Loss of faith

Fanny Cradock

What is it that makes a sincere and earnest believer loose faith? And how is the Christian to reconcile this in light of various passages in the NT regarding the honest search for faith? (None specifically spring to mind - maybe they will later.)

In the past I've encountered “deconversion” stories on websites like ex-christian.net. Broadly speaking, it seems to me that these former believers can be split into three categories.

• A) Sincere - Someone who had a love of God, a good to excellent grounding in the finer details of faith and Christian epistemology and seemed to tick all the right theological boxes. However, despite these advantages (if that's the correct word) and some apparently honest soul searching when a crisis of faith hit, they still abandoned Christianity.

• Feet of Clay - Someone whose faith was so rigid that a blow to a core belief caused a gradual collapse of all their religious beliefs.

• C) Cultural – Someone who never really accepted the truth of Christianity and abandoned it without much in the way of internal conflict.

Being perfectly honest, for the purposes of this thread, I'm not overly concerned with group B or C. While group B puzzles me, I think that it seems obvious why they jacked it in, and I've encountered enough of group C over the years to have a fair idea of where they are coming from. They never where believers – not in any real sense of the word – so I don't expect much insight from what seemed like an inevitable abandonment of “faith” that really never was.

Some of the most memorable testimonies I've encountered have been from former men of the cloth who would have seemed to fit into somewhere between B and C. The general thrust of their tale was that they lost the faith for whatever reason and now detest Christianity with a passion that seemingly overshadows whatever passion they once had for God. (Perhaps this is an unfair inference on my part.) Consequently, most of the vestiges of their old Christian selves have been abandoned and they have become a sort of rebellious parody of their old selves. Behind these stories I detect a lot of arrogance and bitterness. It's all the more puzzling and shocking to think that they were once leaders and people of influence.

To be fair, I should stress that not all B and C's come across in such a negative manner. However, for the purpose of this thread, I want to concentrate on group A, those who loose faith despite their best (?) efforts. As a Christian I really can't understand why this would happen if we bear in mind the role of the Holy Spirit and various passages in the bible tells us about faith. Matt 7:7 is about the most apt verse I can think of at the mo, though I imagine there are better. Is there beyond putting the loss of faith as a consequence of their free choice. Are we to believe that there was really something else going on behind the struggle? Surely "selfishness" wouldn't be a reason to stop believing, maybe only a reason to be an uncommited Christian. What did they do wrong?

Christian spirited responses, please.

PDN

I think the 'feet of clay' one is quite common.

Proponents of particular doctrines (eg, creationism, hell, the rapture, biblical inerrancy, speaking in tongues, predestination etc.) tend to stress them so strongly that they overegg the pudding and claim that if you abandon these doctrines then there's nothing left. Then, if someone does come to doubt such a doctrine their whole religious world collapses.

There are certain truths that are so foundational that a viable Gospel does not exist wiithout them, but I think they are comparatively few. The resurrection is one clear example, but I would also include the historicity of Jesus, His humanity, His deity, His death on the Cross, and the belief that Scripture is (in some way or another) inspired by God.

Phototoxin

I was in a phase of questioning - still believing but questioning, then i got quick sick and for a time hadn't the strength to go to church. However despite having the strength I had come to realise that my life was no less off by not going. I have tried different things when I got my job but the local RC church is horrid and seemed awfully judgmental. Plus I disagree with some of the infallible truths that an RC MUST belive (most if it you just have to not deny, only a little you must actualyl belive when it comes down to it) plus I find RCism highly pharasical with all its rules which of course the trad mindset what to harken back to.

I try to go to the quaker meetings in town but I'm not there often (have gotten engaged 2 weeks ago so visiting the fiancée and going to her church) although that might change as they've re-envisioned their stance on same sex marriage which is a puzzler.
Fiancee's church is nice as stated before and I will be getting married there but I don't classify myself as a christian. I have difficulty in accepting why I need to be saved, why I'm damned from the moment I'm born, why the Christian God is supposed to be brilliant when the OT has many negative points.
However I do agree with the moral principles such as help people, and protect those who cannot protect themselves, be honest, sex after marraige etc

SlickRic

i find a big reason is the churches. people are too worried about being judgmental and forget to just 'be Jesus' to people. As the church, we should be walking with people through difficulties, hardships and questioning.

too often i find people are just told they're being ridiculous, should just believe, and get on with it. none of us know everything.

i long for the day when all churches walk with people as they question. i strongly believe people would give God more of a chance if they did.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

I think the 'feet of clay' one is quite common.

Proponents of particular doctrines (eg, creationism, hell, the rapture, biblical inerrancy, speaking in tongues, predestination etc.) tend to stress them so strongly that they overegg the pudding and claim that if you abandon these doctrines then there's nothing left. Then, if someone does come to doubt such a doctrine their whole religious world collapses.

