@Christians: which questions shake your faith?

[Darth Paxis]

Of course you never felt a reason to doubt. Reasons are not things that you feel.

True. I'm sorry for my poor word choice. What I meant was that I have not seen or discovered a reason to doubt God's existence.

[Darth Wong]

Of course you never felt a reason to doubt. Reasons are not things that you feel.

True. I'm sorry for my poor word choice. What I meant was that I have not seen or discovered a reason to doubt God's existence.

That's actually worse than relying on subjective feeling and faith; you are either stupid, ignorant, or you are deluding yourself into believing that there is a special form of "true unless proven false" epistemology which you apply to the idea of God which you would never apply to anything else.

You are not terrified of the invisible Martian tentacle monster under your bed because there is no objective evidence for his existence. You do not make sacrifices to ancient Incan gods because there is no objective evidence for their existence. You do not worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster because there is no objective evidence for his existence. You do not pay money to Scientology to rid yourself of Thetans because there is no objective evidence for their existence. But when the subject is God, all of a sudden the total lack of objective evidence is NOT a reason to doubt his existence at all.

[Darth Paxis]

True. I can't provide objective evidence to prove God's existence. I can only provide my personal experiences, and they lead me to believe that there is a God, which is why I do not doubt His existence. Call it stupidity if you want, but that's what I choose to believe, just like you choose to believe that God doesn't exist. You are entitled to your opinion, and I am not going to try to convince you to change it.

[Darth Wong]

True. I can't provide objective evidence to prove God's existence. I can only provide my personal experiences, and they lead me to believe that there is a God, which is why I do not doubt His existence. Call it stupidity if you want, but that's what I choose to believe, just like you choose to believe that God doesn't exist. You are entitled to your opinion, and I am not going to try to convince you to change it.

That's the problem: you think people like me "choose to believe" just as you "choose to believe", as if there is no validity to the logical argument presented.

Do you need to convince yourself that both sides are on some kind of equal logical footing? If you understood that logic is with me and not with you, and that we are not two sides of the same coin, would that bother you?

[Stark]

I love how he doesn't even bother citing these 'personal experiences', because he knows they're bullshit. I could say everyone's got pasta in their kitchen, so the Spaghetti Monster is real, but that'd be bullshit. Just like choosing to believe god doesn't exist. We're the same!

[Darth Wong]

I love how he doesn't even bother citing these 'personal experiences', because he knows they're bullshit. I could say everyone's got pasta in their kitchen, so the Spaghetti Monster is real, but that'd be bullshit. Just like choosing to believe god doesn't exist. We're the same!

The problem with these "personal experiences" is that one must employ severely illogical thinking in order to deduce the existence of God from them. Most of these "experiences" take the form of strong feelings (which don't mean a damned thing) or good luck (which they unnecessarily interpret as proof of God).

[Revan's Fire]

Now, I'm not a Christian, but as a believing Jew, I'll take a crack at the OP. Basically, the questions that shake my faith are those that force me to reconcile those many things that I think, or would like to think god is/does/did, with those that I actually believe, in relation to the bible, or god's role in everyday life.

For instance: I was brought up reading Bible stories, (well, Hebrew Bible stories) and I love to think that God gave Barak's army victory over Sisera, or that the Red Sea really parted, but when you ask me if I actually think they happened, I have to say no. I love to think (and would love to believe) that god watches over us, and protects us, but realistically, I don't believe it and understand how nonsensical that is. I don't believe that god talks to humans, nor that god is always watching, which leads to much fighting with my orthodox friends, let me tell you. But I've always been able to keep my faith in god, and to be honest, I've never seriously doubted it, even though I've doubted more specific aspects of what I believed.

[Crossroads Inc.]

I may be coming into this late... But I wanted to relate a story that had begun to shape my views as a kid... I remember long ago a Priest lecturing me on how, before Jesus died for our sins... That the gates of Heaven where barred to mankind, that we couldn't GO to Heaven until Jesus died. I looked up and asked:
"What about cavemen?"

Because, even at the age of 6, I had learned, mostly through my dad, about hundred of thousands of years of history of mankind before Jesus ever came about... Surely there were millions and millions of people who were born and died before Jesus... What happened to them? Where did they go?

All this I related to the Priest who, well, didn't really have an answer at first, I could see I stumped him... Eventually he said that they would goto "Limbo" awaiting the time when Jesus did die and opened the gates to Heaven.

