Hostage to fear

[ignoramus]

Thanks for sharing your experience and thoughts with us.
I find it fascinating watching a potential unravelling of indoctrination occur if front of our eyes.
As you know, the world isn't going to change because of it.
It's just a state of mind.....Always was.

Catch....(and a big welcome)

[Exian]

Welcome, SpaceTime!

Yours is an interesting story that raises lots of questions: A confused and conflicted (almost ex-)Christian, the product of two atheists, struggling to reconcile reason with a personal relationship with a mental construct, all while trying to protect your family. And somehow, the atheist parents play a lesser role than you'd expect. Or do they? Have they tried to influence your thinking in any constructive ways? How have they acted as bad examples? Just curious.

Would you mind going into more detail of what you mean when you say you love Jesus? You love his story? His message? Or you love him personally? I don't mean to grill you, I'm just curious, because I remember being a Christian and always being confused by the manner in which certain terms were used by fellow Christians, and how those same terms seemed to be different when they used them in other areas in life.

Thanks for sharing your story and concerns with us, SpaceTime (what time is it? ) I remember going through the same turmoil when I was deconverting. The biggest hurdle for me wasn't swallowing any competing scientific explanations, or accepting the inconsistencies in the story; it was recognizing that my personal God and Jesus were created by me in my head (a useful talent for negotiating possible social situations).

[Randy Carson]

As I started to investigate my own religion, I began to cast out doctrines like hell... because you have a very difficult problem with theodicy if you hold to it.  I then decided that the evil that occurs now is the most pressing issue if hell is out of the equation.  What use is my God if He doesn't intervene?  Therefore, God must not be a personal God.

I know the bible is not historically accurate, we can prove the documents are fables.  I know we have no evidence for the suspension of physical laws to allow for the possibility of miracles.  I know human biology doesn't allow for something like a virgin birth.

I just can't seem to give it up.  If I've cast out the doctrine of hell, you'd say I have nothing to fear.  I've drawn out all that I cannot hold to if I am going to hold to that which is true, there's nothing left.  Absolutely nothing.  My fear is entirely irrational.

My own Grandmother threatened me with hell.  A girl I liked in high school... I asked her "So if I don't believe in Jesus, but am a good person, I'm still going to go to hell?"  When she said "I'm sorry, but yes."  I literally burst into tears in art class.

Perhaps it's those experiences that still hold me hostage to the Church.  My Grandmother sends my children books that I have to go through to weed out the crazy shit.  I'm embarrassed and ashamed to tell this story, but my eldest boy toasted the end of the world in front of my atheist parents during their last visit before supper.  The reaction he got sent him into tears.  I, of course, comforted him.  I teach my children that there is no hell, but then he clings to the return of Christ when this loving God comes back to destroy the Earth?

It's all complete and utter bullshit.  But I'm so f'ing scared to denounce it for my children's sake.  I am programmed to not say anything bad about Christ.  I literally can't... and I've even tried.  I can even tell you honestly that I love Christ (seriously, no joke).  But when I look at these things critically, there's nothing left for me to hold on to.

Church has been so good for my wife and children, though.  I'm afraid of what my wife will think of me.  I'm afraid I would be taking something good away from them if I am openly agnostic.  I'm not incredibly smart or anything, but they look to me for standards of goodness.

If I go to the clergy with these thoughts, I'm afraid I'm only going to get more of the same.  That's why I'm posting here.  I could use a little unbiased encouragement, maybe, from someone who has been through the same thing.

Spacetime-

I would be happy to chat with you about any of these issues; I have a wife and kids, too, but I am a Christian. Does that mean I'm biased? Sure.

But wouldn't it be fair to say right up front that everyone who is a regular member of an Atheist Forum is biased AGAINST Christianity?

If so, why would their answers be any more objective than yours or mine?

