Recently I was thinking about this again. Many of us who have gone through the soul shattering, heart breaking, and mind blowing process of having the very center of our universe and purpose for living upended get a wee bit offended when someone comes along with the info that if we were really saved to begin with, we would not have turned away.
But the question of our salvation (or lack thereof) is really not the point. It's the way this kind of thing can make us feel invisible and unheard. No one knows anyone else's heart, the prayers and adorations in the stillness and privacy of our own spirits. When I read of people's love of God or Jesus or Allah, I BELIEVE them, I do not doubt their sincerity even if I myself don't think that what they believe is real. That's not up to me nor any of my business. The fact that I found it all to be untrue after all the years I gave it (Him) my all is an absurd idea to some. I know. At one time I would have thought that as well.
But it did happen.
So I guess the "you were never a Christian" part of it doesn't so much bother me anymore. I figure now I really never was saved in the most obvious way. I no longer think that there is anything to be saved from.
Therefore the hurt in telling me that I never (fill in the blank) is that my very integrity as a human in brought into question, and that's what gets me.
But the question of our salvation (or lack thereof) is really not the point. It's the way this kind of thing can make us feel invisible and unheard. No one knows anyone else's heart, the prayers and adorations in the stillness and privacy of our own spirits. When I read of people's love of God or Jesus or Allah, I BELIEVE them, I do not doubt their sincerity even if I myself don't think that what they believe is real. That's not up to me nor any of my business. The fact that I found it all to be untrue after all the years I gave it (Him) my all is an absurd idea to some. I know. At one time I would have thought that as well.
But it did happen.
So I guess the "you were never a Christian" part of it doesn't so much bother me anymore. I figure now I really never was saved in the most obvious way. I no longer think that there is anything to be saved from.
Therefore the hurt in telling me that I never (fill in the blank) is that my very integrity as a human in brought into question, and that's what gets me.
"I figure now I really never was saved in the most obvious way. I no longer think that there is anything to be saved from."
ReplyDeleteIn that sense, true, we were never really "saved". IOW, in the same way that no one else is saved, we were never saved. But since we both know that any lurking Christians would disagree with that, there's another obvious reason that the "you were never a Christian" canard falls apart, and that's the "free will" part. If we are to believe that a "True Christian™" absolutely, positively will never change his or her mind under any circumstances, then there's no meaningful distinction between that and an automaton that's simply unable to change its mind. It seems to me that for "free will" to work, there has to exist circumstances upon which someone can rightfully change his or her mind.
in the same way that no one else is saved, we were never saved.
DeleteExactly. Although, I know that this is just our opinion on the matter.
Freewill is sticky, I didn't much believe in it as I leaned Calvinst, but yes, if one can never be unsaved under any circumstance, there must be no will of one's own.
"Although, I know that this is just our opinion on the matter."
DeleteYes, of course, just our opinions. However, I think that it's worth adding that not all opinions carry the same weight. For instance, one person's opinion of "Salvation" might be that it's a beautiful, gracious thing. Another person's opinion of it might be that it's an ugly thing and that it degrades humanity. The former person might also be of the opinion that there's an actual "Savior", whereas, the latter person might hold the opinion that, no, there is no "Savior", and thus, there's nothing from which to be "saved".
The latter set of opposing opinions are not on equal ground, because a belief in a literal "Savior" requires a belief in the supernatural. To date, there is not one scrap of evidence for anything supernatural..e.g..invisible "Saviors", "demons", "devils", "Holy" spooks, etc., etc., so our opinion that those things have no referent in reality carries more weight than those who believe such things do have a referent in reality.
I'd agree -- the problem isn't so much that the statement is untrue -- though that is a huge problem -- it's that the statement is so utterly dismissive. "That incredibly personal, exquisitely painful experience that you painstakingly worked your way through? Naw, didn't happen." M'kay, then.
ReplyDeleteRight Michael, I am not anymore worried about "never being saved", because I've come to realize that that's not the issue at all.
DeleteVery, very good point.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Doug:)
DeleteI guess the appropriate response is: "Yeah ... I guess you're right ... but then since there is no god, you weren't 'really saved' either." They need to justify their fantasy in whatever convoluted, twisted way they can so probably just best to walk away ... their god is as useful as their mortal words and opinions.
ReplyDelete...probably just best to walk away...
DeleteYou are correct sir. I should not let it bug me, I guess.
