubts ever come close to changing your mind about your belief?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I am no better or more intelligent than you so I am not going to pretend I have all the answers.

This is good to hear, because I generally like to pretend that I have all the answers and it could get socially awkward if you had the same schtick and we came up with different answers.

Glad to have you here. It's always nice when we have more theists around because conversations can get one sided and redundant when there's one guy arguing against twenty people. Hope you enjoy the forum.

 

[Ruth Harris]

Hi funinspace!

No, not a YEC believer here.

As for an overall view of my stance on the historicity of the Bible, I am not one of those who thinks that the Bible should be read literally. The overwhelming majority of the scripture was written by Jews; it is pretty common knowledge that they were likely to embellish actual occurrences to mythological levels and use the resulting tales as a more interesting way to teach principles. So given that, here are my answers to your questions:

1. The flood? Well, I think there was probably something that happened. There are flood stories in many different cultures - the Genesis narrative, Gilgamesh, Sumerian tales of creation and even the Inuit and Hopi have their own flood tales among many others. But I am not convinced of a singular worldwide flood as told in the Noah story. Honestly, we don't know for sure where humans were even located at that time, so it could have been a localized flood which appeared to the people to cover the earth.

2. Did the earth or sun stand still for Joshua? Again, here we have an event which is mentioned in multiple cultures. In this case, however, it may actually have happened close to the way it is stated - the earth actually did stop its normal rotation. There is some scientific evidence that this could have been caused by the earth's crust "slipping" due to a close encounter with a planet or large object of some kind. Whether this was caused by God or not is the real question - and since I am a believer I can't rule that out. But I don't demand that everyone agree with me about Him causing this.

3. The Exodus? Once again, I think that something probably happened - but not exactly as told in the scripture. There was probably a migration of what was to become Israel but I don't think it was the massive movement of people as described; other writings about that period specifically mention the small size of Israel's population. Plus the Exodus tale itself bears a remarkable resemblance to the inscriptions about pharaoh Ramesses II and the battle of Kadesh including the parting of the sea for passage and the drowning of their enemies. So in my opinion - yes, there was an exodus but it was another one of the things that was embellished to mythological levels by the writers.

To sum up, I don't think that the Bible should be read as history. It does contain elements of historical truth but should not be accepted as absolutely historically accurate as portrayed. Hope this answers your questions.

Ruth

 

[Ruth Harris]

Hi Ruth, it is nice to have you here, and we appreciate your kindness as well. We hold different religious views, but we can still be friends here.

Don't you have doubts? Of course I have doubts! I am not perfect and never will be.

It is that sort of response that is a problem though. That you associate having doubts with imperfection, flaws, and something to try and minimize, reduce, and avoid. We should instead be looking at doubts of our beliefs as something to embrace, to encourage, to see as a very helpful tool that allows us to identify which of our beliefs our supported by logic and evidence, and which ones we should discard (in favor of other ones that are supported). On any other topic or subject that is the approach we use as to determine which statements are likely to be true or false. Doctors run tests, scientists perform experiments, etc. It is because of the concept of doubt that people find flaws in their beliefs and then can discard them in favor of other beliefs which are more likely to be valid. We should not be encouraging people to be closed-minded and not open to doubt, not open to changing their views in light of invalidating data. Having doubts should not be associated with an imperfection in yourself, as if you are closer to perfection by never doubting yourself. That is an unhealthy approach to living life, both for the individual and especially when a whole population of people takes such a stance. I hope you are willing to doubt your views and to then instead see this as a very healthy approach, not something that you should be avoiding.

Brian

Brian: You are making my point. If I was perfect, I would not have doubts. Imperfections are what makes us human. But as we are not Vulcan logic and evidence are not our sole means of determining personal truth; we are also creatures of intuition and feelings. I am not in the least afraid to examine my beliefs when doubt occurs. And as of this point, I still hold my belief in God even after considering other viewpoints because, to me, this is the position that still "feels right" even though you may not agree.

I do always welcome friends with differing viewpoints. Thanks!

Ruth

 

[Ruth Harris]

Hi, Ruth. Some questions for you if you don't mind. Curious how you first found the forum and what kind of topics do you like reading? Have your doubts ever come close to changing your mind about your belief?

Hi blastula!

I don't even remember how I found the forum, but it was years ago in the Internet Infidel days. I may have stumbled on the forum doing some searching on a particular subject; that is how I find most places

Topics? Whatever catches my eye in the subjects, but I do stay away from political threads as they do nothing but raise my hackles and it is very rare that I can learn anything of use there. Not a fan of politics OR politicians at all.