[Randy Carson]

One last point; one week ago, I reached out to probably one of the most learned men in the field of theology in the United States, hoping he would respond so that I could ask him to explain theodicy to me like a 3rd grader.  Just 1 hour ago, I got his reply.  I hadn't yet asked him to present his argument for his views on theodicy, but he replied and the opportunity is there.  Part of me wants to abandon it, and another part of me wants to ask him outright... "Why does our personal God sit idle when children smaller than my own are starving to death?  Why, when we know He can, did God not write down the ultimate guide to human understanding? If his insight is so infinite why, then, did he leave us a book that compounds the complexities of the practice of worshiping Him."  The latter part of me is screaming, "too late, motherf*cker... if you had it, you would have presented it on YouTube."

Spacetime-

I hear the pain and struggle, and that makes my response seem kinda theoretical and detached from where you're at. And yet, what I'm about to post IS the plain truth about the "Problem of Evil" that you are grappling with. Worth a shot, anyway...

The Problem of Evil

The Intellectual or Logical Problem of Evil

Those who argue the logical problem of evil are attempting to show that God is a contradiction. Typically, the argument follows a form such as:

P1. God must be all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good.
P2. An all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good being could eliminate evil.
P3. Evil exists.
C. Therefore, God does not exist.

However, for this argument to work, it must also prove an implicit fourth premise:

P4. God can have no good reason to allow evil to exist

Theist Response:

If God has morally sufficient reasons to allow even one act of evil, then the argument falls apart, because this would show that God and the existence of evil are not logically contradictory. God might allow evil in view of His overriding goals for mankind, such as the goal of giving human beings free will.

If God had made us like robots which did evil things, then God would be responsible for those evils since as robots, we would simply do as we were designed. However, we are not robots; we have free will, and we can choose to do good or evil. Consequently, God is not responsible for our choices.

Agnostic scholar Paul Draper acknowledges that “theists face no serious logical problem of evil” while J.L. Mackie, a staunch defender of the problem of evil argument reluctantly admits “We can concede that the problem of evil does not, after all, show that the central doctrines of theism are logically inconsistent with one another.”

The Evidential Problem of Evil

While the existence of evil may not be logically incompatible with God, the huge amount of suffering in the world seems more compatible with an absent God rather than a purposefully inactive one. This is known as the evidential problem of evil, and the argument follows like this:

P1. If pointless evils exist, then God does not exist.
P2. Pointless evils exist.
C. Therefore, God does not exist.

Theist Response:

There are at least two possible responses to the evidential problem of pain argument.

A. The “good reasons” approach

The “good reasons” approach simply claims that God has good reasons for allowing both more and natural evils to exist—reasons that may be completely unknown to us. For example, courage and compassion are good things, and natural disasters provide opportunities for us to exhibit courage ourselves and to offer compassion to others.

At first glance, this may give the impression that God is just as malicious to the people He created as an abusive husband is to his battered wife. However, this fails because while no one would deny that the husband hurts his wife solely for the purpose of inflicting pain, God can use the suffering in our lives–no matter how profound–to strengthen us.

Another variation of this argument is:

P1. If someone could stop an evil X from happening but didn’t, that person would be immoral.
P2. God could have stopped evil X but didn’t.
B. Therefore, God is immoral. (And thus contradictory and therefore non-existent.)

The problem with this argument is that if God is obligated to stop a single act of rape, would He be obligated to stop all acts of rape? And murder? And burglary? At some point, God would have prevented every evil and severely limited man’s free will. Our remaining choices would be trivial as we lived out our lives in a programmed state of being.

The bottom line is that God may have good reasons to allow evil in the world, and the burden of proof is on the atheist to show that He doesn’t have any good reason to allow such evil.

B. The “no-see-um” approach

If a man looks out into his backyard and sees no elephants, he might exclaim, “I don’t see any elephants in my backyard.” But if he says, “I don’t see any fleas in my backyard”, would that justify him in also saying, “There are no fleas in my backyard?” The fact that he can’t see any fleas—because they are so small—does not mean that there are no fleas present. Similarly, when an atheist says, “I cannot see any good reason why God allows evil events to occur”, it does not follow that there are no good reasons.