Not that I can change your mind however I do have this question for you: can a butterfly change itself into a caterpillar?
ReplyDeleteAre you saying God turned you into a butterfly?
DeleteNot that I know of.
DeleteYour reasoning is through false analogy. Changing one's mind based on learning new information, critical reasoning and self reflection is nothing like a biological metamorphosis from one form to another.
Delete"Not that I can change your mind[.......]"
DeleteSpeaking only for myself----yes, you could change my mind, actually. On this blog, and others, I have gone into detail as to what scenarios, if true, would change my mind. This goes, not only for my skepticism of Christianity, but for Islam, the "New Age" movement, and anything else that involves "metaphysical" beings and realms. If I'm expected to accept Christianity's metaphysical claims on "faith", then hell, the floodgate is open to accept all sorts of other beliefs for which there is no observable evidence, thus, requiring a leap of faith.
"I do have this question for you: can a butterfly change itself into a caterpillar?"
In theory, an omnipotent being can do whatever he/she/it wants to do. So, in theory, the answer is "yes". Feel free to connect the dots. I can hardly wait.
I have to 2nd Boom's assertion that evidence could change my mid as well and I'd go further to say (based on many assertions from may other skeptic sources) that a large percentage of skeptics would change their minds as well if the evidence was found to have merit.
DeleteThat said - I've been pondering this analogy of a "Butterfly changing to a caterpillar" ... is that a typo? Because I can't put it right in my mind the point you're trying to convey. We assume the Butterfly is the pinnacle (preferred) state of being since it is the final form of the caterpillar/butterfly ... so are you saying that Alice is/was a butterfly in that she was once saved and cannot go backwards to being UNsaved? Or are you saying the being saved is represented by the caterpillar (saved) and being the butterfly is UNsaved ... in which case, why would we want to go BACKWARDS?
If Alice is the Butterfly and she cannot go backwards to being a caterpillar (saved) - and since we know in nature this is true - then she has reached her pinnacle and become that butterfly by shedding the cocoon of religion - which - if we're to accept the analogy as it pertains to nature - is the GOAL ... so I'm confused as to why a theist would be saying that a person should renounce their ability to reach their full potential (becoming the butterfly) only to remain a caterpillar with limitations and sheltered by the cocoon of religion ...if you're saying the opposite then you are saying she WAS saved and cannot step backwards to being the caterpillar - which I guess is a consolation of a sort.
my head hurts now :P
My impression was that she was trying to say that if she was truly a Christian (butterfly) then she could not become a caterpillar. Thus she must have always been a caterpillar. This restating the exact statement slice is criticizing in her blog. It's faulty reasoning at it's finest.
Delete@ Robert Hall - as former Christians, I think we should be cicadas instead of butterflies. After years living in the dark, we finally emerge into the larger world, shed our old shells and spread our wings... and then turn into these horrible angry buzzing things.
DeleteOkay, maybe not the best choice of analogies after all.
Delete@swarn - thanks for the clarification ... that configuration never crossed my mind ... I guess I'm a heathen through and through :P
DeleteThat really DOES through "free will" right out the window then ... can't very well have free will if you can't change your mind at ANY time. Seems that would be a problem with the business model being put forward ... welcome to the Hotel California (you can check out any time you like but you can NEVER leave) :P
"can't very well have free will if you can't change your mind at ANY time."~ R. Hall
DeletePrecisely. And as for the "butterfly"/"caterpillar" analogy, while it may be true that the former cannot choose to become the latter, it is also true that the latter didn't choose to become the former Insects don't even realize they have choices----they simply do what comes naturally.
For Susan's apologetic to be truly analogous to her Christian faith, she is essentially saying that she didn't choose to become a Christian, it was chosen for her. She's even gone on record to say that the "faith" comes from "God". But for some strange reason, since I'm an atheist, it's up to me to choose for myself. Then again, consistency's never been a strong point for Christians.
it is also true that the latter didn't choose to become the former Insects don't even realize they have choices----they simply do what comes naturally.
DeleteExcellent point - not unlike children who'd voices change (among other things) when they go through puberty ... not "choice" at all. Which begs the question, if kids (knowing how many "pitfalls" awaited them in a religious world) would "choose" to go through puberty knowing that they'd face so many challenges that would raise the ire of their god as a result of that "choice"?
Additionally - if "faith" comes from god - wouldn't that be "knowledge" and not "faith" at all?
Just rambling ... but it seems contradictory ...
