Why She No Longer Attends Church

I wouldn’t say “quickly.” I mean, it could be just a short cliff.

Overlooking a conveyor belt.

At a recycling plant ooooookay yeah it’s losing the “friendly” status.

I don’t recall ever being given this particular example. But after living all around the country and seeing the amazing intolerance of so called Christians, I have come to the conclusion that anyone who feel they need to have a higher power set their morality probably has some sort of major sociopathic issues underlying their beliefs.

Did you notice that down in the comments, someone said, “Ah, you read Hemant’s book, didn’t you?” They talk about your awesomeness and Chicagoness. So maybe Hemant helped pull her off that chair!

CelticWhisper: Have you been watching the Brave Little Toaster again?

I heard the exact same metaphor in my Monday night Bible study for adults 20 years ago – taught by Chuck Missler. At the time my ego thought I was above those people who didn’t know the lord. You can see that in a lot of “christians” – just listen to them for a short time. It’s ego at work (“I’m in the club!”) and it’s being stroked constantly in church even amongst the “you are wretched (but apparently worth saving)” messages. It comes out whenever most of them deign to talk to someone who’s “unsaved.” Just listen.

Also, sort of related: I think it’s really telling of how desperately exclusive the church is by how apologetic and cautious atheists and non-believers have to be when addressing these issues.

I had written the original blog post and went back and added the “disclaimers” at the beginning. Since differing viewpoints are deemed dangerous (they might inspire doubt! which is also looked down on), athiests have to somehow combat the knee-jerk reaction of Christians to deem anything different as “persecution”. Which is bullshit that SCCL dealt with pretty handily here.

This makes no sense. The very basis of Christianity is to humble oneself and love everyone. Sure, it’s important to have friends with whom you share core beliefs and ideals, that’s true for everyone. But Christ’s life (he was criticized for his friendships which others felt were unnacceptible) makes the argument that Christians ought to have friends from outside of their circle to an even greater degree than the average non-believer might. (For example many atheists might find it objectionable to have close friends who are Christians).

The analogy of standing on a chair makes no sense to me because it represents putting oneself above others, and the analogy of being pulled off makes no sense to me because it would be better to be firmly grounded in faith that can’t just get knocked down.

Note to Christians who keep writing these letters: The Bible is translated into English, so you can read it and see if it’s time to change churches instead of blaming The Faith.

The analogy of standing on a chair makes no sense to me because it represents putting oneself above others…

Blacksheep, isn’t the central premise of Christianity that god has chosen some people to be elevated to a higher plane, and that other people are going to be forever tormented? How many times have I heard “god’s chosen people?”

I’ve also heard pastors warn in their sermons against having non-believers as true friends. He basically said to just surround yourself with fellow Christ followers and view all others as potential converts. Only feign friendship with non-believers to gain their trust for evangelism purposes and opportunities. I’ve seen evangelism “how-to” videos distributed within the church about how the most effective evangelism is when someone is going through a personal crises. The video said to keep an eye out for these opportunities and pounce.

Here is to those Christians who don’t do this.

I wonder if the “wait and pounce” Christians are just doing what they think Jesus did when Jesus hung out with the down and out?

Something I’ve realized (not that it’s new, but just sort of really sinking in) is that when you ‘attack’ some facet of a religion, adherents of that religion take it very personally. If someone draws Dawkins with horns on his head, or says they can’t wait for Hitchens to die a horrible painful death I don’t take it personally. I may respond, but I don’t feel like they’re insulting me. But if I refer to Jesus as a zombie, people freak out.

I guess I’m just getting tired of the disclaimers.

Blacksheep, isn’t the central premise of Christianity that god has chosen some people to be elevated to a higher plane, and that other people are going to be forever tormented? How many times have I heard “god’s chosen people?”

My take on what you’re pointing out (and the reason I can accept it) is that according to the Bible, The higher plane is the intended, proper place for everyone. We believe that nobody deserves salvation but all are welcome to it. The hard part for us is getting ego out of the way to accept the need for Christ.