Have I come close to changing my mind about faith? Well, not sure what you consider close. I have never doubted that there is a God since I became an adult; all else is up for review. I have changed my stance on some things over the years, such as biblical interpretation. But given my age I have my doubts that I will ever become an infidel

Ruth

 

[Ruth Harris]

I am no better or more intelligent than you so I am not going to pretend I have all the answers.

This is good to hear, because I generally like to pretend that I have all the answers and it could get socially awkward if you had the same schtick and we came up with different answers.

Glad to have you here. It's always nice when we have more theists around because conversations can get one sided and redundant when there's one guy arguing against twenty people. Hope you enjoy the forum.

Well, we wouldn't want to confuse people so I will let you pretend you have the answers

I am sure you have noticed, though, that I don't argue. I find it a waste of time. I have never seen an argument change either participant's mind in the least. I will jump in if I have something valid to offer in the way of information that will add to a discussion.

Ruth

 

[Sarpedon]

Hey Ruth, I have a question, with a bit of a lead in: We actually get lots of Christians moving through here, but I have observed something that many of them have in common: that they don't represent what most people would consider 'main stream' or even well established sects. All too often, they have their own ideas about theology, and either on purpose or innocently deny things that we, having mostly been raised in 'main stream' sects, regard as 'normal' for Christianity. It has been ages since we've had an ordinary Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Mormon, Baptist, Methodist, Calvinist or whatever. So, my question is: Do you consider yourself a member of a main stream or at least large and well established sect? And if so, which one?

 

[Lion IRC]

I don't think you can be accused of proselytizing if you are answering questions that are being asked by folks who WANT to hear what you think and why you think so.

 

[Lion IRC]

Hey Ruth, I have a question, with a bit of a lead in: We actually get lots of Christians moving through here, but I have observed something that many of them have in common: that they don't represent what most people would consider 'main stream' or even well established sects. All too often, they have their own ideas about theology, and either on purpose or innocently deny things that we, having mostly been raised in 'main stream' sects, regard as 'normal' for Christianity. It has been ages since we've had an ordinary Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Mormon, Baptist, Methodist, Calvinist or whatever. So, my question is: Do you consider yourself a member of a main stream or at least large and well established sect? And if so, which one?

“In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.”

“In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity,”

St. Augustine

Differences on minor things like YEC, OSAS, Tribulation, etc are not essential to salvation.
As Ruth rightly said, the Gospel message is pretty simple and you can't 'make' people agree with you by argumentum ad nauseam.

 

[none]

theists, why not test your faith instead of proclaiming it?

 

[Ruth Harris]

Hey Ruth, I have a question, with a bit of a lead in: We actually get lots of Christians moving through here, but I have observed something that many of them have in common: that they don't represent what most people would consider 'main stream' or even well established sects. All too often, they have their own ideas about theology, and either on purpose or innocently deny things that we, having mostly been raised in 'main stream' sects, regard as 'normal' for Christianity. It has been ages since we've had an ordinary Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Mormon, Baptist, Methodist, Calvinist or whatever. So, my question is: Do you consider yourself a member of a main stream or at least large and well established sect? And if so, which one?

Oh boy, what a question to ask me. I just know I am going to regret answering this one.....

Yes, I am a member of a Baptist church. But I live in a very small town and there are few choices here: Independent Fundamental Baptist, Southern Baptist, Methodist, Christian, Church of Christ, Presbyterian, and Assembly of God.

Not a fan of top down denominational leadership so that rules out Methodist, Christian, and Presbyterian churches. The Church of Christ has this strange notion that all music should be a capella and no instruments are allowed in the church so that is out too. And I have attended the Assembly of God but their idea of "tongues" and its interpretation is so fake I don't want any part of it. I am sure you can tell that the Independent Fundamental Baptists would have excommunicated me by now

So (don't hit me please...) I attend a Southern Baptist church. They know that I don't agree with all of their denominational stances. But the one good thing about the Southern Baptist denomination is that they do not demand you agree with a particular set of biblical interpretations to be a member. It has been discussed at prior conventions to have a prospective member agree in writing to the Baptist Faith and Message statement - and if they do enact that, I may have to leave them as that would be too restrictive for me to live with. Not sure where I would go after that given my lack of options.

