 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/9/2005 6:04 PM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 2/10/2005 2:24 PM (GMT -6) | | I scanned the first article, and it sounds more like a crisis of faith, maybe even what we call a dark night of the soul. I think most believers go through that at one time or another, and often how they come out of it, depends on the response of other believers (and so many other things).
On the discussion board (second link) there are many reasons given for denouncing faith in God: being treated poorly by believers (that comiing from a lady who says a few posts later that she has mental illness), one relayed an encounter with theists who shared Joseph Smith with him, another talked about theists as though they were non-intellectuals (whatever that means)... and the list goes on.
We fail, at times, to communicate that this is all about relationship. It's not about theology, or intelligence, or even great acts of kindness (though they often speak louder than words). It's about a relationship with the Father, a living vital one, and it's also about an enemy who seeks to devour us; most often he just has to get us to lose heart.
I have seen things/experienced things in loving communities of faith, that have, quite frankly, stunned me. I have seen and experienced similar things here as well, things that have left me disheartened at times, surprised and disappointed at times. But I believe that we need to help people discover their relationship with the Father, because it is Him who will sustain them in times of trouble. He is our "ever-present" help.
In Blue Like Jazz, Donald Miller describes what he, and a very small core group of believers, did during a campus-wide party (one of the wildest parties I've ever heard of on a campus, but perhaps I've led a sheltered life) at Reed College. They set up a confession booth, for people to come to them. That would be unnerving for most believers, but they did something radically different. They had people come to them, to the confession booth, and they asked the non-believers of the campus (the partyers) for forgiveness. They described all of the ways in which they had failed them, failed to love them, failed to be kind, how they'd been hypocritical ... Now that takes courage. That is the kind of love that will demonstrate that we are different, and that there is something worth looking at in our lives. I only hope that I could be so brave someday. I even thought of going to this discussion board (second link), and doing just that. It's one thing to look at it; it's another to see a way that we might express our grief at how we've failed non-theists or atheists. We could start with each other (kind of a warm-up excercise).
Jo-Anne 
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 2/10/2005 6:39 PM (GMT -6) | | MephEternal said...
I just wanted some thoughts about how some of the people ended up leaving the faith. Some of the testimonies are somewhat overemotional rants. But some of them really talk about how unanswered questions, dysfunctional communities of faith, and embracing non-theists really turned the tide.
I just wanted impressions on some of these...
Though of course "dysfunctional communities of faith" can discourage anyone (and people should definitely leave such churches and not feel guilty if they choose to leave), it seems a rather lame excuse to say, "Because those mean ol' church people did me wrong, I now don't believe in the existence of God." Where's the logical connection between those two things?
Of course, it's easy for me to say; my family has experienced verifiable miracles that simply cannot be explained if God doesn't exist. Atheism has never been something that has even seemed remotely plausible to me. (Perhaps I was elected by God to believe this, and simply can't help believing).
One thing I seem to notice in reading some of this type of testimony is that most of the people came from fundamentalist backgrounds that were in fact quite anti-intellectual. This is where I find the so-called Wesleyan Quadrilateral most helpful with regard to epistemology, namely, scripture, Reason, Experience, and Tradition. (Okay, I admit I don't give much credit to Tradition, but anyway...)
I also noted that one agnostic's testimony was that he couldn't worship a God who had foreseen all the bad stuff that would transpire and yet still go ahead with creation. I can really relate to that, as I think most Open Theists can.
WRT the Quadrilateral, if one's only criterion for discerning truth is scripture alone, and one tries to divorce scripture from Reason and Experience in seeking to understand scripture (and truth in general), then as soon as one finds even one discrepancy in the Bible, or something in science that contradicts the Bible, one's faith can be powerfully shaken, and even destroyed. Generally speaking, people from fundamentalist backgrounds tend to have been deeply indoctrinated in the idea that any questioning of the Bible (much less questioning of God) whatsoever is sinful.
With the typical fundamentalist view of liberal (or even moderate) Christians as apostate or not even true Christians at all, the person so indoctrinated is not likely to feel comfortable with such more theologically liberal groups, and as such will often just quit believing in the Bible and Christianity altogether.
Understanding much of scripture as metaphor (but yet still expressing divine truth), has really helped me get past a lot of the creation/evolution difficulties. Ever since I heard John Sanders say at the EEM Conference a couple of years ago that ALL scripture is anthropomorphic/metaphorical, the Bible has seemed to come alive to me in ways that I never thought of when I held to more of a strictly literalist approach to scripture.
Rom. 1:21 for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened.
This seems to indicate that people quit believing in God because they don't want to continue to believe in God. Hmmm.
John
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 2/10/2005 5:58:39 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 2/10/2005 9:18 PM (GMT -6) | |
John said...
Understanding much of scripture as metaphor (but yet still expressing divine truth), has really helped me get past a lot of the creation/evolution difficulties. Ever since I heard John Sanders say at the EEM Conference a couple of years ago that ALL scripture is anthropomorphic/metaphorical, the Bible has seemed to come alive to me in ways that I never thought of when I held to more of a strictly literalist approach to scripture.
It seems to me that the real debate is not about metaphorical vs. literal, but exegesis vs. eisegesis and how authorial intent relates to that question.
Concerning the atheist forum, it was interesting to see some of them claim that Christianity had a "command" theory of ethics. Ironically, I've read atheists on infidels.org that admit that, as atheists, they have no rational basis for believing in morality and yet still believe in it!
wjs Post Edited (jefscott) : 2/10/2005 8:21:08 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 2/11/2005 7:32 AM (GMT -6) | |
John said...
I guess that depends on how one perceives authorial intent. Much of that which fundamentalists view as somehow "historical" and "scientific" according to modern standards of science and history (such as Genesis), is clearly written as epic poetry.