Still you can see how getting this at a young ages starts making you think "Wow... these guys DONT have all the asnweres"

[Darth Wong]

Now, I'm not a Christian, but as a believing Jew, I'll take a crack at the OP. Basically, the questions that shake my faith are those that force me to reconcile those many things that I think, or would like to think god is/does/did, with those that I actually believe, in relation to the bible, or god's role in everyday life.

For instance: I was brought up reading Bible stories, (well, Hebrew Bible stories) and I love to think that God gave Barak's army victory over Sisera, or that the Red Sea really parted, but when you ask me if I actually think they happened, I have to say no. I love to think (and would love to believe) that god watches over us, and protects us, but realistically, I don't believe it and understand how nonsensical that is. I don't believe that god talks to humans, nor that god is always watching, which leads to much fighting with my orthodox friends, let me tell you. But I've always been able to keep my faith in god, and to be honest, I've never seriously doubted it, even though I've doubted more specific aspects of what I believed.

Have you ever asked your orthodox friends why they believe God is talking to them, when the God of the original texts very rarely talks to anyone? When he talks to someone, that person becomes very special. When it came time to talk to the Jews, he did not actually talk to them; he talked privately to one particular prophet, ie- Moses (the whole story begs the question of why God, the Supreme Being and Omnipotent Creator of the Universe, did not have the public address technology that we have).

In the original Jewish mythology, they had a word for people who talked to God: "prophets". It was understood that God does not talk to most people. He only talks to the anointed few.

[Revan's Fire]

Have you ever asked your orthodox friends why they believe God is talking to them, when the God of the original texts very rarely talks to anyone? When he talks to someone, that person becomes very special. When it came time to talk to the Jews, he did not actually talk to them; he talked privately to one particular prophet, ie- Moses (the whole story begs the question of why God, the Supreme Being and Omnipotent Creator of the Universe, did not have the public address technology that we have).

In the original Jewish mythology, they had a word for people who talked to God: "prophets". It was understood that God does not talk to most people. He only talks to the anointed few.

It generally goes along the lines of god speaking to them through the text, god's words being evident in everyday life, and only the prophets were the ones who heard an actual 'voice'. Upon questioning about how that works, and why god's words happen to match their specific interpretations of Mishna/Gemara, the conversation rapidly devolves. I've even had two people who I briefly studied with at a yeshiva argue that god was 'talking' to both of them, about the same tract, and telling them both completely incongruous things. Which is one of the reasons I no longer study there.

[Lord Relvenous]

I'm a somewhat-active Mormon (boo hiss, I know), and there have been many times that I've doubted specific tenets of my faith, and the way that it has been taught to me. However, these doubts have manifested more in "sins" than thoughts. While I believe much of the doctrine, sexual purity has been a hard one for me to find the motivation for me to follow, and is the reason for my semi-activity, not full. The existence of God was in question for a while (the classic "why does he give us pain") but I feel as if I've resolved that for myself, mostly. Some might call it hand-waving, but whatever. Either way, the seeming paradox no longer shakes me, despite the fact that the pain often does.

Right now, I'm having a hard time finding specific questions. I've had doubts, but they usually are not triggered by specific questions, generally.

If I stretch a little, the denying of the Priesthood to non-white members for a while there is a sticking point. While not enough to cause me to lose all faith, it has been something that I've considered. I mainly agree with many of the teachings of the LDS church, so I'm sticking with it, but if I find something that fits better for me, I'll jump ship. That would be another Christian faith, though, and I don't think that fulfills DW's OT.

[Vultur]

The thing that made me arguably a little agnostic for a while was dissonance between, essentially, a strong libertarian/free-market-environmentalist ideology (though I wouldn't have called it that at the time) valuing strong competition and Christianity's emphasis on helping the poor. It resolved itself when I realized it was awfully extreme (I was pretty young at the time ). Now I'd say I'm a moderate with libertarian ideals.

[Darth Wong]

The thing that made me arguably a little agnostic for a while was dissonance between, essentially, a strong libertarian/free-market-environmentalist ideology (though I wouldn't have called it that at the time) valuing strong competition and Christianity's emphasis on helping the poor. It resolved itself when I realized it was awfully extreme (I was pretty young at the time ). Now I'd say I'm a moderate with libertarian ideals.

What the fuck is a "strong libertarian/free-market-environmentalist ideology"? Business deregulation and environmentalism are pretty much mutually incompatible goals.

For that matter, libertarianism and Christianity are pretty much incompatible too: it's virtually impossible to read the Bible with your eyes open and not come to the conclusion that it is philosophically authoritarian, from top to bottom. Everything in it is based on "I am bigger/older/holier/more powerful than you so shut the fuck up and do what I say."