Another variation of the “evidential problem of pain” is the “probabilistic problem of pain” which argues that while the coexistence of God and evil is logically possible, it is highly improbable because the extent of evil in the world is so great that it is improbable that God could have morally sufficient reasons for permitting it.

Theist Response:

The theist has at least three responses to this charge.

1. We are not in a good position to assess the probability of whether God has sufficient moral reasons for the evils that occur.
2. The Christian faith entails doctrines that increase the probability of the coexistence of God and evil.
a. The chief purpose of life is not happiness but knowledge of God.
b. Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and His purpose.
c. The knowledge of God spills over into eternal life.
d. The knowledge of God is an incommensurable good.
3. Relative to the full scope of the evidence, God’s existence is probable.

The Emotional Problem of Evil

While searching for the silver lining in evil events may be helpful for some, for others, the crushing weight of pain, suffering and emotional loss can be more than they can bear. People in this situation are not usually in a position to be able to objectively evaluate logical arguments for the existence of God—they are in too much pain. The answer is not Christian apologetics but Christ Himself.

Your thoughts?

[Minimalist]

P4. God can have no good reason to allow evil to exist

Bullshit.  Your 'god' is a concoction of the mind of primitive goat herders who were every bit as big a bunch of bastards as the rock-throwing, honor-killing, head-chopping asshole denizens of the middle east today.

You really do go out of your way to pretend your nonsense is real, Randy.  You should grow up.  You are too old for an invisible friend.

[Jenny A]

As I started to investigate my own religion, I began to cast out doctrines like hell... because you have a very difficult problem with theodicy if you hold to it.  I then decided that the evil that occurs now is the most pressing issue if hell is out of the equation.  What use is my God if He doesn't intervene?  Therefore, God must not be a personal God.

I know the bible is not historically accurate, we can prove the documents are fables.  I know we have no evidence for the suspension of physical laws to allow for the possibility of miracles.  I know human biology doesn't allow for something like a virgin birth.

I just can't seem to give it up.  If I've cast out the doctrine of hell, you'd say I have nothing to fear.  I've drawn out all that I cannot hold to if I am going to hold to that which is true, there's nothing left.  Absolutely nothing.  My fear is entirely irrational.

My own Grandmother threatened me with hell.  A girl I liked in high school... I asked her "So if I don't believe in Jesus, but am a good person, I'm still going to go to hell?"  When she said "I'm sorry, but yes."  I literally burst into tears in art class.

Perhaps it's those experiences that still hold me hostage to the Church.  My Grandmother sends my children books that I have to go through to weed out the crazy shit.  I'm embarrassed and ashamed to tell this story, but my eldest boy toasted the end of the world in front of my atheist parents during their last visit before supper.  The reaction he got sent him into tears.  I, of course, comforted him.  I teach my children that there is no hell, but then he clings to the return of Christ when this loving God comes back to destroy the Earth?

It's all complete and utter bullshit.  But I'm so f'ing scared to denounce it for my children's sake.  I am programmed to not say anything bad about Christ.  I literally can't... and I've even tried.  I can even tell you honestly that I love Christ (seriously, no joke).  But when I look at these things critically, there's nothing left for me to hold on to.

Church has been so good for my wife and children, though.  I'm afraid of what my wife will think of me.  I'm afraid I would be taking something good away from them if I am openly agnostic.  I'm not incredibly smart or anything, but they look to me for standards of goodness.

If I go to the clergy with these thoughts, I'm afraid I'm only going to get more of the same.  That's why I'm posting here.  I could use a little unbiased encouragement, maybe, from someone who has been through the same thing.

Hi, I can't address the fear of hell part of this because thought I was raised in a Christian household, hellfire was not denied so much as politely ignored, like grandmother's farts.  And I never actually believed.