I would be a liar if I said I didn’t struggle with the torment part, it’s in the Bible but I don’t understand it.

The hard part for us is getting ego out of the way to accept the need for Christ.

Actually I’d say it’s the ego that makes you want to accept Christ. It makes you crave the desire to “be” someone. To “be something” to “be” a “Christian.” If also fears annihilation which makes you desire for something more than this life.

I was in a very liberal protestant denomination so I never had the same issues as Amanda and Bryan. As to what Blacksheep said my problem was letting go of things like facts and evidence to continue calling myself “Christian.”

Something I’ve realized (not that it’s new, but just sort of really sinking in) is that when you ‘attack’ some facet of a religion, adherents of that religion take it very personally. If someone draws Dawkins with horns on his head, or says they can’t wait for Hitchens to die a horrible painful death I don’t take it personally. I may respond, but I don’t feel like they’re insulting me. But if I refer to Jesus as a zombie, people freak out.

I always thought the opposite – that compared to the other two “big” religions, Christians are pretty thick skinned. Christianity is constantly being made fun of in the media, whether it’s portraying the Christian character as a bore or nerdy half-wit or a cartoon boxing match with Jesus. If the slightest thing is said against Judaism, look out. If you insult islam, bar the door, literally.

I’ve seen pretty angry responses on this forum when peoples views on atheism are disagreed with or questioned, and most certainly hostility toward Christianity.

This is an interesting example, but I don’t think it is necessarily descriptive of most Christian communities. There are also large numbers of Christians that pride themselves in having non-Christian friends, so they feel like they are ministering to them. These Christians will likely have more Christian friends than non-Christian friends, but there is much value placed on the process of converting someone (just like how most people here value converting people from religion).

also,

@Justin Bonaparte

You are talking about Judaism. Israel was the “chosen people.” Christianity very clearly claims that God wants all people to choose him, and that because of Jesus ALL people are “God’s chosen people” on an equal playing field. So the central premise of Christianity is the exact opposite of what you stated.

For example, the most famous bible verse of all time: John 3:16. It talks about whoever believes being those who are saved. Or even more explicitly, Galatians 3:26-29:

“So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

If a Christian is being true to the bible, they will admit that they are no different than anyone else (and not some holy pedigree). They are not “chosen.”

@PCE

Isn’t the god of the Jews the god of the Christians? Did he change his immutable mind once Jesus was sent? Isn’t the OT all about god’s chosen people?

My own sister thinks that way. She told our parents that she can’t have too much contact with me because we don’t believe in god, whereas they – supposedly – do. Our second-hand baby stuff apparently did no harm, though. Needless to say, my sister and I are not close.

And I’m sure that as soon as Amanda & Bryan left their church, they ran right out and became skeptics and critical thinkers, investigating all the OTHER irreconcilable nonsense in the bible, right?

It couldn’t possibly be true that they just went home and decided that they’ll have their OWN relationship with god, and now they’ll just freely define their Christianity on their OWN terms, could it?

As heartening as it is to hear about people “leaving their church”, in most cases the truth is that they simply invent their own personally-friendly version of the religion they “abandoned”, continuing on as if they’ve actually learned something.

I always thought the opposite – that compared to the other two “big” religions

I didn’t mean to pick on Christianity alone. I think we all have too thin skins. And my biased impression is that the reason Christianity brushes off as much as it does is that it is the majority. It’s a lot easier to take verbal barbs if you are comforted by numbers. And I think that works the other way too. Part of the reason you get as much anti-Christian hostility here as you do is that those who have anger to burn feel safe here. I know I’m more reserved in ‘general public’ then I am on specifically atheist sites.

And another point just occurred to me, but I think I’m going to present it separately.

And another point just occurred to me, but I think I’m going to present it separately.

Or maybe not. It went too off topic. Maybe I’ll finally get off my ass and write my first blog post.

I would like to point something out though.