"Additionally - if 'faith' comes from god - wouldn't that be 'knowledge' and not 'faith' at all?"
DeleteI look at it like this---if "faith" were "knowledge", then in theory, all believers would believe in one "God", the right One. After all, no one would knowingly believe in the wrong "God"(or one that they know doesn't exist).
Thus, "faith" cannot be "knowledge", and instead, I contend it aligns with the common meaning of the word in a religious context..i.e.. fervent belief without evidence(or knowledge).
If "faith" comes from "God", then at best, this god is doing its followers a disservice.
For Susan's apologetic to be truly analogous to her Christian faith, she is essentially saying that she didn't choose to become a Christian, it was chosen for her. She's even gone on record to say that the "faith" comes from "God". But for some strange reason, since I'm an atheist, it's up to me to choose for myself.
DeleteIndeed
I think the other important point is the "he who is without sin..." part. Somebody saying that to you is being judgmental and self-righteous. I'm sure you could easily poke holes in how much of a Christian they actually are. I'll guarantee you they don't follow every part of the bible. And since the religious do not own the market on morality, you may actually be a better person. Those who would question your spiritual journey should probably look inward before looking outward. They've already showed how seriously they take the bible by passing their judgment over you. Jesus himself was against such actions.
ReplyDeleteYes. Right there with you Alice.
ReplyDeleteI'll never forget my good Christian friend half-laughing at me suggesting that I'm no more an atheist than she was during her non-religious phase. It hurt only because in that moment I wondered, "Am I invisible?" I would no more turn and say to her now, 'Do you think you are any more Christian than I was during my religious phase?' But, if she ever brings it up again I will say that to her.
Even if it was the "salvation" issue those people do remember your salvation and your faith. They might think you were never saved but they do remember your salvation phase. :)
Indeed Zoe, I had them pretty fooled ;P
DeleteBruce talks about that a lot too, how no one in all his years of ministry doubted his salvation. Hmmmm, not very discerning,
Same here. There isn't one real-time person who doubted my salvation. It was only online people and more so back in the days when I was open to search engines on my former blog. I was threatened all the time with the you were never saved and you're going to hell stuff.
DeleteI think it is "you were never a butterfly to begin with, just a deceived caterpiller".
ReplyDelete(Same thing, different words)
@swarn,
I think that is kinda what you said :)
Reminds of the old "Is Gandhi in heaven" question. I always say: "Of course he is". Just because Gandhi did not share my theology does not mean that he did not know God. Sadly some religious people are more focused on narrow dogma than spiritual birth. And, for me, the idea of being "saved" has little to do with spiritual birth. I know many "saved" people who act no different than they did before they were "saved" except maybe where they sit on Sunday mornings.
ReplyDeleteIt never felt right that in some dogmatic circles (mine), being a "good person" counted for nothing.
DeleteDogmatic fundies often seem to forget that salvation is about a spiritual birth and not having the right theology.
DeleteHi Alice,
ReplyDeleteWhat if you are wrong? I think it will be a horrible, devastating feeling waking up on the other side and realize that you made the wrong choice.
If I'm wrong, well then, I have nothing to lose but everything to gain.
Blessings dear one,
<><
Maybe you are not wrong about God, but about the correct one. The Koran talks a whole lot about Hell for unbelievers. How are you sure that Allah is not the One True God?
DeleteHi Alice,
DeleteI am so sure Jesus is the only way to heaven that I willingly stake my life on it. If I had to make a choice of denying Jesus or losing my life, I would choose Jesus. How can one read about women and children being held captive by ISIL and refuse to deny Jesus and lose their heads and not wonder if Jesus is the Truth.
Blessings hon,
<><
I'm glad you have found your peace. Like I said before, I'm not here trying to make deconverts of anyone, this is a place for me to share with those who have been/are going through the same thing.
Delete"How can one read about women and children being held captive by ISIL and refuse to deny Jesus and lose their heads and not wonder if Jesus is the Truth."
DeleteHelp me out, here. Is it being suggested that those women and children would not be willing to die for something if that something wasn't true? If so, then consider this: What if they didn't know it's not true, similar to how the 19 hijackers who were willing to die for their faith didn't know that the Islamic faith isn't true? IOW, it's really a poor argument to say that just because someone would die for their faith that that must mean their faith aligns with reality.