What I get absolutely is the fear of hurting Christian relatives by telling.  I also get that the church can be an important social place and that parts of it can and are good for some people.  But, perpetually lying is good for no one, you included.  It doesn't do good things for your sense of well being, integrity, or self respect and it won't do good things for your relationship with the people you are lying to whether it's your wife or your kids.  And pretending to believe what you do not is lying.

I would be lying to you if I said it won't matter to your wife.  It will matter.  It certainly mattered to my parents when I told them and it still matters to my mother.  She alternates between willfully forgetting and attempting conversion and it's been a good 35 years now. . .  But she's still my Mom and we still love each other.  I suspect that if you tell your wife and you don't vilify Jesus in the process that the results may be similar.

[Spacetime]

Welcome, SpaceTime!

Yours is an interesting story that raises lots of questions: A confused and conflicted (almost ex-)Christian, the product of two atheists, struggling to reconcile reason with a personal relationship with a mental construct, all while trying to protect your family. And somehow, the atheist parents play a lesser role than you'd expect. Or do they? Have they tried to influence your thinking in any constructive ways? How have they acted as bad examples? Just curious.

Would you mind going into more detail of what you mean when you say you love Jesus? You love his story? His message? Or you love him personally? I don't mean to grill you, I'm just curious, because I remember being a Christian and always being confused by the manner in which certain terms were used by fellow Christians, and how those same terms seemed to be different when they used them in other areas in life.

Thanks for sharing your story and concerns with us, SpaceTime (what time is it? ) I remember going through the same turmoil when I was deconverting. The biggest hurdle for me wasn't swallowing any competing scientific explanations, or accepting the inconsistencies in the story; it was recognizing that my personal God and Jesus were created by me in my head (a useful talent for negotiating possible social situations).

My parents have not played a role in me being more accepting of my atheism/agnosticism.

My mother was a tele-Christian.  She stayed at home on Sundays, cracked sunflower seeds and put their spent shells on a newspaper.  Always the multi-tasker she would read the local newspaper and watch TBN on Sunday mornings.  My biological father was... no ... is, a penis with disease dripping from it.  My step-father drives a Jeep with the FSM decal on it.  He has a Masters in Mathematics, and refused to sign my release from high school to study business on the job with a very, very (still) reputable computer company that produces the very same super-computers that universities use to do complex mathematics.  My financial motivations were spot on, but had I stuck with the hard math and science, I see now, that I would have not fallen pray to fairy-tales like Christianity in its fundamentalist form.  He saw that, and I don't think he'd ever forgive me for dismissing his views on it.  I love them, but because they are my children's grandparents.

I love Christ personally (I refuse to call him Jesus. I hate that name.  All the damage that modern Western Christians have done with it.  [In Geeeeeeesussssssss name!!! followed by fake spiritual gifts like acting drunk in the spirit and speaking in tongues]).  When I was baptized, I "got a message" from Christ through the conduit of a lady who really, genuinely believed she was married to him.  Just before my immersion, she said, "on behalf of all the women in your life, please forgive us, because we had no idea what we were doing to you when we did it."  This was as real to me as any other experience I'd had directly.  I spent 15 years now believing I had a personal relationship with Christ.  When I tell you love Christ... I mean it.  His sermon on the mount... 

3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
    for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
    for they will be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
    for they will inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
    for they will be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
    for they will be shown mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
    for they will see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
    for they will be called children of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
    for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

That sermon, to this day, gets me weepy.  Taken out of context, which most of us Christians have to do, that Prince of Peace has my heart like a catfish on a hook.  I love the man.  If the scriptures accurately portrayed even these 7 verses, I love him still.