I said:

Something I’ve realized (not that it’s new, but just sort of really sinking in) is that when you ‘attack’ some facet of a religion, adherents of that religion take it very personally.

And Blacksheep said:

I always thought the opposite – that compared to the other two “big” religions, Christians are pretty thick skinned.

I was pretty sure I said religion not Christianity. And sure enough. I did.

and

I’ve seen pretty angry responses on this forum when peoples views on atheism are disagreed with or questioned, and most certainly hostility toward Christianity.

I’ve seen hostility towards Christians, but my point was, there’s a difference between hostility to Christianity, and hostility towards Christians. I know I’m biased, and certainly defensive, but I’d love to see a poll:

Can you make a moral judgement about someone knowing only their religious beliefs?

The whole busines reminds me of a bunch of middle-schoolers in a clique. “If you talk to Paula, you can’t hang around with us, Amber. Everyone knows how gross she is. We don’t want to get her cooties.”

Down here on the floor we can walk about, we can interact with our environment.

Up there on your chair you’re stuck with a skewed perspective, you can’t move.

That would make a great sermon on why Christ came to earth instead of staying “up there!” It’s one of the reasons that I love Christianity in fact.

There was a guitarist in my community who had a regular gig accompanying a popular jazz vocalist at a local gay bar. Apparently, this older gentleman was uncomfortable at the location, but it was a regular gig and paid well enough.

Well a couple years in, he got sick and had to have surgery. He expected that the people at the church would be there for him. He was mistaken. However, the guys at the bar showered him with care and made sure he was OK and had everything he needed.

Let’s just say, this man now has a different opinion of both his church and the guys at the bar.

It’s also interesting how many of these evangelical churches are on the “unequally yoked” bandwagon. That’s something you don’t see in Catholicism or in mainline Protestantism. I wonder if the insular nature of such churches is designed to keep people not only from entertaining doubts about the veracity of what they are taught, but also about the morality of what they are required to believe. I suppose it’s easier to believe that eternal torture is “just” if no one you love and care about is going to be tortured. If people in those churches formed real, significant attachments with the “unsaved,” maybe it would give them an incentive to question these horrific beliefs. At the very least, it should shock them out of their complacency. In the words of Amanda’s church:

“We believe that the souls of unbelievers remain, after death, in conscious misery until the second resurrection, when the soul and body reunited shall appear at the Great White Throne Judgment, and shall be cast into the Lake of Fire, not to be annihilated, but to suffer everlasting conscious punishment.”

As long as they require belief in such a sick and disgusting thing, it’s no wonder that they tell members to avoid getting close to people they believe are going to suffer this fate. If these are normal people (you know, who feel empathy for others), I would imagine it’s easier for them to be comfortable and happy in their own lives if they don’t think too hard about all those people who are going to be tortured. As long as they view secular people as objects of conversion, they are not forced to confront the reality of what their belief entails. The world is divided up into “saved” and “unsaved,” and the “unsaved” are not people one should love or care about. It’s almost like we’re not even real people to them.

By the way, Amanda, I find the whole “We Believe…” page extremely shocking, not just narrow-minded! I suppose to people who grew up in the evangelical subculture, these beliefs seem normal, but for those of us who were raised in a secular way, the concept of unbelievers suffering “conscious misery” and “everlasting conscious punishment” is not only shocking, but sick and twisted. It’s almost like it’s too absurd to be real, although I know that people actually believe this stuff. What makes a good person want to attend a church like that? I don’t understand what makes a person look at that list of requirements and think “Hey, that sounds right to me!” It’s one thing if somebody is born into it, but to continue attending such a church as an adult must say something about them. Kudos on leaving that environment. If you still believe in your deity and want to attend church again in the future, there are more progressive churches out there that do not require their members to hold such heinous beliefs.

@Edmond & Anna: She already said she left the church completely. Read the comments. Hers are about 11 down from the top.

Amanda: I’d say I was pulled off the chair by my own insatiable desire to think critically and know the truth, more than anything else. But! Dealing with the poisonous nature of the church I grew up in definitely didn’t do much to convince me to stay.