And on another note----would "Jesus" really be pleased that a child would die for him? Is that really admirable? Wouldn't a loving "God" prefer that the child temporarily feign the denial of him so that the child could live?
It looks like I got the "Pascal's Wager and Die for a Lie?" one two punch:)
DeleteI was just listening to a rabbi yesterday say that it would okay to break the Sabbath if one's life was in danger. His example was that if someone was holding a gun to your head and said you had to cook on the Sabbath, you would have to do it, because you are required to save your own life. That's rabbincal stuff, I know, but they definitely have a different outlook on martyrdom than Christians and Muslims.
"It looks like I got the 'Pascal's Wager and Die for a Lie?' one two punch"
DeletePascal's Wager is a sucker's bet, and as for the "Die for a Lie" apologetic, I've got two words: Marshall Applewhite.
"Dogmatic fundies often seem to forget that salvation is about a spiritual birth and not having the right theology."
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to me that labels like "dogmatic fundies" and "religious extremists" are simply terms that describe people who are literalists. That is, they are people who take the Bible, Torah, or Qu'ran at its face-value. When it comes to the Bible, believers will quote you chapter and verse as to what "Salvation" means and how to achieve it. I'm willing to wager that no verse can be found that says, "salvation is a spiritual birth"(at least, not verbatim). Note, I'm not disparaging anyone who attempts to buffer the bible's contents by putting their own spin on scripture; I'm merely pointing out that it's these so-called "fundies" who are the ones who actually follow the bible the closest.
"How are you sure that Allah is not the One True God?"
Exactly. Millions of believers besides Christians claim to worship the "One True God". Conclusion? People can evidently be deceived into believing in and worshiping false gods. Millions of believers claim to get their concept of morality from books other than the Bible. Conclusion: People are walking around with a false sense of morality. Lastly, millions of believers other than Christians have "faith", so we can safely conclude that if "faith" can lead those people astray, it can lead anyone astray. It then becomes a crap-shoot.
Thus, if you're going to bet on "God", the safest bet is to believe in ALL gods.
"I'm willing to wager that no verse can be found that says, "salvation is a spiritual birth"(at least, not verbatim)."
DeleteProbably just a matter of what one thinks Jesus meant when he spoke of being born from above. Either way, I do not think that salvation is really about dogma but about spiritual birth.
"Probably just a matter of what one thinks Jesus meant when he spoke of being born from above."
ReplyDeleteIt seems awfully nebulous, and thus, completely open to interpretation, which, IMO, seems odd for a message that's supposedly so important.
Nebulous to some. Even Nicodemus, a Pharisee, didn't get it.
Delete"Nebulous to some. Even Nicodemus, a Pharisee, didn't get it."
DeleteExcept that to "get it" implies that its meaning is objective, not subjective. That seems to conflict with the fact that there are upwards of 33,000 denominations/split-offs of Christianity, all of whom will claim that they "get it". From where I now sit, that doesn't look very convincing.
Religion, like Nicodemus' Judaism, is not very convincing because it begins with the mind instead of the heart. I suggest that most religious splits begin with differences in thinking. Faith is something you 'get' with your heart not your mind.
DeleteFor example, it is possible for a Conservative to be patriotic and not think the same way as a Liberal who is also patriotic. Faith, like patriotism, transcends mental boundaries. Not a perfect example but perhaps it helps?
I like this from John Wesley: "Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike? May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion? Without all doubt, we may."
"Faith, like patriotism, transcends mental boundaries. Not a perfect example but perhaps it helps?"
DeleteIt might help if I were already-convinced, yes. But alas, that's not the case. I am just no longer convinced that "faith", which boils down to accepting a proposition on little to no evidence, and at times, even accepting it with evidence to the contrary, is a virtuous endeavor. As I pointed out about half way up in this thread, if "faith" can lead so many believers astray, then it can lead you, me, and anyone else astray. For this reason, I cannot go back to accepting things solely with my "heart". Things need to make sense as well as "feel good". To me, it doesn't make sense that the most important message that I'll (supposedly) ever hear was written in such a haphazard, indistinct way. So, I guess we've reach the stalemate that normally results when these sorts of discussions take place between believer and non-believer. All the best, either way.
'Things need to make sense as well as "feel good".'
DeleteI should have used 'gut' rather than 'heart' as heart indicates emotion and I am not trying to communicate the idea that faith is about feelings or emotions. In my view faith is more instinctive than mental or emotional.
