New Application Of Reluctance
I don't even know how long it has been since I have blogged. I didn't check out my site before coming on here to write this but I'm sure that it has been several months.
I've called myself a Reluctant Disciple. I've said that I am a follower of Jesus but am reluctant to call myself a Christian. I now know that I am probably done calling myself a Christian for good.
I think that my journey down this path started sometime last winter. I had been struggling with depression [which I think is probably a more permanent thing for me now] when I started noticing many of my thoughts shifting. I don't think that it had anything to do with the medication that I was on, although I'm sure that some of you reading this might argue otherwise... I started having more questions and doubts about many of the things that I held dear. Many of my pillar beliefs didn't seem to be such a strong support any longer. It became easier to question many of my core beliefs. Now I feel a little more comfortable with the ability to ask, but due to a lack of answers I still feel a certain tension in the uncertainty.
So what has been shaken for me? I'll do a non-exhaustive list and explain each briefly. By the way, this is by no means an attempt to try and refute Christianity or speak bad of those who adhere strictly to its tennets....so apologists should hold their fingers.
1. I have noticed an unwavering truth that no two people are alike and yet still some fall into certain matched classes.
Thank God for diversity. Life would be so boring without it. A room full of people like me would certainly have me wanting to jump out the window; even if it was still ground floor. Given the diversity of thoughts and persuasions there are many people who are still not persuaded by the logic behind Christianity. Certainly there might be many similarities among the moral nuances within groups but those can still exist outside of getting into any sorts of doctrine.
Various personalities are pulled toward differing things. It seems that there are just as many people who have become as passionate about their gardening as others have become their religion. There are others who are incredibly intelligent who exhert as little effort as those who are just natually not intelligent. People are who they are and even when they try to force themselves to be something that they are not naturally then they can only survive for so long before they snap back to what they are.
While one man regards his every breath as a providencial gift from God, another may pass years without even the passing thought of God's existence. This same God, who we are supposed to be images or reflections of, seems to have made for himself [or any other reason] a people or species of thinkers who are as diverse as snowflakes. Nevertheless there are minds that can be persuaded by certain facts or thoughts. Even by fantacy. They can have their minds changed in either moments of time or through trial and error. Then there are others yet that regardless or fact or impression would not so much as joke about changing core beliefs. The way that they see it is the only way that there is.
The basis of this observation makes it very difficult for me to believe so arbitrarily in such a concrete form of what we have come to understand to be "God."
2. Following statement 1 leads to the diversity of interpretation of life, literature, culture, history...etc.
Given the complicated nature of the human mind and socialogical compounds it is no surprise to find such diversity of thought. Perspective is everything. The nature of a person coupled with how they were nurtured in their upbringing. There are so many factors that go into what makes us up as individuals.
Other considerations of interpretation can include leadership. I have heard it said that "History is written only by those who have won wars." Do some reading of history from different authors from different countries and you may very well find very different sets of information. Even from a religious standpoint, history can only be interpreted after the happening of events; and even then it can only be speculation.
3. The diversity of religions and how they are all so alike.
I believe that it is in man to try and explain our origin. I believe that it is in man to want to be a part of something that is larger than himself...unless he thinks that he's as big as it gets. For thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years, civilizations have worshipped something; the Sun, Moon, Stars, Zeus, Zoaster, God, Jehovah, Allah, Isis, Osiris, Ra, Satan, Jesus, Mohammed, Mithra, Frogs, Nature...the list goes on and on. Each god that has been worshipped has blessed its followers, according to them.
Many people have chronicled the similarities, but most recently I read one of Robert Ingersoll's discourses in how similar the Judeo/Christian stories were to that of primitive and ancient stories of other people. I am not going to get into all of those here. You can read more about them here.
4. The disagreements among its own.
I probably listen to too much religious broadcasting; in fact, I know that I do. Right now, there are 3 major camps that have the loudest voices- The Reformers, The Evangelicals, and The Emergent. When I sit and do comparisons between just these 3 (and I'm excluding most of all of the other variations at this point due to space) it truly seems as though they are all talking about 3 different gods. Each group has the same source, namely the Bible, but the interpretation of that source is so different that they become separated from one another quickly. Also, according to each, the others are wrong.
The disconnect occurs in me to think that the assumed commonality between them all, being the Holy Spirit, would be either a.) far enough removed that they are free enough to come to their own conclusions b.) lucid enough to lead them to believe in such diversity of explanation c.) tolerant enough to allow such opposition d.) misleading enough to actually produce such discord
Then pulling back the sites a bit you can then see the lines that divide Christianity into Conservatism, Liberalism, Orthodoxy, Neo-whatever...