Welcome, Anna. I got the impression that she no longer believes. If I misunderstood, and she is still with the church, then I agree with your previous post completely.

At any rate, the information concerning whether or not I’m an athesist, in my three-year-old voice, if for me to know and you to find out when I’m ready. After all, it’s me who’s fending off the phone calls and emails desperate to convert me or “bring me back on the straight and narrow”, not them.

Dealing with non-belief in tight-knit, deeply religious families is like walking through a mine field (going full-circle back to the chair analogy).

I had friends in a very, very conservative, family based church in Indiana, and you could actually be excommunicated from the church and shunned by its members (many times your aunts, uncles, and cousins). Although this church is an extreme example, I think this idea is pretty common in the Midwest, and therefore something to consider before jumping to conclusions.

Everyone’s got his own bullshit to deal with. Can I get an amen?

Good discussion. I am a Christian, and there’s a lot of stuff I’d like to address, but I’ll try to keep it brief.

First off, Jesus taught that the two most important commands were to love God and to love your neighbor as you do yourself, and that by following these two commandments properly you were following the other commands by default. If all Christians actually lived this way — “loving your neighbor as yourself” — we wouldn’t have a need for this discussion.

Unfortunately, many Christians tend to “love your neighbor that is like yourself” instead of truly loving everyone they come in contact with. Which is why we end up with some Christians coming up with silly stuff like Amanda’s “pull them off the chair” illustration.

Hemant: quick question for you. A key issue seems to be that various groups of people (atheists, gays, pick your favorite group…) don’t like being judged and labeled by Christians, right? Do you realize that when you say something like:
“it’s another reminder of how Christians view people like us, who dare to question their beliefs…”
you are doing the same sort of generalizing and labeling (of Christians) that you are accusing us of?

The truth is, I enjoy having discussions with people of differing beliefs, and a lot of believers that I know do as well. Maybe it’s influenced by where I live (west coast), but most Christians I know are not the type that hate gays, persecute atheists, etc. (In fact, I don’t know any that are like that.) I’m not saying the issues don’t exist, but my guess is that it comes from a relatively small minority, not the majority of Christians.

Two issues.

First, Hell. There is a growing segment in the church that disagrees with the traditional viewpoint of Hell as laid out in the blurb from Amanda’s church. (ie, “tormented day and night forever and ever”.) While I can’t say there is no judgment whatsoever, I will say that I think there are problems with the traditional viewpoint, and I believe that is a significant stumbling block that keeps folks from believing in God.

I think that the church will be revisiting it’s beliefs on Hell, but it won’t be easy and could get ugly, just as things got ugly with the protestant reformation. I’m hopeful that eventually the prevalent theory on hell won’t be something that makes people immediately toss out Christianity because “if God exists, He wouldn’t be like that”.

2nd, the resurrection. I understand that many atheists automatically assume that the resurrection cannot be true, and therefore automatically dismiss Christianity as being implausible. But, the historical evidence for the resurrection is substantial.
Really short version: Jesus’ disciples knew whether resurrection was real or not. They were put to death, when all they had to do was say “no, there was no resurrection” to avoid dying. None of them caved. If the resurrection was fake, some would have caved, but none did. To me (and others that started as atheists and changed their mind), this was proof enough that the resurrection is real.

@Rike D.

God loves us all equally, even atheists who detest Him.

Again, it’s impossible to detest something that does not exist

I certainly detest the monster described as god in the bible and wouldn’t worship him based on that. I detest the concept of your god. But I don’t believe he exists in the first place

Didn’t the same thing happen to Joseph Smith?

Therefore Mormonism.

Didn’t the same thing happen with the Heaven’s Gate cultists?

Therefore aliens in the hale-bopp comet.

Haven’t the various christian sects tortured and killed each other for various internal heresies?

Therefore all christian heresies, although mutually exclusive, must be true.