I was so amazed by, what I now understand as a psychological phenomenon, Christ "speaking to me", that I yearned for it.  I lied to myself to make myself believe that he spoke to me meaningfully everyday through little happenstances.  I even started tripping on mushrooms to feel that special again, but when the trip would end, I'd return to this dull, seemingly meaningless existence, still thirsty for more "message".  I realize now that I was chasing a dream.  If you saw me today, you wouldn't believe that I tripped mushrooms or drank heavily.  I look like Bob Dobbs, prophet of the SubGenius... no shitting.  But I went there because I was desperate to feel like the everlasting could recognize me.  When all of humanity was depressing and sad (see, that's what we're told in deterministic Christianity), God thought we were special.  What a great guy!

Except he sat (paraphrasing Hitchens) [with his arms folded in indifference while Elisabeth Fritzl was kidnapped, tortured, and raped in front of her children, that we her own father's every day of her sad life, without intervention].  What a great guy indeed.

I love Christ as a person.  So long as his ideas are divorced from the f*cking madness of the rest of the bullshit.  I would give most anything (saving the safety and security of others) to meet him.  For too many years, I wished I could be the one to fall at his feet and grab his tunic and be saved... hoping *THAT* would *MAKE* me believe.  But paraphrasing Ricky Gervais, "[If God were real, why did he make me an atheist?]"

You atheists have *ALWAYS* been my bed fellows.  Even as a hard-line Orthodox Catholic, I defended you to the last drop.  I even made YouTube videos proclaiming "If I hadn't had these very real (to me) experiences proving God's existence, I wouldn't want to be told that I'm going to hell over something I *CANNOT* believe!".  I thought these experiences I had were real...

...but the trip has to end sometime.  So 5 days ago... I sad down to my computer, opened up a text document and typed out...
"Heaven's not real, and you're going to die."
The period in the sentence is what hit me, but that's what I knew what real.

That's what started this.

Sorry.  I started ranting.  I could go on, but... I feel like Voyager 1.

[Spacetime]

One last point; one week ago, I reached out to probably one of the most learned men in the field of theology in the United States, hoping he would respond so that I could ask him to explain theodicy to me like a 3rd grader.  Just 1 hour ago, I got his reply.  I hadn't yet asked him to present his argument for his views on theodicy, but he replied and the opportunity is there.  Part of me wants to abandon it, and another part of me wants to ask him outright... "Why does our personal God sit idle when children smaller than my own are starving to death?  Why, when we know He can, did God not write down the ultimate guide to human understanding? If his insight is so infinite why, then, did he leave us a book that compounds the complexities of the practice of worshiping Him."  The latter part of me is screaming, "too late, motherf*cker... if you had it, you would have presented it on YouTube."

Spacetime-

I hear the pain and struggle, and that makes my response seem kinda theoretical and detached from where you're at. And yet, what I'm about to post IS the plain truth about the "Problem of Evil" that you are grappling with. Worth a shot, anyway...

The Problem of Evil

The Intellectual or Logical Problem of Evil

Those who argue the logical problem of evil are attempting to show that God is a contradiction. Typically, the argument follows a form such as:

P1. God must be all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good.
P2. An all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good being could eliminate evil.
P3. Evil exists.
C. Therefore, God does not exist.

However, for this argument to work, it must also prove an implicit fourth premise:

P4. God can have no good reason to allow evil to exist

Theist Response:

If God has morally sufficient reasons to allow even one act of evil, then the argument falls apart, because this would show that God and the existence of evil are not logically contradictory. God might allow evil in view of His overriding goals for mankind, such as the goal of giving human beings free will.

If God had made us like robots which did evil things, then God would be responsible for those evils since as robots, we would simply do as we were designed. However, we are not robots; we have free will, and we can choose to do good or evil. Consequently, God is not responsible for our choices.

Agnostic scholar Paul Draper acknowledges that “theists face no serious logical problem of evil” while J.L. Mackie, a staunch defender of the problem of evil argument reluctantly admits “We can concede that the problem of evil does not, after all, show that the central doctrines of theism are logically inconsistent with one another.”

