I'm a young pastor and am looking for honest, humble, respectful, discussion with atheists (or anyone else who might want to talk!) I want to learn about your worldview, and in turn, I hope to give a good representation of true Christianity. I suppose this is more of an introduction than anything, but I would love any responses/questions to this post. Otherwise, I'll jump in on other discussions. I'll respect proselytizing rules, and please believe me that I'm not just here to preach... I want to listen (as long as the satire is kept to a minimum). Who knows, maybe you deconvert me!
Pastor on board!
(61 posts) (13 voices)-
Daniel Florien
AdministratorTrueChristianity™? :)
Posted 3 years ago # -
Lilith
MemberI have no more interest in de-converting you than I would in convincing a 5-year-old that Santa doesn't exist. As a former believer my advice would be to turn and run. If you have a belief system that works for you and your parishioners, protect it. My best to you.
Posted 3 years ago # -
chad_michael85
MemberNot to say I have it all figured out, but I wrote "true Christianity" to distinguish it from all its misrepresentations. By true Christianity, I mean Christianity as it is portrayed in the New Testament - that is, Christianity in its purest form. Mainstream Christianity has become, in many ways, a sub-culture made up of "clubs" (congregations) that thoughtlessly follow some kind of mixture of extra-biblical church tradition and New Testament teaching (often in that order). Perhaps this is what has lead many (or at least some) to deny Christianity... Perhaps for these, the sciences are just used as a further justification to deny Christianity. Yet science can't even disprove God, much less Christianity. (I say this with specifically the theory of evolution in mind) By the way, any thoughts on theistic evolution? Coming back to Christianity, I suppose it all hinges on the resurrection of Jesus... I better stop there, though, before I start proselytizing <-- thank God for spell-check! (Or I suppose I should just thank whoever invented it...)
Posted 3 years ago # -
KennethL
MemberI also have no motive to deconvert you nor any expectation of doing so. However, I'm happy to discourse with you. I'll add my suggestion that if you are indeed open to understanding the viewpoints here to an extent such as would be necessary for a change in perspective, then you'll need to begin this exchange assuming that it is at least as likely that god does not exist as that he does. I don't really expect you to be able, and I do not mean that as a criticism. I just think that theist's have a particular difficulty on this point, in that theists begin at god and work their way down (so to speak).
Posted 3 years ago # -
chad_michael85
MemberThanks Lilith... I appreciate your concern. I feel its my responsibility, though, to engage in conversation with those who believe differently than I do. I won't lie - a huge reason for this is so that I can better engage such people and reach them with message of Christ (not specifically people in this group, but perhaps I'll try a little in the evangelism forum). It's also for personal development though. Anyway, I'm gonna try really hard to listen more than I talk. So, I mentioned theistic evolution in my last post... Any thoughts on that?
Posted 3 years ago # -
hey Chad. welcome to the party.
as for theistic evolution, you'll want to talk to someone smarter. i'm just here for the inevitable comedic opportunities. and to argue with forum trolls every now and then.
Posted 3 years ago # -
KennethL
MemberChad, I suppose you could say that I'm an agnostic in the sense of Freud's original popular coinage of the word, on that were god to exist his nature would be so inconsanant with man's that man has no hope of engaging or understanding him. For all intents and purposes in the present context, however, I would call myself an atheist (You may be interested in looking into Joseph Campbell's work; the distinction he draws between theists and atheists is whether one believes in the literal truth of their cultural metaphors. He also writes and speaks brilliantly about how human myths manifest core elements of our being and relationship to the world, and how truly understanding their relevance contributes to our knowledge of ourselves). My father is a pastor, and I've lived most of my life professing belief an the Christian god, vacillating among more or less orthodox ethical systems based on that core belief. However, I don't think I ever really believed, merely believed that I should and that it would be in my best interest to express myself accordingly. I think this conflict caused me much undue grief in my life, as I think it likely does many others. If you buy into the fact that belief in god and allegiance to his proscriptions is requisite for a moral life, and yet are unable to reconcile that belief with a rationale to support it, then your disbelief taints the whole of your morality. I think that it's important that we teach others that it is categorically the best thing to respect and love and forgive our fellows because this attitude simply has the best practical consequences; if we can regard our "neighbor" as an ends themselves and not a means to an end nor an extension of our egos, the social gospel of jesus could be accomplished without the metaphorical device of the bible. Grace is real because it is necessary. We have all done something which we cannot justify and for which we do not "deserve" forgiveness, therefor forgiveness must be freely given and received i order to happen at all.
Ironically enough, I see a path for myself in which many of Jesus' words are applicable, but this does not cause me to believe in a supernatural being.