Come. on. The fact that people are willing to stake their life on a claim being true, DOES NOT MAKE THE CLAIM TRUE. The two propositions:
1) Claim “A” is true.
2) A person is willing to die for their belief in claim “A”
are not causally connected the way you want them to be. They may be loosely correlated.

Dan,

First, Hell. There is a growing segment in the church that disagrees with the traditional viewpoint of Hell as laid out in the blurb from Amanda’s church. (ie, “tormented day and night forever and ever”.) While I can’t say there is no judgment whatsoever, I will say that I think there are problems with the traditional viewpoint, and I believe that is a significant stumbling block that keeps folks from believing in God.

Hell has nothing to do with it. What stops people like us from believing in your god is the utter lack of evidence for its existence. As atheists, we can point out the immorality of the hell-concept, but it has nothing to do with the reason that we don’t believe in your deity. To be frank, there is simply no evidence of the supernatural. If I thought there was evidence for your particular god, then I would be a Christian universalist. Problem solved. The notion of hell doesn’t keep me from believing in your god. It merely seems obvious to me that gods and goddesses are inventions of the human mind.

Amanda,

At any rate, the information concerning whether or not I’m an athesist, in my three-year-old voice, if for me to know and you to find out when I’m ready. After all, it’s me who’s fending off the phone calls and emails desperate to convert me or “bring me back on the straight and narrow”, not them.

It’s certainly your decision, and I hope I didn’t imply otherwise. Whether you’re an atheist (or not) is for you to express when you’re ready. I’ve never had to deal with leaving a church (let alone an evangelical or fundamentalist one), so I can’t even imagine the kind of pressure you and your husband must be under to come back to the fold.

None of them caved. If the resurrection was fake, some would have caved, but none did.

You have a book that says none of them caved. I have a book that says Harry Potter and his disciples destroyed the seven Horcruxes and then defeated the Dark Lord Voldemort.

Sorry to be so flippant, but no, I’m not.

@stogoe – actually, it’s the independent historians, not the Bible, who’s writings discuss how each disciple was killed. And personally, I was quite relieved when Harry beat Voldemort (really looking forward to the movie next month).

@hoverfrog – you’re right, a soapbox is more appropriate and safe.

@blacksheep — I liked and was saying “amen” to your comments……

@Anna — there is actually plenty of evidence of the supernatural, both current and ancient. You can say it’s all myths and there is no evidence, but those that have personally seen “miraculous” things happen won’t be swayed by someone who says “that’s a myth”. (And yes, I’ve seen some things that are unexplainable without something “supernatural” being involved.)

@ACN – the reason I’m saying the resurrection claim is different is this: if it was a lie, the disciples KNEW it was a lie, yet they were still willing to die. I might be willing to do die for something that I believed to be true… maybe. But there’s no way that I would die for something that I KNEW was false. The fact that they were willing to die indicates they believed the resurrection was true, and they would have known if it was false, because they were eyewitnesses.

And by the way you guys, I’m not the type to go out of my way to argue with atheists. I saw a link to this blog post and Hemant called us Christians out and said “I’d love to hear your responses…” regarding Amanda’s blog post. I enjoy the dialogue, and I’ll defend my faith if you take shots at it, just as you defend your beliefs when someone attacks them. I do hope that I don’t come off as smug or arrogant when we have these debates — I started my first comment in this trail by saying that Jesus’ tells us to “love each other as ourselves”, and I will do my best to treat anyone that I don’t agree with in a loving, respectful manner. If I don’t feel free to call me out on it, alright?

Have a great day….

@Anna — you said:

“I respect anyone who has the fortitude to leave religious institutions, especially if they have been brought up in that environment. Whether it’s for the “right” reason or not, leaving a repressive church is certainly not a bad thing.”

Believe it or not, I agree with you on this. It is very hard to leave a religious group where there are family & community ties, etc., and I have a lot of respect for Amanda for doing so.

For me, the resurrection is the historical event that I believe is verifiable, and my trust of the Bible stems from the resurrection being true.