What seems so hard for me to believe or accept is that the same God who in times past supposedly spoke in such black and white ways as to avoid the confusion through prophets and kings would now today be silent apart from a book, the Bible, which is now the source for so much confusion.
5. The Bible itself
So many events recorded in the Bible have no direct historical backing to them. It makes the case for their credibility that much more difficult when the origional manuscripts no longer exist either. Conflicting sources have Moses leading the Israelites either through the Red Sea which would have been at least 100 feet deep, or through the Reed Sea which would have only been about 3 inches deep.
Apart from the Bible there is no historical record in Egyptian history of them ever having Hebrew slaves as Genesis and Exodus would lead us to believe. While Noah's flood was most likely only local to his geographical region, many other civilizations also have very similar "Flood" stories involving different characters.
The History books of the Bible weren't actually written down until several centuries after the events took place. The tales were passed down through oral tradition. The books of the Prophets strike me as especially fascinating when I think about either the a.) necessity for God to speak slowly so that the Prophet could write everything down b.) a scribe for the prophet to write everything down as it happened c.) an after the fact recounting of what all went down d.) necessity for future generations to believe the accounts and messages without having been there. Each of them makes the viability of the prophets difficult for me to take too seriously.
The Gospels were written by men at least 20-40 years after Christ's return to heaven. Assuming that the disciples were at least 15 when they were called by Christ then they would have been 38-58 years old when they wrote them (and that is a conservative dating) Most likely they were not written until 40-60 years after Christ, which would have put the authors attributed to them in their graves before they were written...but assuming that they are younger in age, the copies that are still around to compare show that there were differing versions in circulation; which means that the liklihood of them being altered or added to was high.
The majority of the Epistles were written by Saul of Tarsus, who had no direct correspondance with Jesus. His teaching also takes great liberties in interpreting them when compared to the original Old Testament texts that he so often cites. Jesus himself also caused quite an uproar within Judaism in his day with what seemed like such radical re-interpretations of the ancient texts.
The religious structures that Jesus and Paul sought to control evolved to quickly and freely to keep a handle on.
The Bible itself has been a work in progress. The Old Testament as we now have it was not fully canonized until about the time of Christ, and the New Testament was not canonized until 300-400 years after Christ. Even then, canons varied from one part of the known world to another. The Egyptian canon was slightly different than the African or early European.
Today many canonize the interpretations of teachers of the Bible over the Bible itself. There is no apparent canon rule other than subjective reason.
6. The Evolution of Judaism and Christianity
Whenever you sit down to do a historical analysis of how each have evolved it is clear that neither of the two seem very static. Either the God of each has changed or their perceptions of him has changed...thus changing the nature of worship, belief and life. Each generation introduces something new about God or revelation. Each new introduction turns the table just a bit more.
Religious leaders, Politicians, Kings, Rebels...they all play roles in how the system will play out in their own time. At this time in the grand scheme our only assumption can be healthy skepticism.
In the time of Christ it was often believed that someone who exhibited outrageous or uninvited behaviour was said to have a demon. Today science has found many conditions that can manifest naturally in the brain through chemical imbalances, traumas, birth defects, etc.
So many issues. Yet as engrained with Christianity as I am, reluctantly I now must confess to be a theistic agnostic. I still believe in a God....I just don't really know it.
I've called myself a Reluctant Disciple. I've said that I am a follower of Jesus but am reluctant to call myself a Christian. I now know that I am probably done calling myself a Christian for good.
I think that my journey down this path started sometime last winter. I had been struggling with depression [which I think is probably a more permanent thing for me now] when I started noticing many of my thoughts shifting. I don't think that it had anything to do with the medication that I was on, although I'm sure that some of you reading this might argue otherwise... I started having more questions and doubts about many of the things that I held dear. Many of my pillar beliefs didn't seem to be such a strong support any longer. It became easier to question many of my core beliefs. Now I feel a little more comfortable with the ability to ask, but due to a lack of answers I still feel a certain tension in the uncertainty.
So what has been shaken for me? I'll do a non-exhaustive list and explain each briefly. By the way, this is by no means an attempt to try and refute Christianity or speak bad of those who adhere strictly to its tennets....so apologists should hold their fingers.
1. I have noticed an unwavering truth that no two people are alike and yet still some fall into certain matched classes.
Thank God for diversity. Life would be so boring without it. A room full of people like me would certainly have me wanting to jump out the window; even if it was still ground floor. Given the diversity of thoughts and persuasions there are many people who are still not persuaded by the logic behind Christianity. Certainly there might be many similarities among the moral nuances within groups but those can still exist outside of getting into any sorts of doctrine.