The Evidential Problem of Evil

While the existence of evil may not be logically incompatible with God, the huge amount of suffering in the world seems more compatible with an absent God rather than a purposefully inactive one. This is known as the evidential problem of evil, and the argument follows like this:

P1. If pointless evils exist, then God does not exist.
P2. Pointless evils exist.
C. Therefore, God does not exist.

Theist Response:

There are at least two possible responses to the evidential problem of pain argument.

A. The “good reasons” approach

The “good reasons” approach simply claims that God has good reasons for allowing both more and natural evils to exist—reasons that may be completely unknown to us. For example, courage and compassion are good things, and natural disasters provide opportunities for us to exhibit courage ourselves and to offer compassion to others.

At first glance, this may give the impression that God is just as malicious to the people He created as an abusive husband is to his battered wife. However, this fails because while no one would deny that the husband hurts his wife solely for the purpose of inflicting pain, God can use the suffering in our lives–no matter how profound–to strengthen us.

Another variation of this argument is:

P1. If someone could stop an evil X from happening but didn’t, that person would be immoral.
P2. God could have stopped evil X but didn’t.
B. Therefore, God is immoral. (And thus contradictory and therefore non-existent.)

The problem with this argument is that if God is obligated to stop a single act of rape, would He be obligated to stop all acts of rape? And murder? And burglary? At some point, God would have prevented every evil and severely limited man’s free will. Our remaining choices would be trivial as we lived out our lives in a programmed state of being.

The bottom line is that God may have good reasons to allow evil in the world, and the burden of proof is on the atheist to show that He doesn’t have any good reason to allow such evil.

B. The “no-see-um” approach

If a man looks out into his backyard and sees no elephants, he might exclaim, “I don’t see any elephants in my backyard.” But if he says, “I don’t see any fleas in my backyard”, would that justify him in also saying, “There are no fleas in my backyard?” The fact that he can’t see any fleas—because they are so small—does not mean that there are no fleas present. Similarly, when an atheist says, “I cannot see any good reason why God allows evil events to occur”, it does not follow that there are no good reasons.

Another variation of the “evidential problem of pain” is the “probabilistic problem of pain” which argues that while the coexistence of God and evil is logically possible, it is highly improbable because the extent of evil in the world is so great that it is improbable that God could have morally sufficient reasons for permitting it.

Theist Response:

The theist has at least three responses to this charge.

1. We are not in a good position to assess the probability of whether God has sufficient moral reasons for the evils that occur.
2. The Christian faith entails doctrines that increase the probability of the coexistence of God and evil.
a. The chief purpose of life is not happiness but knowledge of God.
b. Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and His purpose.
c. The knowledge of God spills over into eternal life.
d. The knowledge of God is an incommensurable good.
3. Relative to the full scope of the evidence, God’s existence is probable.

The Emotional Problem of Evil

While searching for the silver lining in evil events may be helpful for some, for others, the crushing weight of pain, suffering and emotional loss can be more than they can bear. People in this situation are not usually in a position to be able to objectively evaluate logical arguments for the existence of God—they are in too much pain. The answer is not Christian apologetics but Christ Himself.

Your thoughts?

You've read my post and seriously not given weight to the idea that I've heard this before?

Though I appreciate your attempt to 'rescue' me... if you could get on with showing me evidence for such beliefs, I'd appreciate it more.  Evidence. Please.  

I... am more open to evidence that supports the continuation of holding these Christian beliefs than anyone... I promise, you... anyone you've met.  I'm literally dragging bloody fingers through the very edge of the cliff, desperately trying to hold on to that which is familiar to me.

I know you don't know me... but I promise you... I've already studied these arguments in depth... *in depth*.

