To some extent, I will elaborate on a topic I brought up in my previous entry. In that entry, I talked about former Christians. Frequently, former Christians are accused of rebelling against their Christians families. I will not sit here and try to convince you that this is not always true. There probably are some people out there who wander away from their childhood faiths simply to buck the authority of the people who raised them. In lieu of this, it is not fair to assume this about all people who once bore the label of Christian.
If you live under the assumption that every former Christian is merely a rebel, then I would like to ask you something. Do you agree with your parents on everything? Are your political views identical to theirs? Do you share all of their opinions regarding child-rearing, home decor, relationships, etc.? If not, then why is that? Do your views differ with theirs simply because you want to go against them? Or is it because you have considered the issues and you honestly think your parents have missed the mark on them? Would it be fair for me to assume that you are simply a misguided rebel because you differ with them on certain issues? It wouldn't.
Additionally, why is deviating from your predecessors seen in such a bad light? It really isn't that bad. In fact, in many cases, it's a good thing. It has resulted in much of the progress that our species has made over the ages. If no one ever questioned the ideas of those who came before them, then we would still think the sun orbits a flat Earth and that diseases should be cured with blood-letting and exorcisms. Questioning leads to development, so it would be wise to stop deriding it so much.
Finally, what about Christians who did not grow up with Christian parents? Are they a bunch of rebels? Just like the former Christians, they are going against the views of the ones who came before them. Do they deserve to be stereotyped in the same manner as former Christians? Regardless of how some people may try to present this, these two scenarios are pretty much the same, even though they do hail from different angles.
I will leave you with these thoughts.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Saturday, March 7, 2009
The Controversy of the "Ex-Christian"
After spending a short amount of time in the Christian and/or atheist-agnostic blogosphere, or in virtually any online discussion medium where these topics are dealt with, and you will likely encounter what I like to refer to as "The 'Ex-Christian Controversy.'"
First of all, what is an ex-Christian? The answer should be obvious: It is someone who was once a member of the Christian faith, but who no longer is. There are many atheists and agnostics who were Christians before adopting the secular views they presently have. Many Christians respond to their claims by saying, "Nope. You were never a Christian to begin with." In short, these atheists and agnostics claim that they were once Christians, and many of the Christians say that anyone who leaves their religion was never really part of the religion to begin with. This is what "The Ex-Christian Controversy" essentially is.
As I have said in other posts, I was a Christian before arriving at the position I currently am in. Like many other ex-Christians, I have been told by Christians that, since I left the faith, I was never really a part of it to begin with. The Christians who make such claims use a number of different arguments to back up their assertions. Some of them simply say that if the Holy Spirit has truly entered your heart, then he/she/it never leaves. They say that if a person has truly experienced God, then that person will never leave the Christian faith. This is a rendition of the "once saved, always saved" philosophy, which states that once a person has truly accepted the salvation of Christianity, that person will never abandon it. Judging by nothing more than my experience alone, I would say that these types of arguments are probably the most common amongst Christians who say that people who claim to be former Christians were never Christians to begin with.
In addition to the arguments mentioned above, I have also seen some Christians quote this segment of the Bible as a reinforcement to their argument that former Christians were never authentic Christians: "Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I NEVER (emphasis mine) knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!" (Matthew 7:22-23) When this verse is quoted, emphasis is placed on the word "never." The words in this passage are being spoken by Jesus, and what Jesus is saying is that not everyone who professes to follow him will be accepted into Heaven. Since Jesus is telling these people that he NEVER knew them, then they never could have been true Christians, because if they had been, then Jesus would not have said that he NEVER knew them. To be honest, I'm a little unclear on how this applies to former Christians. I have read the entire chapter that this passage is in, and Jesus is saying that not everyone who calls him "Lord" will be accepted into Heaven. All I can guess is that they are saying that former Christians only gave lip service to God when they were claiming to be Christians. In other words, they labeled themselves as Christians but they never took their faith seriously.
I'm a little torn on this issue. Since I was once a Christian, I am inclined to want to say that these Christians are wrong when they make these claims. However, another part of me wants to relent and say, "Okay, if you want to say I was never a Christian, then fine, I wasn't a Christian." It's not that I want to give into their claims and act as though they are right. It's really just that I really don't feel overly inclined to argue over such a thing. Even though I did label myself a Christian at one point in my life, I am no longer a Christian, and I probably never will be one again. In all honesty, I think it's a moot point. If someone says that I was never a Christian, I can't say I agree with that person or like what that person is saying. Still, I find it a rather trivial thing to squabble about. So, if you Christians out there want to say I was never a Christian, then be my guest. I really don't see how your saying that is going to help either of us. To be blunt, I think you're just saying it to get under my skin. But if you insist on going through your lives with that belief in your heads, then we'll just agree to disagree.