My point was that there are some who doubt that authorial intent is relevant. To debate WHAT an author's intent was (and, by implication, what the meaning of the text is) is one thing; to say authorial intent is irrelevant is another. E.g., there are those who believe that Moses' intent was to say that there was a literal tree of life but simply don't believe Moses' account. See the difference and why it matters for purposes of discussion? Moreover, epic poetry can say historically true things, so the mere fact that a text is epic poetry does not relieve us from having grammatical arguments for our interpretations.
wjs Post Edited (jefscott) : 2/11/2005 6:39:17 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
bryan mccarthy
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 2/11/2005 12:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jo-Anne,
I think I understand where you coming from with this one:
Jo-Anne said...
what does all this have to do with people turning their backs on faith. If you were face to face with someone like this, what would you say to them?
You're addressing, I think, the issue that when people are hurt, often they don't care about a neatly composed and thoughtful answer to a philosophical problem and that we need to minister to the hurt instead. That about right?
Obviously, these sorts of things (counseling dissolusioned Christians) are case by case, but really I'd say you and John are talking about the same thing.
John thinks that many people leave becuz they're told by fundamentalists (John's word) that if they do not "believe the bible," i.e. view all texts as strictly literal, they are heterodox and sinful, or as John so capably put it, "apostate or not even true Christians at all." In John's view, this is where the hurt you speak of comes from in many cases. At this point, to gently counsel them that the bible and the world are a bit more complicated and that this hypothetical person needn't regard the fundamentalist's harsh words with any more than a pinch of salt would go a long way in helping them through being healed.
Author intent, then, has everything to do with this discussion becuz if the author intended what he was writing to be figurative and the fundamentalist is taking it as literal, since all three parties -- the hurt person (at least for the time being), the fundamentalist, and say, John -- avow the scriptures' authority in spiritual matters, the hurt individual can and should continue to believe in the authority of the bible and the existence and benevolence of god without accepting the fundamentalist's view becuz even the author of the book (genesis or whatever) doesn't accept it. Does that make sense?
How'd I do John?
BryanPost Edited (Bryan McCarthy) : 2/11/2005 11:31:30 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 2/11/2005 1:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi,
Thanks for the explanation on John's behalf. I do realize, from a long history of threads and interaction with John, that he has a good heart, and that he cares about others. I just didn't see how that related, but I do now--thank you. We take scripture, and we make it religion, and religion doesn't draw people to the person of Jesus Christ. What you're saying (I think), is that we need to be careful how we handle the word of God. We can take the word of God and make it a weapon (and I'm not talking about the double-edged sword thing).
I hope that the Father can forgive us for being so religious. I ran into a young lady the other day (actually, I was sitting in McDonald's studying, and she was "studying" me...so I struck up a conversation with her. She would have been maybe 18 or 19. She started to pour out her life's struggles to me, moved over to my table. I could easily have ignored her, and continued studying, but I felt the Spirit prompting me. I talked to her about relationship with the Father. She had (not that I was surprised) been to church, and felt rejected by people, and by God, and said that she had "lost" her salvation. I don't know how long we talked, but she thanked me afterwards. I refused to be "religous." People don't want to hear about religion. They want to know what it is that will affect their lives, how their lives can make sense, and even "work." This young lady is a picasso, and God wants to create a masterpiece in her. We need to see the beauty that is in others, and recognize where the Father is speaking, and be part of that masterpiece.
John's right, as you explained. People are turned off by well-meaning religious folks, who take the Word of God, and use it to chastise, or apply rules. I understand that there is a time to be firm, and a time to firmly state what the Word of God says, but I don't think we make good judges, and we need to be extremely careful in that.
Gotta run. God bless. Thanks for the explanation!
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 2/11/2005 3:29 PM (GMT -6) | | SoulPurpose said...John, How can we be a light to people who have lost heart, lost hope, and "lost" their faith. What were these people looking for that we didn't deliver, and how can we change that? I don't understand what authorship has to do with this. Can you explain that to me please? I've heard that the writer of Hebrews is rumoured to be a woman, that a couple of the Gospels are now thought to be written by someone other than the proposed author, that there are forgeries...secret Gospels etc. Job is an epic poem ... but, what does all this have to do with people turning their backs on faith. If you were face to face with someone like this, what would you say to them? Jo-Anne 
Hi Jo-Anne,
From my own experience of having some close family members who walked away, I honestly don't think they're looking for answers. The fact that they've been hurt by church people, is, in my experience, just a cop out. I've heard people use excuses like "the new pastor I wanted didn't get elected," or "the pastor didn't return my call as quickly as I wanted him to," etc.
I'm short on time right now, but will hopefully be able to explain in more detail later. Briefly, Romans 1 indicates to me that everyone has enough knowledge of God to know that He exists and that they should serve Him, deny it as they may. In observing this fact, I'm not trying to browbeat anyone, really; I'm only pointing out the epistemological principle that Paul lays down in Romans 1.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 2/11/2005 5:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Jo-Anne,
Another reason for my scepticism regarding blaming hypocritical church people for atheism, is that as a pastor's kid, I would confidently bet that I have experienced far more negative religious stuff than the average person, and while it has certainly made me generally less trusting of people, it has never made me question GOD's existence. I honestly don't see the connection between these two things, unless one were a Calvinist, in which case I suppose I could understand someone blaming GOD for the way church people act. I just never have had a problem distinguishing people's sinful actions from GOD.
People will almost always let us down, especially if we are expecting certain standards of behavior from them. God never will truly let us down, if we have the right perspective on trials and troubles.
John
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 2/11/2005 4:50:18 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:56 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|