There are certain truths that are so foundational that a viable Gospel does not exist wiithout them, but I think they are comparatively few. The resurrection is one clear example, but I would also include the historicity of Jesus, His humanity, His deity, His death on the Cross, and the belief that Scripture is (in some way or another) inspired by God.

I would completely agree with this. However, what do you think about the failed struggle of the honest person with failed faith?

Phototoxin wrote: »

I was in a phase of questioning - still believing but questioning, then i got quick sick and for a time hadn't the strength to go to church. However despite having the strength I had come to realise that my life was no less off by not going. I have tried different things when I got my job but the local RC church is horrid and seemed awfully judgmental. Plus I disagree with some of the infallible truths that an RC MUST belive (most if it you just have to not deny, only a little you must actualyl belive when it comes down to it) plus I find RCism highly pharasical with all its rules which of course the trad mindset what to harken back to.

I try to go to the quaker meetings in town but I'm not there often (have gotten engaged 2 weeks ago so visiting the fiancée and going to her church) although that might change as they've re-envisioned their stance on same sex marriage which is a puzzler.
Fiancee's church is nice as stated before and I will be getting married there but I don't classify myself as a christian. I have difficulty in accepting why I need to be saved, why I'm damned from the moment I'm born, why the Christian God is supposed to be brilliant when the OT has many negative points.
However I do agree with the moral principles such as help people, and protect those who cannot protect themselves, be honest, sex after marraige etc

Funnily enough, I thought of your good self when I was typing this, Phototoxin. I do think that there are reasonable answers to your troubling questions and those obstacles that stand in the way of your faith. But then again, I'm not you! And possibly those answers lay somewhere beyond this forum. As for your illness - you have mentioned it in the past - you might be inspired by the books of Viktor Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning
and Man's Search For Ultimate meaning. They are on my list of must reads.

Fanny Cradock

SlickRic wrote: »

i find a big reason is the churches. people are too worried about being judgmental and forget to just 'be Jesus' to people. As the church, we should be walking with people through difficulties, hardships and questioning.

too often i find people are just told they're being ridiculous, should just believe, and get on with it. none of us know everything.

i long for the day when all churches walk with people as they question. i strongly believe people would give God more of a chance if they did.

Yes, but what of those who where heavily involved in a Church, maybe even a strong figure in it?

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

delta720

Plowman wrote: »

But when she was filming in Jerusalem, she was kind of re-converted back to religion. She now describes herself as some form of monotheist, although she does not commit herself to any particular organised religion.

This is very strange, as an athiest myself I would have thought that seeing first hand everything that happens in Jerusalem (I've only seen documentaries) would have only reinforced her position as it is exactly that which makes us discard 'religion', if not a belief in a god.

SlickRic

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, but what of those who where heavily involved in a Church, maybe even a strong figure in it?

my comment includes those who have been involved in a church.

people become tired of trying to be perfect, or trying to please those around them, or please a God who they believe wants them to be perfect. it's easy to become disillusioned with this.

as chuches we forget too often to nurture and choose to judge. this is not true of all churches of course; just many that i've seen.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Hotspace

To summarise your question: How does a committed Christian lose their faith? If you’ve read enough of the de-conversion testimonies at ex-christian.net then you should start seeing a commonality. By the way my own testimony is up there in the 2006 archives but you won’t find it under the same username. I used my real name – foolish of me.

I’ve read book level de-conversion testimonies as well as internet blogged ones and the commonalities that I see are:

• You must have a questioning mind, perhaps philosophical in nature.
• New information comes along which contradicts what you previously held to be true.
• A personal crisis.

Why don’t you ask the same question just re-hashed a bit to suit the forum at ex-christian.net?

Fanny Cradock

Hotspace wrote: »

To summarise your question: How does a committed Christian lose their faith? If you’ve read enough of the de-conversion testimonies at ex-christian.net then you should start seeing a commonality. By the way my own testimony is up there in the 2006 archives but you won’t find it under the same username. I used my real name – foolish of me.

I’ve read book level de-conversion testimonies as well as internet blogged ones and the commonalities that I see are:

• You must have a questioning mind, perhaps philosophical in nature.
• New information comes along which contradicts what you previously held to be true.
• A personal crisis.

Why don’t you ask the same question just re-hashed a bit to suit the forum at ex-christian.net?

I don't think I'm greatly interested in asking what they think. It's already there in black and white, after all. As a Christian I am operating under the assumption in this thread that they are wrong and Christianity is correct. So, for the purposes of this thread, there is no epistemological challenge. Therefore, if Christianity is assumed to be correct, how does the Christian reconcile the loss of faith in the former honest believer in light of what the bible tells us?