[Vultur]

What the fuck is a "strong libertarian/free-market-environmentalist ideology"? Business deregulation and environmentalism are pretty much mutually incompatible goals.

The idea that deregulation will speed technological development, and that environmental problems will eventually be solved my more technology, not less technology (replacing oil and coal with nuclear fission, eventually fusion/solar power satellites/etc.) Overpopulation is only a problem relative to resources

For that matter, libertarianism and Christianity are pretty much incompatible too: it's virtually impossible to read the Bible and not come to the conclusion that it is philosophically authoritarian, from top to bottom.

Well, admittedly I always paid a lot more attention to the New Testament, but I don't see how -- the New Testament's social principles don't seem to give much support to any kind of authoritarianism. [The Old Testament of course is pretty authoritarian, but that's at least largely because it comes from a society which couldn't have survived without being authoritarian, IMO.]

[Darth Wong]

What the fuck is a "strong libertarian/free-market-environmentalist ideology"? Business deregulation and environmentalism are pretty much mutually incompatible goals.

The idea that deregulation will speed technological development, and that environmental problems will eventually be solved my more technology, not less technology (replacing oil and coal with nuclear fission, eventually fusion/solar power satellites/etc.) Overpopulation is only a problem relative to resources

Ah, I see. So you simply ignore the voluminous historical precedent showing that increased technology merely allows people and corporations to behave even more wastefully by ratcheting up their levels of consumption. No wonder you're religious; you have enough faith for two religions at once

For that matter, libertarianism and Christianity are pretty much incompatible too: it's virtually impossible to read the Bible and not come to the conclusion that it is philosophically authoritarian, from top to bottom.

Well, admittedly I always paid a lot more attention to the New Testament, but I don't see how -- the New Testament's social principles don't seem to give much support to any kind of authoritarianism. [The Old Testament of course is pretty authoritarian, but that's at least largely because it comes from a society which couldn't have survived without being authoritarian, IMO.]

The New Testament is not authoritarian?

The fact that Jesus tells people to be nice to the poor does not mean it is not authoritarian. Do you even know what authoritarianism is? He tells people what is right and what is wrong based on ... what? The fact that HE SAYS SO. Nothing more. And he claims to be the representative of God, who he promises will upturn the social order in the "Kingdom of God" through what? Oh yeah, unvarnished authority. Edict from on high. Divine power. How is that not authoritarian? The entire doctrine of Christianity is based on kissing ass: you get "salvation" from God's arbitrary cruelty by sucking up to his son. It's like every dictatorship in history.

If someone says he has faith because he just refuses to think about certain things or let go of certain ideas, I can at least understand that. But don't tell me that Christianity is libertarian.

[Prannon]

I'm a late comer to the thread, but I figure I'll weigh in. I actually have an ironic circumstance. For context, my family was/is very conservative and very Christian, and I was reared to be such. Right around high school I got really involved in Church and turned into a Jesus Freak. Youth group, mission trips, summer camps, volunteer work, and all that stuff. I had a pretty good religious foundation and my family was proud of it. And to maintain this foundation I went to a private, Baptist university.

And there I pretty much went agnostic/non-practicing. One of my friends really made my question my theology, the blandness of the chapel services (which the school forced you to go to for two years) turned me off, and the repetitive mantras, scripture readings, and rituals disgusted me. I still thought about religion and my faith all the time, but I just lost interest in being a church-goer.

And then - ironically since this was a profoundly Christian institution - I took a class called Christianity and Politics. The idea behind this class, since I was majoring in Political Science, was to reconcile your faith with reality, the idea that the world isn't just and that the Church as an institution isn't always right, along with the various universal human conventions. We did a lot of reading in that class, and three books had a profound effect on me in particular: "God Vs. The Gavel," "Misquoting Jesus," and one I can't remember at the moment. The first dealt with many cases of churches abusing the laws and their status in society to do very un-Christian things, whether it's child rape or just using land laws to destroy historical buildings to build a new church or something like that. The second dealt with tangible, unquestionable errors in the Bible as it exists today.

For me, that was the turning point that shook my faith the most. Realizing that the Bible was not some undestructable icon of religious value. That was what so many Christian teachers emphasized in my upbringing, how inviolate and solid the Bible was. Now I was finding out how scribes in the past likely added or took out words from certain passages and how simple human error over centuries of copying produced real mistakes. Suddenly I didn't hold the book in so much awe as I did before, and that strong foundation was gone. When the Bible no longer was true no matter what, everything became fluid.