First of all, what is an ex-Christian? The answer should be obvious: It is someone who was once a member of the Christian faith, but who no longer is. There are many atheists and agnostics who were Christians before adopting the secular views they presently have. Many Christians respond to their claims by saying, "Nope. You were never a Christian to begin with." In short, these atheists and agnostics claim that they were once Christians, and many of the Christians say that anyone who leaves their religion was never really part of the religion to begin with. This is what "The Ex-Christian Controversy" essentially is.
As I have said in other posts, I was a Christian before arriving at the position I currently am in. Like many other ex-Christians, I have been told by Christians that, since I left the faith, I was never really a part of it to begin with. The Christians who make such claims use a number of different arguments to back up their assertions. Some of them simply say that if the Holy Spirit has truly entered your heart, then he/she/it never leaves. They say that if a person has truly experienced God, then that person will never leave the Christian faith. This is a rendition of the "once saved, always saved" philosophy, which states that once a person has truly accepted the salvation of Christianity, that person will never abandon it. Judging by nothing more than my experience alone, I would say that these types of arguments are probably the most common amongst Christians who say that people who claim to be former Christians were never Christians to begin with.
In addition to the arguments mentioned above, I have also seen some Christians quote this segment of the Bible as a reinforcement to their argument that former Christians were never authentic Christians: "Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I NEVER (emphasis mine) knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!" (Matthew 7:22-23) When this verse is quoted, emphasis is placed on the word "never." The words in this passage are being spoken by Jesus, and what Jesus is saying is that not everyone who professes to follow him will be accepted into Heaven. Since Jesus is telling these people that he NEVER knew them, then they never could have been true Christians, because if they had been, then Jesus would not have said that he NEVER knew them. To be honest, I'm a little unclear on how this applies to former Christians. I have read the entire chapter that this passage is in, and Jesus is saying that not everyone who calls him "Lord" will be accepted into Heaven. All I can guess is that they are saying that former Christians only gave lip service to God when they were claiming to be Christians. In other words, they labeled themselves as Christians but they never took their faith seriously.
I'm a little torn on this issue. Since I was once a Christian, I am inclined to want to say that these Christians are wrong when they make these claims. However, another part of me wants to relent and say, "Okay, if you want to say I was never a Christian, then fine, I wasn't a Christian." It's not that I want to give into their claims and act as though they are right. It's really just that I really don't feel overly inclined to argue over such a thing. Even though I did label myself a Christian at one point in my life, I am no longer a Christian, and I probably never will be one again. In all honesty, I think it's a moot point. If someone says that I was never a Christian, I can't say I agree with that person or like what that person is saying. Still, I find it a rather trivial thing to squabble about. So, if you Christians out there want to say I was never a Christian, then be my guest. I really don't see how your saying that is going to help either of us. To be blunt, I think you're just saying it to get under my skin. But if you insist on going through your lives with that belief in your heads, then we'll just agree to disagree.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Why I am "Agnostic"
I think I may end up going back on some of the things I said I was going to do in my initial post. In that entry, I think I indicated that I was going to talk about agnosticism. More particularly, I had planned on offering up a variety of the numerous definitions that are often assigned to the term. However, I don't think I'm going to do that after all. At least not right now. Instead, I'm just going to go into detail about why I call myself an agnostic, and why I feel it is an appropriate way to identify myself.
The Oxford Dictionary that I keep on my desk says that an agnostic is a person who "believes that the existence of God cannot be proven." I do hold that belief, as do most people. In fact, when I look back, I believe that I have almost always held this belief, even when I was an ardent Christian. Nonetheless, my current beliefs go a little deeper than simply saying that I belief that the existence of a higher power cannot be proven. Though I'm not going to sit here and tell you that my beliefs are extremely complicated, because they aren't. They are only slightly intricate.
A few years ago, I began to harbor doubts regarding the God and the faith (Christianity) that I had believed in ever since I was a kid. This did not happen out of rebellion or anything childish like that. Rather, I had distanced myself from religion, and consequently, I began to look at my faith in a more objective manner. Additionally, I had been discussing religion with the people I knew, many of whom were atheists, agnostics, or other brands of non-Christians. I noticed that the people who were not Christians, particularly those of the atheist and agnostic varieties, had arguments that were much stronger than any of the ones I had ever heard in favor of my Christian faith. My seeds of doubt began to grow into plants of disbelief. Eventually, I was calling myself an agnostic. Shortly thereafter, I secretly called myself an atheist.
I didn't call myself an atheist for very long, though. While I was slowly breaking away from my childhood faith, I heard about Deism, which is the belief that there is a higher power who never or rarely interferes with our world or our lives. I was actually kind of intrigued by this philosophy, because I had occasionally entertained thoughts that the Christian God had become a Deistic kind of god. While I was in my agnostic phase (just before I started calling myself an atheist), I entertained the possibility of there being a god who behaves like the god of Deism. While I was in my atheistic phase, I once again began entertaining thoughts about a Deistic god. Today, I still entertain these thoughts.