You, my friend, are god, as am I and even caddy. God is that part of us which reaches for that within us which is above animal, above our baser instincts and oriented toward sharing our existence with each with compassion and even sacrifice. I recognize the divinity in you because it is the same in me, and we are inextricably linked by it. "And where we had thought to find an abomination, we shall find a god; and where we had thought to slay another, we shall slay ourselves." Oh, yes, and this too from the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas (the gnostics were the ONLY christians for two hundred years, until the Romans recognized the dogma's usefulness in consolidating and regulating the behavior of its citizens): "And Jesus said, 'Take and eat this bread, and whoever eats it with me, SHALL BECOME ME, AND I HIM.'" (It's pretty obvious why the council of Nicea rejected this text). I agree with much of what the New Testaments presents as the philosophy of Jesus, but I don't believe that the story is literally true nor do I believe that it is important for it to be. Belief in the existence of a literal God is an unnecessary step, and given the extent to which our species has learned about this universe it seems to me to have created more of an obstacle to an ethical life than a means to understanding the loftier ideas of human interaction.Posted 3 years ago # -
yahweh
Member"but I wrote "true Christianity" to distinguish it from all its misrepresentations. By true Christianity, I mean Christianity as it is portrayed in the New Testament - that is, Christianity in its purest form."
Smells like a fundie. Only he and his type know exactly what the bible says and how to be "saved".........Go to church 3 times a week, tithing, soul-winning etc. etc. etc.
Posted 3 years ago # -
chad_michael85
Member"Smells like a fundie. Only he and his type know exactly what the bible says and how to be "saved".........Go to church 3 times a week, tithing, soul-winning etc. etc. etc."
Notice, I began my post with "Not that I have it all figured out..." As for the list of examples you gave of what people like me say it means to be saved - this is the exact type of mentality I was writing against! You mixed extra-biblical church tradition with New Testament teaching... And your focus was on external, legalistic adherence. Jesus' focus was quite the opposite.
Also, I must add that even the most closed-minded legalists ("fundies") in mainstream protestant Christianity don't believe that adhering to such a list is how one is saved... Christianity is about grace.
Concerning my label "true Christianity"... Perhaps it's not the best label, but I think I'm being clear enough. I mean "historic" New Testament Christianity - without anything taken out or mixed in. That is what I seek to understand and represent.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Ty
ModeratorChad, you are one of several. At least both Daniel and I were ministers. We are both atheists now, but you won't be the only person with ministerial training on the forum. So, while we are open to conversation on religious topics with religious people, we will probably react poorly to attempts to 'educate' us on religious topics.
Been there, done that, got the shirt.
Posted 3 years ago # -
yahweh
MemberChad, if you are not a fundie, then I apologize. I mis-characterized you.
Although the fundies will say that you are only saved by grace through faith, after you "sign on the dotted line", then they show you the fine print (i.e. being at church every time the doors are open, tithing plus missions giving, soul winning, prayer meetings etc.). If you don't follow those doctrines then, in their opinion, you are back sliding your way to hell.
My personal experience.
Posted 3 years ago # -
chad_michael85
MemberKenneth,
To say that "the gnostics were the ONLY christians for two hundred years" is a pretty huge claim... Of coarse there was gnostic influence (we see very early gnostic notions being combated even in the NT). And of coarse the later gnostic gospels are evidence of gnosticism within Christianity. But so what? It's just an example of contemporary philosophies and ideologies being mixed in with the historic teachings and person of Jesus. I think it makes sense to disregard the gnostic gospels as historically accurate because of how much later they are than the NT documents they contradict, the fact that they're pseudonymous, and the fact that the philosophy they promote doesn't even seem to have been in existence during the time Jesus (at least according to scholarship I'm familiar with).Posted 3 years ago # -
chad_michael85
MemberNo problem, yahweh. Apology accepted. I'm sorry to hear of your bad experience in the church.
Just for the record - I do believe that genuine converts to Christianity will show evidences that they've been changed by the grace of God... Mere outward actions means nothing though if they're done out of the heart. The focus should be on the heart.
Posted 3 years ago # -
swmr1
MemberFormer Campus Crusade staffer who couldn't stomach the seedy underbelly of the right wing christian machine. Got so frustrated that I actually started to investigate the basics of the christian faith objectively. Took me a few years, but came out on the other side wondering how I could have believed any of it in the first place. When confronted with believers (who often want to talk about side-issues) I always want to know just how much they've studied the objective history of the bible...
Posted 3 years ago # -
CoffeeJedi
Member"Yet science can't even disprove God, much less Christianity."
It doesn't need to. The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. Religion claims that an omnipotent omniscient creator being exists, yet provides no evidence for such a thing.
Science does not make any claim of the sort, thus our side doesn't need to "prove" anything related to it.
It's really that simple, but I doubt you'll even try to understand it. You'll hand-wave and say that claiming absence of a god is the same as claiming its existence and that atheism requires just as much "faith" as belief, but we both know that's a load of crap.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Ty
ModeratorI am interested in your reason for dismissing the gnostic gospels though. You say this was because they were written after Jesus time, and contained philosophies that were not in existence during his time. But the fact is that none of the gospels were written 'during Jesus time'. They were written 1-2 generations after his purported ministry. How can you have any confidence that the gospels you accept aren't riddled with philosophy that was in vogue at the time, that someone 60 years previous wouldn't have had any knowledge of?
Keep in mind that this area of the world was in incredible flux during that time. The Romans ruled over Judea, there was extensive trade coming in from the east and north Africa, and the Greek philosophies were spreading out across the empire.
In that kind of flux, fifty years is an eternity. Just think of the cultural and philosophical shifts we've seen in the last fifty years. A story about a counter-culture figure would be written entirely differently now, then it would have in say, the sixties.
How does your reason for dismissing the gnostic gospels not then apply to all of the gospels?
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.