That last book showed me just how diverse and, at times, strange the evangelical scene in the US is. Reading that I realized that there was far more to God, or Christianity, or even faith in general, that I could ever come to know. These days I don't think about Christianity much. I still pray every now and then to give myself comfort, but for the most part I'm rather agnostic. I know things are very different now from high school, because whenever my family gets to talking about religious matters, I always cringe and go into another room because it's too uncomfortable to remain.

[Darth Wong]

I know things are very different now from high school, because whenever my family gets to talking about religious matters, I always cringe and go into another room because it's too uncomfortable to remain.

Does it make you cringe because you see people you once respected, saying really dumb things? I know it's possible to be a Christian and not come off as a complete idiot, but the really devout types are like conspiracy theorists: they sound like complete loons and worse yet, you can tell that they are completely blind to it. They literally have absolutely no idea how normal people perceive their rantings.

What you say makes me realize that one of the major triggers for deconversion may be disappointment in fellow Christians not in a moral sense, but with respect to intelligence. It is painful to lose respect for one's peers: to realize that they're not thinking at all, but just mindlessly reciting slogans. I should talk to Rebecca about that and ask whether it was the moral hypocrisy of her Christian peers or her dawning realization of their mental handicap which played the biggest part in driving her away from the church. I think it was actually the latter.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

I would not really describe myself as ever having "really and truly" believed in God, except for a brief period in college when I tried to force myself to (I was going through some weird emotional problems), but I was raised in a somewhat religious way. I went to Sunday School. I learned Hebrew. I had a Bar-Mitzvah ( or became Bazr-Mitzvah, whatever). Even had a confirmation. But the main reason why I (and most of the rest of my confirmation class peers) couldn't ever take the religion seriously is because it is fundamentally silly.

Growing up in the U.S., I was constantly surrounded by Christianity, but I didn't believe in it. To give you an idea of the effect this has, try reading a book about mythology and then imagine almost everyone you know takes these stories as the literal truth. To someone who was never indoctrinated in the first place, Christianity is hilariously silly. I've never been able to explain to evangelicals just how laughable their attempts to convert me are, or just how over-the-top ridiculous and arrogant it is to assume that everyone 'must' believe in Jesus, even if only in their hearts.
Naturally, I took the next step and thought "If Christianity is so obviously silly, and so widely believed, then why should I take the Torah seriously?" There is no good answer. There is even less of an answer if you actually read the thing. (I always suggest that religious people read every word of the Bible, because I can't think of a better way to disillusion a true believer.)

So, in conclusion, the question which shook my admittedly meager faith was 'How can people believe all that stupid shit instead of what I believe in? Oh yeah...."

[Prannon]

I know things are very different now from high school, because whenever my family gets to talking about religious matters, I always cringe and go into another room because it's too uncomfortable to remain.

Does it make you cringe because you see people you once respected, saying really dumb things? I know it's possible to be a Christian and not come off as a complete idiot, but the really devout types are like conspiracy theorists: they sound like complete loons and worse yet, you can tell that they are completely blind to it. They literally have absolutely no idea how normal people perceive their rantings.

What you say makes me realize that one of the major triggers for deconversion may be disappointment in fellow Christians not in a moral sense, but with respect to intelligence. It is painful to lose respect for one's peers: to realize that they're not thinking at all, but just mindlessly reciting slogans. I should talk to Rebecca about that and ask whether it was the moral hypocrisy of her Christian peers or her dawning realization of their mental handicap which played the biggest part in driving her away from the church. I think it was actually the latter.

Honestly, Mr. Wong, I think you may have hit it on the noggin. In many ways I got disillusioned by the lack of thought or spontaneity in the Christian services I attended, as well as the lack of originality in many Christian peers I have had. I'll go into the anecdotal to illustrate. While I was in university I had to attend chapel services for two years. One of the rituals followed in those services was a "scripture reading," in which a selected student would get on stage and recite a Biblical passage. I think this is mostly a Southern Baptist thing, although other denominations may have similar rituals for all I know. Anyway, as the student read the passage, everyone in the auditorium would read aloud with them, creating this kind of "Borg Effect."