As for your reasons - and I don't mean to be dismissive - I've heard them before. Yes, they were obviously compelling to yourself and those of your irreligious bent, but many Christians have investigated the claims of the unbeliever and have found the central thesis - that there is no God - to be without merit. And would you believe that some of us have done this with a "questioning mind"? Indeed, without dismissing some very valid questions, arguments and criticisms posed by atheism, as a pillar upon which a world view rests, I believe it poses some very difficult questions that are rarely recognised or addressed by the casual unbeliever.

Out of curiosity, assuming you agree with the 3 categories outlined in the OP, where would you place yourself?

Still, I do not wish to deflect this discussion away from the main point of the thread. What is a Christian to make of group A in light of the bible?

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

• A) Sincere - Someone who had a love of God, a good to excellent grounding in the finer details of faith and Christian epistemology and seemed to tick all the right theological boxes. However, despite these advantages (if that's the correct word) and some apparently honest soul searching when a crisis of faith hit, they still abandoned Christianity.

.

I think there are many factors involved. I'll start though by giving examples of folk biblically who abandoned faith, though not necessarily belief.

King Saul
Judas Iscariot
Adam and Eve
King Solomon

Now these people all had first hand dealings with God, yet they abandoned him. Seeing such people abandon their faith should inform us that no matter how strong our faith may be, we must keep it fed with Godly nourishment. I would say that there are probably few of us that have had the faith of King Solomon. Yet such a man abandoned his faith. Abandoning 'belief' goes with abandoning faith in this age of what I would call ambiguous communication between God and man.

What are the causes these days? Well I would guess the following are factors.

1. The sufferring in the world. People not fathoming why God would let it continue. Especially when one hears of things like Fritzel etc. I would never underestimate such things effect on ones faith.

2. Misplaced faith elsewhere that turns a person from their Christian faith. The scientific community being the obvious one that springs to mind. If their faith in men and their workings outweighs their faith in God, they may come to a crossroads and feel that Christianity has been shown to be precarious.

3. Intellectualising their faith. They may have built their faith on intellectualism. To all it seems that they have such great faith due to their outward knowledge etc However if it seems to them that it is then intellectually undermined, they struggle. As Paul said, Knowledge puffs up, but Love builds up.

4. Carrying on from point 3, they have it all but the key ingredient. Love.

I remember as a child having alot of faith. Alot more than I have now unfortunately. I love the Story of David and Goliath. That child like faith of 'What are you worried about? We have God on our side. I don't want armour, Jehovah is my armour. Just give me a stone and a slingshot and I'll go down.' Its a story that never fails to build me up. Its what Christ is talking about. IMO he warns us about the scribes, and the intellectualisers. Its why he talks about being childlike. A child just trusts their parents.

Thats my 2 cent anyhoo.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

1. The sufferring in the world. People not fathoming why God would let it continue. Especially when one hears of things like Fritzel etc. I would never underestimate such things effect on ones faith.

This is the reason why Bart Ehrman, a well known agnostic biblical scholar, abandoned his Christian faith. He could not reconcile his beliefs with the suffering he saw in the world.

getz

there are many around like myself ,who believe in early christian teachings,then take one look on how the christian churches practice it a say why,this wasent how it was supposed to be, jesus did not teach this,

Hotspace

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't think I'm greatly interested in asking what they think. It's already there in black and white, after all. As a Christian I am operating under the assumption in this thread that they are wrong and Christianity is correct. So, for the purposes of this thread, there is no epistemological challenge. Therefore, if Christianity is assumed to be correct, how does the Christian reconcile the loss of faith in the former honest believer in light of what the bible tells us?

Let's place myself back in time to my former Christian mind. The answer, for all dog vomit eating backsliders is the same and supported by biblical references. Which I am too lazy to track down: that Satan is the bringer of all doubts. We must question why such a religion is seemingly hermetically sealed that doubts themselves are proof of the religion. When I had a personal crisis and I doubted strongly I figured that there are various controls to keep me locked into this religion.

1. There is a worse hell set aside for apostates than people who have never believed
2. Ex-believers would be shunned
3. My doubts were from Satan and he was influencing my mind.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As for your reasons - and I don't mean to be dismissive - I've heard them before. Yes, they were obviously compelling to yourself and those of your irreligious bent, but many Christians have investigated the claims of the unbeliever and have found the central thesis - that there is no God - to be without merit. And would you believe that some of us have done this with a "questioning mind"? Indeed, without dismissing some very valid questions, arguments and criticisms posed by atheism, as a pillar upon which a world view rests, I believe it poses some very difficult questions that are rarely recognised or addressed by the casual unbeliever.

That is a very brave and telling paragraph of broad and strong statements. I won't duly respond to every point - because, as you say, it will deflect from the main thread. But, suffice it to say that extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Out of curiosity, assuming you agree with the 3 categories outlined in the OP, where would you place yourself?

Of course, life stances and wordlviews can't so easily be pigeoned holed. I think a sliding scale of strength of faith and knowledge of theology might have been more appropriate. I would place myself in category B. Although, my knowledge of theology is greater now than it was then. That's only because I'm more of an academic personality than I was then.

