Credo: what and why I believe

[cj.23]

So you literally believe jesus christ died for your sins?

Because if not I don't really see the point of labeling yourself a "christian."

Yes. I'm an Anglican: it rather goes with the territory. In fact ever since I joined here my sig file has declared my religious orientation, on the principle of fair and open disclosure.

This was the biggest problem that I had with Christianity. Quite simply, my reason revolted at the idea. My mantra whn an atheist debating Evangelicals was "Why did God sacrifice Himself to Himself to appease Himself?" I still find that a bizarre formulation: though I no longer believe that is how it works. I was vaguely tempted by the Irenean Theodicy or Process Theodicy simply to avoid the horrific nonsense that I saw the Augustinian Theodicy as -- then I thought "why accept some now popular form of soteriological theology (stuff on salvation and sin etc) just because it makes more sense to you? So I went back and reread the Bible, and some of the Church fathers, and set about working out what I believed made sense. My current beliefs may be heretical, but I'm an Anglican so no one notices. I'll explain them if you are interested.

Oh yeah I used some theological gobbledigook in there -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy
will quickly bring anyone bothered up to speed, as will googling the terms. Or you can ask - I'm not setting out to be obscurantist.

cj x

 

[cj.23]

Hi cj.23,

which particular "mainstream Christian beliefs" do you espouse? Which church do you find closest to what you believe?

Anglican with Anglo-Catholic, Orthodox and Evangelical and Methodist sympathies, and some vaguely Baptist thinking on necessity of adult conversion. So Church of England/Episcopalian really, or catholic with a small 'c' and orthodox with a small 'o'.

And if I may ask, what was the impetus behind your migration from atheism to Christianity? Would you say it was for emotional reasons? I ask because it seems to me most of those who started off as atheists but converted to Christianity seem to do it because they find in atheism no answers to emotional problems, and they personally find atheism as evidenced by many to be a dessicated over-intellectualism (it needn't be so, but often is); thinking of such people as C.S. Lewis, or Karen Armstrong (who went from Christianity to atheism to a vague panentheism).

NO, I think it was because i saw a ghjost and questioned the materialism and atheism of my childhood. I am not convinced said ghost was a "dead guy", or indeed anything other than a purely naturalistic phenomena - I am absolutely certain it was not "supernatural" - there is a thread around somewhere where I discuss it - but that firt made me question my rock solid materialism, no matter how inappropraitely. I changed career paths and studied religion, and later taught it, and slowly became agnostic, and later theistic. I don't think at any point did I have any major emotional feelings associated with my "conversion".

Did you ever consider secular humanism as an answer to ethical and emotional problems?

Yes, I remain a contributor to the British Humanist Association: while i disagree with some of their political aims, the grassroots work they do especially in secular funerals is too important to be left to secular humanists alone. As I believe Satre said, I am not convinced the existence of God settles any major moral issue - my thinking is and remains humanist in that I regard concern for my fellow human as a key ethic.

You can find the BHA here - http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/ - do support the good work they do at community level.

Looking forward to the discussion.

Same here, and do join in with your beliefs.

cj x

 

[cj.23]

Having looked at your sig...just felt it was fair to mention that I was born and raised Anglican, my dad is an Anglican minister in fact.

AH!Anglicans are an odd bunch -- Richard Dawkins is another raised Anglican. In fact he discusses the Anglican Church with some affection in the beginning of the The God Delusion, might be in the preface or in chapter one? He could be appointed Bishop of Bury St Edmunds yet (for those who know Yes, Minister).

cj x

 

[cj.23]

The thing that I'm curious about is what happened in your mind to decide you thought there was a god as opposed to there being none. I personally can't imagine making that decision. I recognize some of the basic tenets of Chrsitianity to be a good way to live, but I don't go for anything supernatural.