1. We are not in a good position to assess the probability of whether God has sufficient moral reasons for the evils that occur.
We are also not in a good position to know if we're in a good position to assess the probability... ...Fact.
2. The Christian faith entails doctrines that increase the probability of the coexistence of God and evil.
I've been to 24 countries... fought wars in 4 of them. What do you know of evil? That, friend... is a serious question. Do you want to see evil? Because I have 38 gigs of body armor camera footage and still images of the worst of humanity. Part of the reason I was Orthodox Catholic is because I couldn't stand 'Christians' who were air-conditioned, just getting out of the drive-thru line at McDonald's telling me how bad life is for the poor persecuted 'Christian' Church. Western... American Christians are *NOT* persecuted. They are blessed beyond measure that they can sit and whine about the war on Christmas or that secular, democratic society is giving homosexuals the right to marry. Suffering isn't buying a sandwich from Twice Daily on the way home and passing by another two Twice Daily stores before finishing it. I've seen hell. If the bible is literal... I've seen worse than the victims of your unimaginable fire and torment. And I can show you evidence. Forgive my zeal. I have a lot invested in this. It's not personal.
a. The chief purpose of life is not happiness but knowledge of God.
God *IS* truth... and you're right. I take truth... no matter how bitter.
b. Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and His purpose.
Mankind is betting against itself by ignoring the facts that prove we're destroying ourselves by holding to the same superstitions that are the very cause of that destruction
c. The knowledge of God spills over into eternal life.
Evidence please. Of this eternal life. Of knowledge outlasting the biological cognizance.
d. The knowledge of God is an incommensurable good.
Again, God is truth. Truth doesn't have anything to hide.
3. Relative to the full scope of the evidence, God’s existence is probable.
Absolutely. But so is my idea of an impersonal God that exists in and with the laws of the physical world. This argument does not help the evangelist.

I understand you're trying to help. I get that. More than most people. And... I appreciate it. I do. But I came here because I knew if I went to the clergy or a small group or a Christian chat site... that I'd get the same arguments that can be easily refuted and discounted. Look... I wish the good were good. But you have to take the bad with the good. If not... you're a Marcionist. Tread carefully there. Your God ordered the slaughter of an entire people immediately after telling Moses that he shouldn't commit murder. If Christ is God... than Christ himself... or who you believe he may be.. commanded that a boy be stoned to death if he be disobedient to his parents. Then your God is no Prince of Peace. I don't know if you're a parent, but when you become one, you tend to look at Christ's command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac a little differently. Literalism kills the holy parts of scripture. Fundamentalism removes the body of Christ from a life of love.

My favorite thing to do... to this day is go out and find Christ in others. See myself... the good... the holy in other people, no matter how down-trodden they are. I say that an all powerful god who sits with his arms crossed looking on indifferently as children in Africa are cut from their mothers bodies on a bet of which gender they are by ... you guessed it ... fundamentalist Christians who interpret the bible differently than you... ...is doing less to save our species than the thousands of top-notch scientists that are burning the midnight oil trying to save us from disease, climate change, the failure to compete with our other primates for primacy in space exploration.

Men have done more to save our species than the bible's god has... or will... ever.

Sorry mate. I'm sure you're a spectacular person. But unfortunately our conversation is limited to a topic I'm currently heated about. Forgive any offense I've caused.

[Longhorn]

That's Randy. Don't waste time engaging him, there's little discussion to be had

And no, it never occurred to him we've heard it before

[The Grand Nudger]

 if you could get on with showing me evidence for such beliefs, I'd appreciate it more.  Evidence. Please.  

I... am more open to evidence that supports the continuation of holding these Christian beliefs than anyone... I promise, you... anyone you've met.  I'm literally dragging bloody fingers through the very edge of the cliff, desperately trying to hold on to that which is familiar to me.

I know you don't know me... but I promise you... I've already studied these arguments in depth... *in depth*.

May sound strange, but perhaps I can help there?  The first thing you have to consider, when considering retention..is what you want to retain.   For example, if you wanted to retain the belief in those verses above, the sermon on the mount (in their essential truth and goodness, in the value of holding to them as ideals).......I think we can go the evidence route and leave them intact, sort of.