JimiTime

getz wrote: »

there are many around like myself ,who believe in early christian teachings,then take one look on how the christian churches practice it a say why,this wasent how it was supposed to be, jesus did not teach this,

A few things. 'Christian Churches' is a HUGE term. Do you mean the 'main' ones like Roman Catholic, Anglican etc?

Also, you say you believe in 'early christian teachings'. Does this mean that you are a Christian? Are you a man of faith? I'm not sure of your position. It suggests to me you are, maybe you could clarify?

Is it that you have faith in God and in the resurrection of Christ, but don't conform to a particular denomination. Sorry about the 20 questions, Just wondering if you could clarify.

PDN

Hotspace wrote: »

Let's place myself back in time to my former Christian mind. The answer, for all dog vomit eating backsliders is the same and supported by biblical references. Which I am too lazy to track down: that Satan is the bringer of all doubts. We must question why such a religion is seemingly hermetically sealed that doubts themselves are proof of the religion.

What you have described may have been your experience, but it doesn't appear to reflect the position of any of the posters here. So maybe you would be better finding people who actually believe that and then ask them why their religion is so hermetically sealed.

As far as this thread is concerned it looks suspiciously like a strawman.

Morbert

Despite all the discussions regarding Christianity and Atheism, the adoption of Christianity ultimately rests on one factor, and that is whether or not Christ is evident in your life. This is why, even if someone is well educated in matters of theology, they can lose faith if Christ is not evident to them.

Phototoxin

Re:hotspace, I think that many religons are controlling, manipulative and restricting. However too loose/liberal and then they loose structure and gumption.

SlickRic

Morbert wrote: »

Despite all the discussions regarding Christianity and Atheism, the adoption of Christianity ultimately rests on one factor, and that is whether or not Christ is evident in your life. This is why, even if someone is well educated in matters of theology, they can lose faith if Christ is not evident to them.

nail on head imo.

Christ not being evident to them can manifest itself in disillusionment with church, with the questions, with leadership etc. but the key thing is always Christ. if you don't know Him anymore, that's inevitably when you fall away.

that's just from what i've seen anyway.

Soul Winner

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What is it that makes a sincere and earnest believer loose faith? And how is the Christian to reconcile this in light of various passages in the NT regarding the honest search for faith? (None specifically spring to mind - maybe they will later.)

In the past I've encountered “deconversion” stories on websites like ex-christian.net. Broadly speaking, it seems to me that these former believers can be split into three categories.

• A) Sincere - Someone who had a love of God, a good to excellent grounding in the finer details of faith and Christian epistemology and seemed to tick all the right theological boxes. However, despite these advantages (if that's the correct word) and some apparently honest soul searching when a crisis of faith hit, they still abandoned Christianity.

• Feet of Clay - Someone whose faith was so rigid that a blow to a core belief caused a gradual collapse of all their religious beliefs.

• C) Cultural – Someone who never really accepted the truth of Christianity and abandoned it without much in the way of internal conflict.

Being perfectly honest, for the purposes of this thread, I'm not overly concerned with group B or C. While group B puzzles me, I think that it seems obvious why they jacked it in, and I've encountered enough of group C over the years to have a fair idea of where they are coming from. They never where believers – not in any real sense of the word – so I don't expect much insight from what seemed like an inevitable abandonment of “faith” that really never was.

Some of the most memorable testimonies I've encountered have been from former men of the cloth who would have seemed to fit into somewhere between B and C. The general thrust of their tale was that they lost the faith for whatever reason and now detest Christianity with a passion that seemingly overshadows whatever passion they once had for God. (Perhaps this is an unfair inference on my part.) Consequently, most of the vestiges of their old Christian selves have been abandoned and they have become a sort of rebellious parody of their old selves. Behind these stories I detect a lot of arrogance and bitterness. It's all the more puzzling and shocking to think that they were once leaders and people of influence.

To be fair, I should stress that not all B and C's come across in such a negative manner. However, for the purpose of this thread, I want to concentrate on group A, those who loose faith despite their best (?) efforts. As a Christian I really can't understand why this would happen if we bear in mind the role of the Holy Spirit and various passages in the bible tells us about faith. Matt 7:7 is about the most apt verse I can think of at the mo, though I imagine there are better. Is there beyond putting the loss of faith as a consequence of their free choice. Are we to believe that there was really something else going on behind the struggle? Surely "selfishness" wouldn't be a reason to stop believing, maybe only a reason to be an uncommited Christian. What did they do wrong?

Christian spirited responses, please.