Various personalities are pulled toward differing things. It seems that there are just as many people who have become as passionate about their gardening as others have become their religion. There are others who are incredibly intelligent who exhert as little effort as those who are just natually not intelligent. People are who they are and even when they try to force themselves to be something that they are not naturally then they can only survive for so long before they snap back to what they are.
While one man regards his every breath as a providencial gift from God, another may pass years without even the passing thought of God's existence. This same God, who we are supposed to be images or reflections of, seems to have made for himself [or any other reason] a people or species of thinkers who are as diverse as snowflakes. Nevertheless there are minds that can be persuaded by certain facts or thoughts. Even by fantacy. They can have their minds changed in either moments of time or through trial and error. Then there are others yet that regardless or fact or impression would not so much as joke about changing core beliefs. The way that they see it is the only way that there is.
The basis of this observation makes it very difficult for me to believe so arbitrarily in such a concrete form of what we have come to understand to be "God."
2. Following statement 1 leads to the diversity of interpretation of life, literature, culture, history...etc.
Given the complicated nature of the human mind and socialogical compounds it is no surprise to find such diversity of thought. Perspective is everything. The nature of a person coupled with how they were nurtured in their upbringing. There are so many factors that go into what makes us up as individuals.
Other considerations of interpretation can include leadership. I have heard it said that "History is written only by those who have won wars." Do some reading of history from different authors from different countries and you may very well find very different sets of information. Even from a religious standpoint, history can only be interpreted after the happening of events; and even then it can only be speculation.
3. The diversity of religions and how they are all so alike.
I believe that it is in man to try and explain our origin. I believe that it is in man to want to be a part of something that is larger than himself...unless he thinks that he's as big as it gets. For thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years, civilizations have worshipped something; the Sun, Moon, Stars, Zeus, Zoaster, God, Jehovah, Allah, Isis, Osiris, Ra, Satan, Jesus, Mohammed, Mithra, Frogs, Nature...the list goes on and on. Each god that has been worshipped has blessed its followers, according to them.
Many people have chronicled the similarities, but most recently I read one of Robert Ingersoll's discourses in how similar the Judeo/Christian stories were to that of primitive and ancient stories of other people. I am not going to get into all of those here. You can read more about them here.
4. The disagreements among its own.
I probably listen to too much religious broadcasting; in fact, I know that I do. Right now, there are 3 major camps that have the loudest voices- The Reformers, The Evangelicals, and The Emergent. When I sit and do comparisons between just these 3 (and I'm excluding most of all of the other variations at this point due to space) it truly seems as though they are all talking about 3 different gods. Each group has the same source, namely the Bible, but the interpretation of that source is so different that they become separated from one another quickly. Also, according to each, the others are wrong.
The disconnect occurs in me to think that the assumed commonality between them all, being the Holy Spirit, would be either a.) far enough removed that they are free enough to come to their own conclusions b.) lucid enough to lead them to believe in such diversity of explanation c.) tolerant enough to allow such opposition d.) misleading enough to actually produce such discord
Then pulling back the sites a bit you can then see the lines that divide Christianity into Conservatism, Liberalism, Orthodoxy, Neo-whatever...
What seems so hard for me to believe or accept is that the same God who in times past supposedly spoke in such black and white ways as to avoid the confusion through prophets and kings would now today be silent apart from a book, the Bible, which is now the source for so much confusion.
5. The Bible itself
So many events recorded in the Bible have no direct historical backing to them. It makes the case for their credibility that much more difficult when the origional manuscripts no longer exist either. Conflicting sources have Moses leading the Israelites either through the Red Sea which would have been at least 100 feet deep, or through the Reed Sea which would have only been about 3 inches deep.
Apart from the Bible there is no historical record in Egyptian history of them ever having Hebrew slaves as Genesis and Exodus would lead us to believe. While Noah's flood was most likely only local to his geographical region, many other civilizations also have very similar "Flood" stories involving different characters.
The History books of the Bible weren't actually written down until several centuries after the events took place. The tales were passed down through oral tradition. The books of the Prophets strike me as especially fascinating when I think about either the a.) necessity for God to speak slowly so that the Prophet could write everything down b.) a scribe for the prophet to write everything down as it happened c.) an after the fact recounting of what all went down d.) necessity for future generations to believe the accounts and messages without having been there. Each of them makes the viability of the prophets difficult for me to take too seriously.