To explain it in the briefest terms possible, I would say that I call myself agnostic because I do believe there is a slight possibility that there is a higher intelligence similiar to the one that Deists believe in. Nonetheless, I really don't think I would bet my last dollar on it. Still, I can never be sure, so I don't want to eliminate the possibility.
In lieu of this, however, I do not believe for a second that there is a higher power who answers people's prayers and constantly sticks his nose into the lives of our planet's inhabitants. In fact, ever since I have been on the outside looking in with respect to Christianity and the belief in a personal god (i.e. the god of Christianity), I think it is absurd to think that anyone could ever have a prayer answered. To think that someone could get down on his knees and ask a god for a new pair of shoes, a girlfriend, or for his cousin to be cured of pneumonia and have that prayer answered is ludicrous. Each person on this plant is but one in over six billion people. To think that there is a god who values your problems over other people's problems---many of which are MUCH more serious than a desire for new attire or for a significant other----is simply unthinkable and illogical. At this point, some people might be thinking, "Oh, but God cares about ALL of our problems." If that were true, then God would have done something about all of the famine, disease, and genocide that is going on in the world. Additionally, he would have answered my prayers when I prayed for my cancer-ridden uncle to get better (the fact that my uncle died is not the reason I left my faith, by the way).
All together, I do not believe in a god who interferes with our world or anything else in the universe. Furthermore, I see no reason to believe in a god who directly created the universe. We have explained many phenomena in naturalistic terms---e.g. why the sun "comes up and goes down," how mountains form, how stars form, how planets form. It seems like the more we know about science, the farther deities fade away into obscurity. I often do suspect that there is no higher power at all. But just in case there is some kind of supreme intelligence out there that has little to nothing to do with our universe or planet, I don't want to close the door of possibility completely.
The Oxford Dictionary that I keep on my desk says that an agnostic is a person who "believes that the existence of God cannot be proven." I do hold that belief, as do most people. In fact, when I look back, I believe that I have almost always held this belief, even when I was an ardent Christian. Nonetheless, my current beliefs go a little deeper than simply saying that I belief that the existence of a higher power cannot be proven. Though I'm not going to sit here and tell you that my beliefs are extremely complicated, because they aren't. They are only slightly intricate.
A few years ago, I began to harbor doubts regarding the God and the faith (Christianity) that I had believed in ever since I was a kid. This did not happen out of rebellion or anything childish like that. Rather, I had distanced myself from religion, and consequently, I began to look at my faith in a more objective manner. Additionally, I had been discussing religion with the people I knew, many of whom were atheists, agnostics, or other brands of non-Christians. I noticed that the people who were not Christians, particularly those of the atheist and agnostic varieties, had arguments that were much stronger than any of the ones I had ever heard in favor of my Christian faith. My seeds of doubt began to grow into plants of disbelief. Eventually, I was calling myself an agnostic. Shortly thereafter, I secretly called myself an atheist.
I didn't call myself an atheist for very long, though. While I was slowly breaking away from my childhood faith, I heard about Deism, which is the belief that there is a higher power who never or rarely interferes with our world or our lives. I was actually kind of intrigued by this philosophy, because I had occasionally entertained thoughts that the Christian God had become a Deistic kind of god. While I was in my agnostic phase (just before I started calling myself an atheist), I entertained the possibility of there being a god who behaves like the god of Deism. While I was in my atheistic phase, I once again began entertaining thoughts about a Deistic god. Today, I still entertain these thoughts.
To explain it in the briefest terms possible, I would say that I call myself agnostic because I do believe there is a slight possibility that there is a higher intelligence similiar to the one that Deists believe in. Nonetheless, I really don't think I would bet my last dollar on it. Still, I can never be sure, so I don't want to eliminate the possibility.
In lieu of this, however, I do not believe for a second that there is a higher power who answers people's prayers and constantly sticks his nose into the lives of our planet's inhabitants. In fact, ever since I have been on the outside looking in with respect to Christianity and the belief in a personal god (i.e. the god of Christianity), I think it is absurd to think that anyone could ever have a prayer answered. To think that someone could get down on his knees and ask a god for a new pair of shoes, a girlfriend, or for his cousin to be cured of pneumonia and have that prayer answered is ludicrous. Each person on this plant is but one in over six billion people. To think that there is a god who values your problems over other people's problems---many of which are MUCH more serious than a desire for new attire or for a significant other----is simply unthinkable and illogical. At this point, some people might be thinking, "Oh, but God cares about ALL of our problems." If that were true, then God would have done something about all of the famine, disease, and genocide that is going on in the world. Additionally, he would have answered my prayers when I prayed for my cancer-ridden uncle to get better (the fact that my uncle died is not the reason I left my faith, by the way).