I believe Jesus summed it all up in 'The Parable of the sower', a parable which Jesus said, if we don't understand we cannot even be disciples (learners) of Him, because if we can't understand this one then we can't understanding any other parable. Mark 4:13

Luke 8:4-15

"And when much people were gathered together, and were come to him out of every city, he spake by a parable: A sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it. And some fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture. And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprang up with it, and choked it. And other fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hundredfold. And when he had said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be? And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables;that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand (So much for the idea that Jesus wants to save everybody). (He goes on to explain the parable to His disciples) Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away. And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection. But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with endurance."

getz

JimiTime wrote: »

A few things. 'Christian Churches' is a HUGE term. Do you mean the 'main' ones like Roman Catholic, Anglican etc?

Also, you say you believe in 'early christian teachings'. Does this mean that you are a Christian? Are you a man of faith? I'm not sure of your position. It suggests to me you are, maybe you could clarify?

Is it that you have faith in God and in the resurrection of Christ, but don't conform to a particular denomination. Sorry about the 20 questions, Just wondering if you could clarify.

this is my story ,and what i believe,christened catholic,[because my father was catholic,and in them days the church insisted on it]went to a church of england school and also became a choir boy,also went in the afternoons to sunday school[bible lessons]in my local babtist church,this was during the war years,i believe in god through jesus, but my major[hangup]is that i did not believe god put us on this earth just for people to worship him,my god is above all that,my view on churches is that i think they have lost the plot,dont get me wrong, i respect their beliefs,but the only one i have any time for,but i will not join,is the salvation army. sorry if i upset you ,but thats how i think

JimiTime

getz wrote: »

this is my story ,and what i believe,christened catholic,[because my father was catholic,and in them days the church insisted on it]went to a church of england school and also became a choir boy,also went in the afternoons to sunday school[bible lessons]in my local babtist church,this was during the war years,i believe in god through jesus, but my major[hangup]is that i did not believe god put us on this earth just for people to worship him,my god is above all that,my view on churches is that i think they have lost the plot,dont get me wrong, i respect their beliefs,but the only one i have any time for,but i will not join,is the salvation army. sorry if i upset you ,but thats how i think

Thanks for expanding. Two things. Firstly, I'm not sure why you think you've upset me All smiles here, so don't worry:)

Secondly your line 'i did not believe god put us on this earth just for people to worship him'. What do you believe worship is? Jesus said to worship is to look after orphans and widows. Alot of people think of worship as a kind of grovelling. If Moses is to be believed, Gods instruction to Adam in the beginning was to go and be many. He set him over all the earth. Worshipping God is not about being on your knee's. Its about following Christ and loving God and your neighbour. If there were actually a billion people worshipping God the way Christ did, there would be alot less sufferring. However, because people equate worship with going to church, its meaning is watered down.

Handsome Bob

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

• A) Sincere - Someone who had a love of God, a good to excellent grounding in the finer details of faith and Christian epistemology and seemed to tick all the right theological boxes. However, despite these advantages (if that's the correct word) and some apparently honest soul searching when a crisis of faith hit, they still abandoned Christianity.

• Feet of Clay - Someone whose faith was so rigid that a blow to a core belief caused a gradual collapse of all their religious beliefs.

• C) Cultural – Someone who never really accepted the truth of Christianity and abandoned it without much in the way of internal conflict.

I think that I honestly fall between A and B. I'm not quite A as I would never claim that I was well versed in the intracies of Catholicism. However I did have a love of God, and a strong one at that. I didn't have a great childhood or great times as a teenager compared to my friends, but my faith in God reassured me that in the end I would get what I deserve for being a good person.

In regards to B, I took blows to a number of my core beliefs within a space of a year or so it really wasn't a case of my faith being so brittle that it broke a part under the slighest attack.

getz

JimiTime wrote: »

Thanks for expanding. Two things. Firstly, I'm not sure why you think you've upset me All smiles here, so don't worry:)

Secondly your line 'i did not believe god put us on this earth just for people to worship him'. What do you believe worship is? Jesus said to worship is to look after orphans and widows. Alot of people think of worship as a kind of grovelling. If Moses is to be believed, Gods instruction to Adam in the beginning was to go and be many. He set him over all the earth. Worshipping God is not about being on your knee's. Its about following Christ and loving God and your neighbour. If there were actually a billion people worshipping God the way Christ did, there would be alot less sufferring. However, because people equate worship with going to church, its meaning is watered down.

praying in church?, it would be nice if that was true,but as you know history tells a different story,the organized churches have been the cause of most pain and suffering in this world,like if you dont go to my church you are going to burn in hell,and you would be crucified in the name of christ,no i will do it my way and harm no-one.

PDN

getz wrote: »

the organized churches have been the cause of most pain and suffering in this world,like if you dont go to my church you are going to burn in hell,and you would be crucified in the name of christ,no i will do it my way and harm no-one.

To be fair, the vast majority of organised churches have never claimed that you go to hell unless you join their particular church, nor have they ever tortured or killed anyone for any reason.

