The feeling is very big.  I assume we are mostly people who would consider ourselves some form of evangelical Protestant:  the group that keeps harping on personal relationship with Jesus.  For us the inward experience must be vital.  It must be the defining aspect of our "religion."

That doesn't mean we can't be deceived.  We can't just ignore that which doesn't match our preconceptions.  In my experience with people who have grown up "Christian," the inward goes unchecked.  Many of my friends had been so tightly wrapped up in unquestioning and unquestioned faith, that when they finally moved out and summoned the courage to think for themselves, they threw out too much critical restraint.  It's as though we start with the assumption that established (or Western or our traditional) faith must be as flawed as possible.  We too easily mistake innovative for truthful.

It's very sad for me.  One of my best friends and I have had long, all night until sunrise discussions about religion, and when it comes down to what is most believable, he simply loses interest, especially if that happens to be mainline Christianity.  There are two "battles" to be fought:  One to convice people to care about truth and another to find what that truth is.  Too often college aged people make the mistake of dealing with real problems by throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I have failed miserably at getting my friends to care about reality and truth rather than innovation and difference.  The only thing that comes close to working is to continue holding what to them are radically conservative/traditional views on Christianity and not being a judgemental jerk or boring asetic.  If they can have a loving, honest, and fun relationship with a wierdo like me, then it makes what I believe more believable.  If we can ever convince someone to care about the facts, The Meaning of Jesus is an unbelievably good book.

I like what you said about knowledge being a life preserver in the hard times.  I think remembering is good too.  Having memories of times when God felt absent, but ended up pulling me through in a way better than I anticipated makes the doubting moments more fun than dangerous, because, like a kid being tossed in the air, I know my dad will catch me.

Wow.  That's enough rambling for me.

Post Edited (CalvinnHobbes) : 6/7/2005 10:20:38 AM (GMT-5)

My story goes something like this. When I was 18, my antagonism toward my parents' fundamentalism culminated in my throwing all my belongings into paper bags and moving out while my parents were at the store. I moved into an apartment with a couple of high school friends and kind of did the prodigal thing for a while. I was pretty smug and self-assured that I was more than capable of taking on the world.  I recall telling my dad that he simply lacked the creativity to see my potential.

After a couple years of encountering reality, I came to the basic realization that God was smarter than me. Honestly, it hadn't occurred to me at a practical level that there was real wisdom and benefit to following God instead of my own plans. Ironically, I confronted this wake-up call at a Bill Gothard seminar, which I begrudgingly agreed to attend at my parents’ request.

I got excited to see what life God would advise me toward. I remember pulling out Proverbs and reading it to my roommate, saying profound things like, "you know, the Bible is kind of like God's owner's manual for life."

That fall my roommate and I enrolled at Mankato State. I clearly remember staying up late with him the first night we were there and saying to each other, "Nobody knows us here. We have the chance right now to decide and define what kind of people we're going to be and the lives we're going to lead." We prayed together, as I recall. It felt weird, but it felt right.

A week or so later we were approached by some people from Campus Crusade. We agreed to talk with them about spiritual things. I remember my amazement as my roommate, who had been a close friend since 7th grade, understood for the first time that he needed to accept Christ; he thought it was all about "being good enough."  I was so surprised and actually embarrassed that I had not had this discussion with him myself.

We got involved in a "discovery group" with Crusade. I remember announcing the first night that, "This seems cool so far, but if this gets fake, I'm outta here." The next year I started a group of my own with other guys on the floor.  A few years after that I went on a stint to Lithuania for a year.  That was the most profound and life-changing year of my life.

Anyway during my early years at college I was really keyed into apologetics and proving that Christianity was true. I remember avidly studying with my roommate a book called "The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch". It was all about proving a young-earth view of creationism.  I remember a pretty obnoxious appointment that I made with my Astronomy professor.  Another book that was very influential on me at the time was Dave Hunt's "The Seduction of Christianity"... which saw inroads of the New Age movement in many contemporary Christian leaders.  I also recall having a strong dichotomy between reason and emotion (suspecting that all emotions where probably just of the devil.)  I was real pumped up about the immanent rapture because I believed Christ had promised to return within one generation of 1948.  On the positive side, I also can say that I craved the Word as a baby craves milk. 

I don't hold most of the views that I held at that time (I'm actually pretty embarrassed of myself), but nonetheless I have to be honest to say that this is what kept me anchored at the time. The other aspect that I cannot ignore is the serious amount of time that Crusade staff members put into me. Specifically I think of Henry "the hammer" Richards who held no punches in correcting and challenging me.  Related to that is the fact that my circle of friends consisted mostly of the other guys in my discovery group.  Relationship was key to my long-term growth.  That and God's faithfulness to continue to confront me with reality.

Post Edited (Corey) : 6/10/2005 9:07:31 AM (GMT-5)

From Soren Skywalker thread:

violin: The thing is, so many people make statements like these that just logically collapse when questioned, and they don't realize what's wrong with those statements until it's pointed out to them. Here are some of my favorites: "there is no truth" (makes a truth-value statement), "don't judge" (that's a judgment call), most recently "we perceive the world through our own truths", "reality can't be known" (making a claim of knowledge about knowing reality), "you absolutists are wrong" (making an "absolute" claim), and "all religions are correct". I've heard all of these statements.

bryan: okay, i'll concede the point. and i do think most people who make these statements actually do believe in some absolutes so this is the reason their even able to makes absolute statements like this. possibly their absolutes are that which most people they know and respect agree on. actually, i've heard lately that universities are returning to the modernity format, dispensing with post-modernity becuz they don't know what to do with it. this may actually work in your favour regarding the issues we're discussing over on your thread about college "drop-outs."

but then, really, this issue goes much deeper. it's not really about the philosophical concept of whether or not truth exists, but about what people who talk like this have experienced. basically, people who say these things just wanna be left alone. but why do they want that? what has happened to them? this is the direction i like to take these sorts of debates, talk about what's really going on. i usually ask them if they've ever known any ardent christians and what their relationship was like with that person(s)/what their perception of that person(s) was. and depending on how well i know them, what their relationship and perceptions of their parents are/were like. both of these questions start getting you where the real issues behind the debate are.

Violin: You make a really good point here.  What is really going on below the surface when people say these things?  Much of the time they probably are like smoke screens.  I recently got into a discussion with a Mormon about theology stuff and he started throwing up all these smoke screens or he’d re-hash some things that we had settled.  It got really frustrating.  Alan suggested that possibly he was trying to keep a strong front but really questioning his own faith on the inside.  I’ve still got to develop that awareness of the possibility that there is more going on beneath the surface than what is apparent.

I’m glad to hear that it’s likely that universities are starting to turn away from post-modernism.  But at the same time, I need to learn a bit more about modernism then.  Hmm… yup, my summer reading list is steadily growing!  I need to figure out the difference between post-modernism and modernism…

violin,

violin: I need to figure out the difference between post-modernism and modernism…

bryan: i think the basic difference deals with the accessability of truth.  i think postmodernity would say that truth is very accessible becuz there are many of them.  these truths may seem to contradict, but in actuality they exist more as different parts of a paradox.  if you see something that's valid, but it doesn't take away from the fact that my seeing the opposite is also valid.  modernity, on the other hand, i think, would say that truth is not so accessible, becuz though it exists, it takes a lot of labour -- research, dialogue, etc. -- to find and it may actually not be findable becuz our means to finding it are limited. 

this is kind of the way i see the difference between the two, but it's kinda nebulous so it's hard to really define the difference between them. 

Post Edited (Lee Merrill) : 6/29/2005 10:37:56 PM (GMT-5)