There is zero independent confirmation of a resurrection event from any source outside of the bible.

Worse, many of the events that are claimed to have accompanied the resurrection (I’m looking at you Matthew and your zombie apocalypse) are utterly unverifiable as well.

How can you possibly claim this was a historical event?

Edit: It’s actually funny you mention “Mere Christianity”, it was reading this, and encountering his utterly absurd trilemma (re-directed from something by Josh McDowell) that was one of the nails in the metaphorical coffin for my theism.

@ACN:

No, there’s not independent verification of the resurrection outside of the Bible.

But there is independent verification outside that the early church BELIEVED in the resurrection.

And, there is independent verification outside the Bible as to the manner and method of the deaths of the original disciples (Peter crucified upside down; James beheaded; Mark dragged behind a horse until dead; etc.)

The combination of historical evidence regarding how the disciples died and the logical evidence that they would only be willing to die if they knew the resurrection to be true is sufficient evidence for me to believe in the resurrection.

I know that’s not sufficient evidence for you, and I respect that. I disagree, but I respect that you can arrive at a different conclusion than I do. Agree to disagree, right?

That story in Matthew about other believers rising and appearing to people is bizarre, isn’t it? “zombie apocolypse” I’m not sure what to think about that, but it doesn’t negate the resurrection for me.

I’ve GOT to get offline and get to my yardwork. Peace….

Some Muslims kill themselves because they sincerely believe that it is their god’s will and that will be rewarded in heaven. Are you going to believe in Allah and the Koran now?

Also, I just want everyone to know that the blog itself is a means to keep in touch with our out-of-state relatives and friends. Although I’ll certainly address more issues like this in the future, most of it is going to be about what I made for lunch. Or how I built a table. Or what I did over the weekend.

I just don’t want anyone to think the blog is going to devoted to issues like this, only to find a shitload of pictures of my cat.

I’ve always been curious about how people can think there is actually any real evidence that Jesus was resurrected.
The popular belief among many Christians is that the resurrection was witnessed by the disciples who talked about it for a number of years and then finally wrote it all down as the four gospels.

The real story is a bit different. The gospel stories were written down by authors who never knew Jesus as a way to personalize the Hellenistic ideas they were trying to bring into the larger Jewish (and non-Jewish) culture. The details in the stories were written to move people and gain converts. Although it is possible that the authors themselves believed the details, it is extremely doubtful that the gospel authors actually witnessed anything personally.

It was like a game of telephone (or Chinese whispers) over several generations within a Jewish-Hellenistic context culminating with a nice little story about a crucified messiah who was then resurrected. That scenario is a LOT more plausible than believing that it actually happened.

Amanda, thanks for coming back and clarifying! I can’t speak for Edmond, but as a general sentiment, I think it’s sometimes true and it’s sometimes not true. There are people who take leaving a church as an opportunity to overhaul their entire belief system (as you did) and there are people who pat themselves on the back for discarding certain beliefs while leaving others entirely untouched. I have moral respect for anyone who gets rid of harmful beliefs, but I have more intellectual respect for those who are willing to question the foundation of their belief system, even if they don’t come to same conclusion I would.

Actually, the accepted view by most Christians is that at the very least, some of the books in the NT were written by Jesus’ disciples who spent time with him while he was alive.

This may indeed be the narrative the christians believe. However, the canonical gospels were all anonymous and originally untitled. Christians of the 2nd century basically made up personalities associated with them and passed down that tradition.

I always enjoy this summary of the issue JeffP

I had an arrangement with a former friend that soured, and as a result I’m forced to raise my kids in this tiny house surrounded by freeways. It’s virtually guaranteed that without my guidance my kids will get hit by a car, so to teach them about road safety I’m going to compose a parable about four lemmings and some tin snips, dictate it in English to a transcriptionist who’s only really fluent in Quechua, and then mail that book to Seychelles.

That’s how much I love my kids.

@Rike D.
My apologies, I was mistaken in my wording. God loves us all equally, even atheists who don’t believe in Him.