JimiTime

getz wrote: »

praying in church?, it would be nice if that was true,but as you know history tells a different story,the organized churches have been the cause of most pain and suffering in this world,like if you dont go to my church you are going to burn in hell,and you would be crucified in the name of christ,no i will do it my way and harm no-one.

Sorry, but what does the above have to do with my post

getz

JimiTime wrote: »

Sorry, but what does the above have to do with my post

sorry i know what you mean, the big problem i have with churches is that they do not seem to preach the bibles message,they are more into lighting candles/incence/dressing up/statues and other pagon ceremonies its all about mind control, PDN how can you say that? have you already forgot ,2000,years of churches engagement of assasinations, murders,slavery,political intrigue, and torture in the name of jesus ?the whitch trails were a direct result of some churches doctrines. over 100,000 executions in europe,and less we forget the terrible gonad amputations suffered on young boys, so they could sing better in church,this is why i have no time for churches

PDN

getz wrote: »

PDN how can you say that? have you already forgot ,2000,years of churches engagement of assasinations, murders,slavery,political intrigue, and torture in the name of jesus ?the whitch trails were a direct result of some churches doctrines. over 100,000 executions in europe,and less we forget the terrible gonad amputations suffered on young boys, so they could sing better in church,this is why i have no time for churches

No, I haven't forgotten any of that. However, most of that was perpetrated by one particular organisation.

Tell me who was tortured or killed by the Methodists? The Presbyterian Church in ireland? The Church of the Nazarene? The Baptist Union of Ireland? The Salvation Army? The Moravians? The Brethren? Assemblies of God? Church of God? Foursquare? The Vineyard association of Churches? I could go on and on. Also, none of these churches have ever claimed that if you don't join their church you go to hell.

JimiTime

getz wrote: »

sorry i know what you mean, the big problem i have with churches is that they do not seem to preach the bibles message,they are more into lighting candles/incence/dressing up/statues and other pagon ceremonies its all about mind control, PDN how can you say that? have you already forgot ,2000,years of churches engagement of assasinations, murders,slavery,political intrigue, and torture in the name of jesus ?the whitch trails were a direct result of some churches doctrines. over 100,000 executions in europe,and less we forget the terrible gonad amputations suffered on young boys, so they could sing better in church,this is why i have no time for churches

Again, I think you are missing how HUGE the term 'Churches' is. As PDN pointed out, you seem to be talking about one or two particular biggies.

Again though, just for clarity, Do you believe in Christ and his resurrection? Is it that you don't 'do' organised religion, but you believe in Christ and his promises?

getz

PDN wrote: »

No, I haven't forgotten any of that. However, most of that was perpetrated by one particular organisation.

Tell me who was tortured or killed by the Methodists? The Presbyterian Church in ireland? The Church of the Nazarene? The Baptist Union of Ireland? The Salvation Army? The Moravians? The Brethren? Assemblies of God? Church of God? Foursquare? The Vineyard association of Churches? I could go on and on. Also, none of these churches have ever claimed that if you don't join their church you go to hell.

i think that when i mean church abuses, i mean the main stream churches anglican/catholic, i have a lot of time for the baptist[my mother was a deacon in one] i even had my son to have his naming ceremony in one so if at a later date he wishes to be christened it would be up to him, i also have a lot of time for the salvation army and the quakers,the quakers did more for the irish during the famine than any other religion or country,i also have a soft spot for the buddhist religion the only only thing is ,is that i cannot except all of their dogma, i believe in jesus is teachings, and i am not afraid of death,maybe it is because , i often see people who have passed on,when i walk into very old buildings i can feel the happiness or sadness of the people who one lived in them, at times i sense a victorian lady next to me ,i never see her but she makes her presence felt,i have many other [paranormal/religious] experiences to many to mention,oh yes my love of god still fits in nicely.

Jimkel

I was raised rc, wanted to be a priest when I was a child. Fell out with religion and into the party lifestyle as a teen, drugs and new age philosophys etc. Nearly lost my sanity due to excessive pot smoking and occasional hallucinagens. Realised it was all a crock of crap and came back to god. last christmas I spent reading every peice of theology, religious history and scholerly essay on the evolution of religion, I could get my hands on or read on the net. I just could not accept some of the things I was told to believe. I came to the conclusion after around 2 months of solid reading, and I mean solid 12+ hours a day. that much of it is tainted by time and tampered with by man. I don't now for instance believe in revelations as a literal prediction. in fact Im not sure it even belongs in the Bible, but thats another debate. I have learned an awful lot. One thing I am certain of is that many people who consider themselves christian today are biggots and usually horrible people underneath a smile, they look after their own and thats it, and that roman catholics are usually normal people who are scared to death to question their faith.