All together, I do not believe in a god who interferes with our world or anything else in the universe. Furthermore, I see no reason to believe in a god who directly created the universe. We have explained many phenomena in naturalistic terms---e.g. why the sun "comes up and goes down," how mountains form, how stars form, how planets form. It seems like the more we know about science, the farther deities fade away into obscurity. I often do suspect that there is no higher power at all. But just in case there is some kind of supreme intelligence out there that has little to nothing to do with our universe or planet, I don't want to close the door of possibility completely.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Greetings, Hellos, and Introductions
Since this is a new blog, I feel inclined to write one of those stereotypical entries where the writer introduces himself and explains what he will be using the blog for. I feel horribly cliched in doing this, but since this thing is in its infancy, I feel it is necessary.
As the title of this online publication suggests, this blog will have something to do with agnosticism. This is because I am an agnostic. But what does it mean to be an agnostic? Well, it can mean a lot of things. If you go by what the dictionary says, being an agnostic simply means that you are "unsure of the existence of a higher power." Most dictionary definitions of the word "agnostic" resemble that to some degree. Though in reality, agnosticism can cover a variety of different bases, and the label can be applied to many people whose beliefs may be quite different in numerous respects. In another entry, I will go into more detail about what agnosticism is and why I classify myself as an agnostic. For right now, I am just going to do my best to stick to the point of this entry, which is to introduce myself and explain the reason for this blog's existence.
As I said, I will be writing about agnosticism. I will be expounding upon my current position regarding religion and spirituality, and how I came to it. It seems to me that I have taken a pretty curvy path in order to get to where I am today, and I think it deserves to be talked about.
Now that you have a rough idea regarding what I plan to do with this blog, I should probably introduce myself. Here in the blogosphere, I am known as Adrian Isaacs. However, this is not my real name, which I probably will not be giving out. In fact, I probably will not be giving out a whole lot of information about myself. I may change my mind later on and tell you some more about me, but for right now, this is all I'm going to say.
1. I am male.
2. I am in my twenties (as of the day this entry was written).
3. I possess a master's degree that most people find quite unique.
4. I live in the Midwestern part of the United States of America (USA).
5. I am neither a Democrat or a Republican.
Sorry to be so secretive. I wish I could be more open. But this is cyberspace, and it's important to look out for yourself in this world.
Well, I am running out of things to write, so I think I'll wind this down. As I explained above, I will be blogging about religion from an agnostic perspective. I will be explaining more about what agnosticism means with respect to me and my worldview. I will also be discussing some of my observations pertaining to religion. Hopefully, I'll be able to build this thing into something at least moderately useful and enjoyable. Obviously, not everyone is going to like what I do, so I'll just have to accept that. Nonetheless, I would like to please at least a few people.
As the title of this online publication suggests, this blog will have something to do with agnosticism. This is because I am an agnostic. But what does it mean to be an agnostic? Well, it can mean a lot of things. If you go by what the dictionary says, being an agnostic simply means that you are "unsure of the existence of a higher power." Most dictionary definitions of the word "agnostic" resemble that to some degree. Though in reality, agnosticism can cover a variety of different bases, and the label can be applied to many people whose beliefs may be quite different in numerous respects. In another entry, I will go into more detail about what agnosticism is and why I classify myself as an agnostic. For right now, I am just going to do my best to stick to the point of this entry, which is to introduce myself and explain the reason for this blog's existence.
As I said, I will be writing about agnosticism. I will be expounding upon my current position regarding religion and spirituality, and how I came to it. It seems to me that I have taken a pretty curvy path in order to get to where I am today, and I think it deserves to be talked about.
Now that you have a rough idea regarding what I plan to do with this blog, I should probably introduce myself. Here in the blogosphere, I am known as Adrian Isaacs. However, this is not my real name, which I probably will not be giving out. In fact, I probably will not be giving out a whole lot of information about myself. I may change my mind later on and tell you some more about me, but for right now, this is all I'm going to say.
1. I am male.
2. I am in my twenties (as of the day this entry was written).
3. I possess a master's degree that most people find quite unique.
4. I live in the Midwestern part of the United States of America (USA).
5. I am neither a Democrat or a Republican.
Sorry to be so secretive. I wish I could be more open. But this is cyberspace, and it's important to look out for yourself in this world.
Well, I am running out of things to write, so I think I'll wind this down. As I explained above, I will be blogging about religion from an agnostic perspective. I will be explaining more about what agnosticism means with respect to me and my worldview. I will also be discussing some of my observations pertaining to religion. Hopefully, I'll be able to build this thing into something at least moderately useful and enjoyable. Obviously, not everyone is going to like what I do, so I'll just have to accept that. Nonetheless, I would like to please at least a few people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)