The point behind this (I figured) was to promote unity through a scripture reading and honor the scripture. However, I always just felt that it was a meaningless gesture, because unless you actually paid close attention, you didn't absorb what you were saying, nor did you understand what it was all about. You were more focused on saying it with everyone else and wondering how your voice sounded to your neighbor that you didn't get anything from it. Same goes for the worship songs, just repeating what the Worship Leaders are singing without really knowing what it is. At least, that was my experience. Furthermore, often the scripture would be something mundane with no relation to the day's message from the speaker they had selected to speak that day, and often the speaker wouldn't really have anything new to say that I hadn't heard a million times before when I was younger. It was far more interesting to discuss theological matters with intelligent friends with open minds than listen to some preacher who had three degrees from prestigious seminaries and had served on countless boards for wealthy institutions. They made a point of giving the speaker's entire resume before each service to give them religious credibility.

Which brings me to my family. I'm thinking specifically of last Thanksgiving when I was in Dallas with my mom, her parents, and my brother and sister. This was right after Obama had been elected, and politics was often the focus of their discussions. So much so, that was pretty much all they talked about the whole time I was there, and religion was always interspersed in the politics. Obama's election was a sign of a big change in the country, and that was a sign of the end times a la "Left Behind." Long story short, the country had rejected the true and right path and Obama was going to bring utter ruin, but that's ok because we (the family) were going to be swept up into the sky in The Rapture! and wouldn't have to worry about it. Mixed with liberal bashing and simple conservative talking points, I couldn't much stand to be in the same room. Even when I did, they would still say this shit even though they knew I didn't like what they were saying, and then they'd excuse it by saying that they didn't hate me but were "just having a conversation." Yeah, and knowingly disrespecting me in the process... The religion and the politics are so heavily intertwined, Mr. Wong, that when my mom's mom (Nana) found out that I planned to vote for Obama, she was heartbroken, feeling that I had lost my firm Christian faith. It's one and the same for them, which no longer makes any sense to me since I feel that I can be Christian and vote for whoever I want so long as they run the country in a proven, practical manner.

I used to think like they did. I used to be very much in the same boat, but I have since seen the flaws in such simple black and white thinking because of my education. To my brother's credit, he said he was disgusted by everyone's behavior at that get together, and to my Nana's credit she would still cuddle me and tell me that no matter what she still loved me very much. She was very clear on that point, while my mom's dad was not...

[Darth Wong]

Honestly, Mr. Wong, I think you may have hit it on the noggin. In many ways I got disillusioned by the lack of thought or spontaneity in the Christian services I attended, as well as the lack of originality in many Christian peers I have had. I'll go into the anecdotal to illustrate. While I was in university I had to attend chapel services for two years. One of the rituals followed in those services was a "scripture reading," in which a selected student would get on stage and recite a Biblical passage. I think this is mostly a Southern Baptist thing, although other denominations may have similar rituals for all I know. Anyway, as the student read the passage, everyone in the auditorium would read aloud with them, creating this kind of "Borg Effect."

Jehovah's Witness rituals are very similar. it's all about ritualistically repeating what's on the page. Christians can only see how creepy that is when they see Muslims doing it on TV. When it's their own churches, it's no longer creepy; it's "spiritual".

Take the following two phrases:

1) "Muslim children made to memorize and ritualistically chant verses from the Koran, their heads bobbing back and forth in unison."

2) "The local childrens' church choir, joyfully singing hymns of praise."

The first one is creepy. The second one? Heart-warming. And yet, the difference is ...?

The point behind this (I figured) was to promote unity through a scripture reading and honor the scripture. However, I always just felt that it was a meaningless gesture, because unless you actually paid close attention, you didn't absorb what you were saying, nor did you understand what it was all about. You were more focused on saying it with everyone else and wondering how your voice sounded to your neighbor that you didn't get anything from it. Same goes for the worship songs, just repeating what the Worship Leaders are singing without really knowing what it is. At least, that was my experience. Furthermore, often the scripture would be something mundane with no relation to the day's message from the speaker they had selected to speak that day, and often the speaker wouldn't really have anything new to say that I hadn't heard a million times before when I was younger. It was far more interesting to discuss theological matters with intelligent friends with open minds than listen to some preacher who had three degrees from prestigious seminaries and had served on countless boards for wealthy institutions. They made a point of giving the speaker's entire resume before each service to give them religious credibility.

That leads to another interesting point: Christian fundamentalists often believe that higher education is correlated with deconversion because universities spread negative propaganda about Christianity (in a hilariously ironic twist, some of them actually accuse universities of brainwashing). But it seems more likely that universities expose kids to the correct methods of analyzing and discussing ideas, and then they turn around and look at the way their own church groups discuss ideas, and they realize that the whole approach is totally different (and would be totally unacceptable in any other field). Some of them can live with the duality, but some of them can't.