Now I believe firmly in Jesus Christ, do not affiliate with any church body or school of thought and consider myself Christian but agnostic in a sense that while I am certian about god, I am uncertain about the history and inerrency of our biblicle texts. Anyone who can support RC must be deluded, or evil. the great atrocities the roman catholic church has commited can not be forgotten. As anyone who supports church of Ireland must also be deluded, have they forgotten the troubles this country has had with the Church of Englands followers. Anyone who supports the fundimentalists belief of the American christian republicans must also be insane or evil, pro life but all for war in the middle east! and then of course there is the other popular "Christian" themed religious groups in Ireland who's doctrines are absurd, ie the mormans.

Bottom line, I've learned of a much deeper and intimate relationship with the lord. so Thats how I lost my faith in "christianity". Thankfully I found Christ instead, and as a sidenote, I am a firm believer in both evolution and the lord. Anyone who wants an eye opener regarding christianiy should read The Case for God (2009) by Karen Armstrong.

Fanny Cradock

Jimkel, while I am delighted that you have bothered to investigate your faith in some detail, it really wont do to come on here and make statements like "anyone who can support RC must be deluded, or evil". You get a free pass this time, but that's it. Please familarise yourself with the charter before your next post.

BTW, welcome to the forum.

postcynical

Great post. This is something I have fear of too. I try to build my life around my faith, which is strong but naive. I've no fear in putting my life in the Lord's hands in theory, but the practicalities of this terrify me sometimes. It's quite a gamble. It's often more tempting to be a half-hearted Christian or an agnostic than a committed Christian IMO.

Also, like a bitter break-up, it's plausible that much resentment endures when somebody loses their faith. However one flip-side is very positive. The worst sinners can become the best lovers of Christ.

Finally faith can be so elusive that it is very possible to progress in the world as a cultural Christian without ever experiencing or recognising Christ personally. My first prayer is frequently one of thanks for my faith and a petition that my faith will grow. While we cannot earn faith or force ourselves to believe, we can dispose ourselves to be receptive if and when we sense God in our lives. Faith requires nurture IMO.

Jimkel

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Jimkel, while I am delighted that you have bothered to investigate your faith in some detail, it really wont do to come on here and make statements like "anyone who can support RC must be deluded, or evil". You get a free pass this time, but that's it. Please familarise yourself with the charter before your next post.

BTW, welcome to the forum.

Sorry! let me rephrase that to "I am of the opinion that many people who follow churches are deluded". Thats just my opinion, sorry for the previous choice of words.

Fanny Cradock

Jimkel wrote: »

Sorry! let me rephrase that to "I am of the opinion that many people who follow churches are deluded". Thats just my opinion, sorry for the previous choice of words.

Adding a few words to the front doesn't really soften your statement. That it is phrased in the form of a personal opinion rather than a "fact" doesn't sidestep the charter. Please, be more careful in future.

Phototoxin

I was at my GF's church recently and the vicar made an interesting statement saying 'we are Christians before we are Anglicans' which is interesting as one of my main beef's with the RCC was the whole Rome before God thing whcih isn't the *official* line but is the actual pharaseeical line

patrickthomas

I would pick option C, would not call it cultural though as growing up in 1950's ireland the predominant culture was Catholic as it is now albeit a little weaker.

I think as a child I accepted whatever i was told as true, Ghosts, Gods, Devils, Fairies and came to realise that they were all imaginative creations coming from the same source.

It is not possible to believe there is a God responsible for this world and if there was, he would be a terrible disappointment.

philologos

Phototoxin wrote: »

I was at my GF's church recently and the vicar made an interesting statement saying 'we are Christians before we are Anglicans' which is interesting as one of my main beef's with the RCC was the whole Rome before God thing whcih isn't the *official* line but is the actual pharaseeical line

I'd hold this view myself. Christianity is Christianity. Anglicanism is a type of Christian practice which involves Reason, Tradition and Scripture as it's main focus.

I have found that many of my friends who are of different denominations have offered me so much to think about in relation to Christianity that I realise that practice really is of very little importance in comparison to the Gospel message itself. I feel it would do a lot for all Christians to understand this.

patrickthomas

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd hold this view myself. Christianity is Christianity. Anglicanism is a type of Christian practice which involves Reason, Tradition and Scripture as it's main focus.

I have found that many of my friends who are of different denominations have offered me so much to think about in relation to Christianity that I realise that practice really is of very little importance in comparison to the Gospel message itself. I feel it would do a lot for all Christians to understand this.

So how is the Internet evangelism going? Reckon that Ireland is ripe pickings for evangelism after the shocks from the catholic church?

Splendour

patrickthomas wrote: »

It is not possible to believe there is a God responsible for this world and if there was, he would be a terrible disappointment.

He obviously thought enough of us to send his Son to save us.
I noticed you picked option C, and given you grew up in 1950's Ireland I can almost understand that. Can I ask you though, have you ever looked into Christianity for yourself rather than merely accepting everything you were taught as a child?

philologos

patrickthomas wrote: »

So how is the Internet evangelism going? Reckon that Ireland is ripe pickings for evangelism after the shocks from the catholic church?