The Gospels were written by men at least 20-40 years after Christ's return to heaven. Assuming that the disciples were at least 15 when they were called by Christ then they would have been 38-58 years old when they wrote them (and that is a conservative dating) Most likely they were not written until 40-60 years after Christ, which would have put the authors attributed to them in their graves before they were written...but assuming that they are younger in age, the copies that are still around to compare show that there were differing versions in circulation; which means that the liklihood of them being altered or added to was high.
The majority of the Epistles were written by Saul of Tarsus, who had no direct correspondance with Jesus. His teaching also takes great liberties in interpreting them when compared to the original Old Testament texts that he so often cites. Jesus himself also caused quite an uproar within Judaism in his day with what seemed like such radical re-interpretations of the ancient texts.
The religious structures that Jesus and Paul sought to control evolved to quickly and freely to keep a handle on.
The Bible itself has been a work in progress. The Old Testament as we now have it was not fully canonized until about the time of Christ, and the New Testament was not canonized until 300-400 years after Christ. Even then, canons varied from one part of the known world to another. The Egyptian canon was slightly different than the African or early European.
Today many canonize the interpretations of teachers of the Bible over the Bible itself. There is no apparent canon rule other than subjective reason.
6. The Evolution of Judaism and Christianity
Whenever you sit down to do a historical analysis of how each have evolved it is clear that neither of the two seem very static. Either the God of each has changed or their perceptions of him has changed...thus changing the nature of worship, belief and life. Each generation introduces something new about God or revelation. Each new introduction turns the table just a bit more.
Religious leaders, Politicians, Kings, Rebels...they all play roles in how the system will play out in their own time. At this time in the grand scheme our only assumption can be healthy skepticism.
In the time of Christ it was often believed that someone who exhibited outrageous or uninvited behaviour was said to have a demon. Today science has found many conditions that can manifest naturally in the brain through chemical imbalances, traumas, birth defects, etc.
So many issues. Yet as engrained with Christianity as I am, reluctantly I now must confess to be a theistic agnostic. I still believe in a God....I just don't really know it.
posted by The Raging Paradoxidation at
22:03
6 Comments:
Hey Chris,
Have you watched the DVD mini-series.. called:
“Down the Rabbit Hole”…
my copy holds about six DVD’s in it and I think you may enjoy all of them..you may wonder why I point you to them… but I leave it at this for the present.
On to the main body of your blog…..
The main problem I have with listening to man.. is plain and simple..
They are full of themselves… up to their eyeballs….
Steve
Hi Steve,
Please don't think that I'm ignoring you. I have been meaning to write you back in more detail and will do so as soon as I have more time.
Thanks.
Never, did I think that.. Life gets full of... well, life!
I gave the wrong name of the movie.. should be:
"What the Bleep!"...
Nine of us simiple folk are holding studies using "What the Bleep" and "A brief History of Time"...
Check us out..(if I can get the other fellows to post.)
it is on my blog....
Steve
I agree, how the World views "Christianity" today I don't think any passionate believer could adhere to the bandwagons with the loudest voices.
Perhaps I've listened to the looney hotline radio show too much myself, but I'm more open to alternatives than to sticking with 66 books that we call a "Bible".
Interpretation is a big issue in this department. I do not know Greek or Hebrew. I now ask how it was translated and if that trans. was accurate or how do we know if the interpretation from the ancient texts hasn't been white washed or misinterpreted to conform to modern theology.
Ancient cultures show similarities. Either this supports evolution or it supports creation or it supports humanity.
You might have read on my blog about shaman in the rain forests who basically carry this message to the West: We're destroying ourselves and lack spiritual knowledge to save ourselves. As believers we go to church, may even tithe, we worship and we pray to God, but I think we have missed the 'key' of what these shaman are trying to tell us.
Anyway, I think you could be laying down a new set of tracks, maybe in the right direction, or maybe it will lead in a circle.
And I end this by saying....
Yeah, whatever!
I would rather talk to you, then post a response. Call me.
Hello, Chris! Interesting to hear your doubts about Christianity. I find myself in a similar boat.
Here's one thread of doubt I've been exploring, which I think intersects in many ways with yours. You take the ingredients of Christianity: heaven and hell, the non-existence of meaning or hope or morality outside of belief, the evilness of doubt, the goodness of faith, the incompleteness of human reason, and the corruption of human reason by Sin and the Devil. I can't help but notice that these things add up to a vigorous attempt to persuade you to believe, and stay believing. I can't help but wonder if this is the evolution of ten thousand years' worth of patriarchs, priests, pastors and popes trying to keep their congregations under control, and not in fact a description of ultimate truth.
Is God real? Is the supernatural a legitimate concept? I'm honestly still trying to figure these things out. There are so many more threads to follow to even hint at here.
gr
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home