Ruth

 

[DrZoidberg]

Welcome. This is a forum for skeptics and free thinkers. Not necessarily atheists. If you're willing to go wherever your interpretations of the evidence takes you, then you more than enough qualify to this forum. The world would be a boring place if everybody just agreed with one another.

 

[funinspace]

Hi funinspace!

No, not a YEC believer here.

As for an overall view of my stance on the historicity of the Bible, I am not one of those who thinks that the Bible should be read literally. The overwhelming majority of the scripture was written by Jews; it is pretty common knowledge that they were likely to embellish actual occurrences to mythological levels and use the resulting tales as a more interesting way to teach principles. So given that, here are my answers to your questions:

1. The flood? Well, I think there was probably something that happened. There are flood stories in many different cultures - the Genesis narrative, Gilgamesh, Sumerian tales of creation and even the Inuit and Hopi have their own flood tales among many others. But I am not convinced of a singular worldwide flood as told in the Noah story. Honestly, we don't know for sure where humans were even located at that time, so it could have been a localized flood which appeared to the people to cover the earth.

2. Did the earth or sun stand still for Joshua? Again, here we have an event which is mentioned in multiple cultures. In this case, however, it may actually have happened close to the way it is stated - the earth actually did stop its normal rotation. There is some scientific evidence that this could have been caused by the earth's crust "slipping" due to a close encounter with a planet or large object of some kind. Whether this was caused by God or not is the real question - and since I am a believer I can't rule that out. But I don't demand that everyone agree with me about Him causing this.

3. The Exodus? Once again, I think that something probably happened - but not exactly as told in the scripture. There was probably a migration of what was to become Israel but I don't think it was the massive movement of people as described; other writings about that period specifically mention the small size of Israel's population. Plus the Exodus tale itself bears a remarkable resemblance to the inscriptions about pharaoh Ramesses II and the battle of Kadesh including the parting of the sea for passage and the drowning of their enemies. So in my opinion - yes, there was an exodus but it was another one of the things that was embellished to mythological levels by the writers.

To sum up, I don't think that the Bible should be read as history. It does contain elements of historical truth but should not be accepted as absolutely historically accurate as portrayed. Hope this answers your questions.

Ruth

Thanks and fair enough. So does the Bible become more historically accurate during King Solomon's time (like the wisest dude around)?
Does it become more historically solid within the Gospels? Do you see historical conflicts and/or internal contradictions within synoptic gospels (thinking of things like the census that made Joseph and Mary go to Bethlehem; and birthing narratives; among others)?

 

[funinspace]

So (don't hit me please...) I attend a Southern Baptist church. They know that I don't agree with all of their denominational stances.

Hey, if they aren't hitting you why should we Just don't tell them that they were your least worst choice

 

[Sarpedon]

So (don't hit me please...) I attend a Southern Baptist church. They know that I don't agree with all of their denominational stances. But the one good thing about the Southern Baptist denomination is that they do not demand you agree with a particular set of biblical interpretations to be a member.

I'd never hit anyone for their religious choices. Southern Baptist is a perfectly comprehensible, mainstream sect. One of the challenges I've faced with the various christians that do come in here, is that they do not consider themselves bound by any particular theological position, so when you argue a point with them from the point of view of the mainstream christian beliefs, they will deny they believe in that particular thing. Or otherwise they will start these extremely loopy discussions that frankly aren't worth our time, as these views are unique to them.

I think I and my colleagues are trying to establish what, precisely, we can be expected to discuss should you choose to stick around.

 

[Ruth Harris]

Hey Ruth, I have a question, with a bit of a lead in: We actually get lots of Christians moving through here, but I have observed something that many of them have in common: that they don't represent what most people would consider 'main stream' or even well established sects. All too often, they have their own ideas about theology, and either on purpose or innocently deny things that we, having mostly been raised in 'main stream' sects, regard as 'normal' for Christianity. It has been ages since we've had an ordinary Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Mormon, Baptist, Methodist, Calvinist or whatever. So, my question is: Do you consider yourself a member of a main stream or at least large and well established sect? And if so, which one?

“In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.”

“In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity,”

St. Augustine

Differences on minor things like YEC, OSAS, Tribulation, etc are not essential to salvation.
As Ruth rightly said, the Gospel message is pretty simple and you can't 'make' people agree with you by argumentum ad nauseam.

Yes! Yes! Yes! You understand. Thank you.

Ruth

 

[Sarpedon]

“In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.”

“In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity,”

St. Augustine

A wise and charitable principle, sadly largely ignored during the Christian Era.