I don't think the internet is an effective arena for evangelism. People living Christian lives is the best evangelism one can get. I think the Social Gospel is the way that Christians should be dealing with evangelism. Leading by true Christian example, and enabling others to do the same.

patrickthomas

Splendour wrote: »

He obviously thought enough of us to send his Son to save us.
I noticed you picked option C, and given you grew up in 1950's Ireland I can almost understand that. Can I ask you though, have you ever looked into Christianity for yourself rather than merely accepting everything you were taught as a child?

I presume you meant "rejecting everything I was taught as a child" I just grew up and as I did I read the Bible and thought about what was in it and the world around me and as time went on I realised that the church is just a political corporation that does not practice what it preaches, in fact quite the opposite.

patrickthomas

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think the internet is an effective arena for evangelism. People living Christian lives is the best evangelism one can get. I think the Social Gospel is the way that Christians should be dealing with evangelism. Leading by true Christian example, and enabling others to do the same.

So how do you lead by example?

Splendour

patrickthomas wrote: »

I presume you meant "rejecting everything I was taught as a child" I just grew up and as I did I read the Bible and thought about what was in it and the world around me and as time went on I realised that the church is just a political corporation that does not practice what it preaches, in fact quite the opposite.

No, I didn't mean rejecting (apart from the fairies bit maybe...:D ) I too grew up Catholic but I didn't believe in alot of their teachings so I looked around at other churches. I could have stayed at home on my tod and read the bible but I needed to hear the bible being preached by those who understood it better than I did. (Apart from the fact that I would not have been disiplined enough to read it on my own :rolleyes: )

Some churches do come across as political corporations and alot of Christians don't 'practice what they preach' but you'll find that people will be people no matter what. I'm a Christian but I'm also a sinner. I consider myself a 'saved sinner', but this is only due to what Jesus has done for me.

postcynical

patrickthomas wrote: »

I presume you meant "rejecting everything I was taught as a child" I just grew up and as I did I read the Bible and thought about what was in it and the world around me and as time went on I realised that the church is just a political corporation that does not practice what it preaches, in fact quite the opposite.

The Church (or the Catholic church here) is made up of its members. Some of us do try and practice what we believe. And we try to lead Christian lives. Many of us have been disappointed by what some members have done in our name or in Christ's name but we persevere. I believe the RCC is more than just a political organisation but maybe I just got a good dose of it.

patrickthomas

Splendour wrote: »

No, I didn't mean rejecting (apart from the fairies bit maybe...:D ) I too grew up Catholic but I didn't believe in alot of their teachings so I looked around at other churches. I could have stayed at home on my tod and read the bible but I needed to hear the bible being preached by those who understood it better than I did. (Apart from the fact that I would not have been disiplined enough to read it on my own :rolleyes: )

Some churches do come across as political corporations and alot of Christians don't 'practice what they preach' but you'll find that people will be people no matter what. I'm a Christian but I'm also a sinner. I consider myself a 'saved sinner', but this is only due to what Jesus has done for me.

Ok, bear with me, when you say "saved" do you mean saved from hell, or saved from something else...or both?

philologos

patrickthomas wrote: »

So how do you lead by example?

A good start is to follow the moral principles of Jesus Himself. That's what I have been trying to do more and more each day. (Matthew 5-7)

I understand that I am not perfect, and I can never be perfect. However, I want follow what I believe to be true, and right as much as possible, and hopefully to leave the world a better place than when I came in.

patrickthomas

postcynical wrote: »

The Church (or the Catholic church here) is made up of its members. Some of us do try and practice what we believe. And we try to lead Christian lives. Many of us have been disappointed by what some members have done in our name or in Christ's name but we persevere. I believe the RCC is more than just a political organisation but maybe I just got a good dose of it.

I am thinking about what you said, somehow there is a lot more in the emotional content in what you are saying that we could both agree with than merely the linguistic content.

I am taking a chance here but I would probably agree with you way more than disagree with you. The "Christian" concept you speak about (I think) is what every religion has said, that is, treat everyone as you would have them treat you.

The "Christian" concept has more in common with something like Buddhism and a lot of other religions, to make us a better person.

Not sure if i am answering you correctly or not but will give it some thought and come back to you on it. Ok

patrickthomas

Jakkass wrote: »

A good start is to follow the moral principles of Jesus Himself. That's what I have been trying to do more and more each day. (Matthew 5-7)

I understand that I am not perfect, and I can never be perfect. However, I want follow what I believe to be true, and right as much as possible, and hopefully to leave the world a better place than when I came in.

You want to follow, therefore you want to be led. By a figure whose words have been twisted in every book written about him? I would apologise, but it is the truth!