"To me, it doesn't make sense that the most important message that I'll (supposedly) ever hear was written in such a haphazard, indistinct way."
If you are speaking about the bible, I am not sure that it was ever meant to be more than what it is, a collection of books by different authors trying to communicate how God has been involved in the world. Here is something that I recently read that I like:
"What is remarkable about the Hebrew Bible (and this is something that you do not have to have any sort of faith to appreciate) is that it contains not only the majority view, but also contains the voices of protest against that majority view. As Rene Girard has pointed out, that makes the Old Testament unique in world literature of the time. The writings of the Old Testament were the first in world history to allow for the voice from the margins to be heard, crying out against oppression, calling out for compassion." -Derek Flood, A Friendly Progressive Response to a Friendly Atheist
"In my view faith is more instinctive than mental or emotional."
DeleteOkay, fair enough. But even swapping out "heart" for "gut", an instinctive feeling is just that----a feeling. IOW, not necessarily based on fact(s). One might say that's not a bad thing, but I wonder who here lets gut instinct trump reason, other than when it pertains to religion or spiritual beliefs? I'll wager not many.
Reason is overrated. Beautiful things like art and music often do not make sense. Many a hero would not be a hero if they took the time to listen to reason. The firefighter might not enter the burning building to save a person and the soldier would not think it wise to risk his life to save his comrades. Many investors go with their gut instead of reason. Entrepreneurs see past the reasonings of middle managers. In my career in software I found that reason makes for a good programmer but a poor designer. Taking risks and overcoming obstacles often need more than reason has to offer. Living life only listening to reason may be a safe way to go but it is also a boring way to live. I am thankful that explorers like Columbus or inventors like Edison allowed their instincts to trump their reason.
Delete"Reason is overrated."
DeleteBut not when it pertains to the other guy's religion, especially if we're talking any religion that purports to have a monopoly on Truth.
And this, KC Bob, underscores my whole point in all of this: Those who advocate using "faith" as means to ascertain what is true and/or who use it for a moral compass, compartmentalize their beliefs. They use reason to decry and rebuke the other guy's religion, but when it comes to their own religion(or "faith"), they start echoing the very sentiments that you've stated above..i.e...that "reason is overrated", and the like. Please note that I'm not saying that poetic truth cannot be found if one wants to put aside claims of Universal Truth, however, such poetic truths can be found in practically every religion. Moreover, certainly out of 1.6 billion devout Muslims, some of them will swear by the same "gut instinct" that you are advocating, and yet, look...they've got the wrong "faith" according to many (most? all?) Christians.
"Beautiful things like art and music often do not make sense."
I agree, but that might not be an apt analogy, as no artist that I know of is asking the listener or viewer to worship them or extol them in the way that theism asks its followers to worship and extol its respective deities. Nor is any artist, to my knowledge, saying that something that is clearly thought of as fiction, is actually fact, and should be accepted as such.
"Living life only listening to reason may be a safe way to go but it is also a boring way to live."
This, to me, is black 'n white thinking or a false dilemma. Just because I might advocate that reason and science are the most reliable ways to ascertain truth, that doesn't preclude me using things like imagination, gut instinct, and emotions to perceive the world in other ways.
And BTW, Columbus is one guy who should have used his reason instead of instinct, because if he had, he might not have thought that he could sail off the edge of the world, and he might not have use the natives as slaves.
"Those who advocate using "faith" as means to ascertain what is true and/or who use it for a moral compass, compartmentalize their beliefs."
DeleteI tend to agree. History is rife with examples of how religious texts have been used to support slavery, wars and all sorts of bad things. That said, I think of faith more as a relationship with God than an embracing of dogma. My dogma has changed a lot over the years but faith seems to be some that has brought stability to me in times of difficulty.
"Just because I might advocate that reason and science are the most reliable ways to ascertain truth, that doesn't preclude me using things like imagination, gut instinct, and emotions to perceive the world in other ways."
On that we agree. :)
"My dogma has changed a lot over the years but faith seems to be some that has brought stability to me in times of difficulty."
DeleteI'm sincerely glad that your faith has brought you stability in difficult times, because you seem like a genuinely nice fellow......'certainly not judgmental like the more staunch believers, or as you say, the dogmatic believers. In some ways, I envy that your faith can work for you. Me? I am unable to trust faith anymore, because the day came that I saw right through it, and I cannot go back to it. I cannot go back to it any more than I can "unring" a bell.
All the best.