Yes: thats the difficult bit, because the reasons I give, and i have briefly outlined a bit of it below, will change depending on when and who asks me. Personal Construct Theory at work I guess, or just that my sense of self identity is a narrative i create to explain, rather than a reflection of actual events and drives, many of which I do not consciously understand. When I was a polemical atheist I would sometimes attend the Christian Union - and if people asked why I would point out the cute girls -- and bung thi son the jukebox in the bar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f4GpZQk6rw&feature=related

I was pretty cynical! Yet was i drawn there by something more? Dunno! I have a strong controversialist/contradictarian character trait I guess - my fave sites are the Dawkins place and here, and my beliefs are hardly orthodox for either?

So really, dunno. I coudl feed you a ine about how I reasoned it all out or whatever, or was convinced by evidence, or anytthing else - but is it true? Dunno! I know myself well enough to know I don't know myself!

However you ask how I came to make the decision -- and I don't think I made any decision. Afew years ago there was a wonderful little quiz which told you which religion best suited your lifestyle and personality based on how you answered questions, but it made no sense to me. When I was an atheist I could no more decide to believe in God than I could to believe in the marshmallow man, or thta gravity did not exist. When I was an agnostic that was how I saw the world - I did not choose to be agnostic. When I became theistic it was because I had come to see the world in a theistic sense - I could not deny the evidence of my senses. The changing perspective was never a choice, it was just how I understood reality to be. I'm guessing its like that for all of us? I could be wrong though! (I often am!)

cj x

 

[Gurdur]

Anglican with Anglo-Catholic, Orthodox and Evangelical and Methodist sympathies,

You're definitely making sure not to offend anyone, yes? Low Chapel to High Church? Please pardon my sense of humour.

NO, I think it was because i saw a ghjost and questioned the materialism and atheism of my childhood. I am not convinced said ghost was a "dead guy", or indeed anything other than a purely naturalistic phenomena - I am absolutely certain it was not "supernatural" - there is a thread around somewhere where I discuss it - but that firt made me question my rock solid materialism, no matter how inappropraitely.

This is extremely interesting; many thanks for your very honest and open answers. To reciprocate, I specify my own stance below.

Yes, I remain a contributor to the British Humanist Association: while i disagree with some of their political aims, the grassroots work they do especially in secular funerals is too important to be left to secular humanists alone. As I believe Satre said, I am not convinced the existence of God settles any major moral issue - my thinking is and remains humanist in that I regard concern for my fellow human as a key ethic.

This is really good stuff; I am very glad you opened this discussion. Nice to meet you!

You can find the BHA here - http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/ - do support the good work they do at community level.

Me and the BHA have quite a history --- I once offered to make them free a bulletin board worthy of the 20th century, so did others, the BHA management refused. Ever encounter Sue Lord, BTW? AFAIK, she continues on her trolling unabated on the 18th-century-technology BHA board. I fully agree with you that the BHA's programs of activities are very worthy, Ijust wish they could actually embrace technology, proactive management and delegation.

I am personally an atheist, and a secular humanist; I have been one now for a very long time. I do enjoy talking about religion, humanism, ethics and atheism (and in fact I run a board to do just that), and since many of my relatives are quite ... (overly) religious (something which unsurprisingly led me to becoming a conscious atheist), ranging from Broad-Church Anglicanism to Roman Catholic to Continuing Presbyterian and then to Closed Plymouth Brethren , then I am very aware of much of the broad palette of beliefs and theologies.

Again, I am glad you opened this discussion, and I look forward to continuing it for a long while. Do feel free to ask me any questions you would like to pose, by all means. Reciprocality is a Good Thing.

 

[billydkid]

Yes. I'm an Anglican: it rather goes with the territory. In fact ever since I joined here my sig file has declared my religious orientation, on the principle of fair and open disclosure.

This was the biggest problem that I had with Christianity. Quite simply, my reason revolted at the idea. My mantra whn an atheist debating Evangelicals was "Why did God sacrifice Himself to Himself to appease Himself?" I still find that a bizarre formulation: though I no longer believe that is how it works. I was vaguely tempted by the Irenean Theodicy or Process Theodicy simply to avoid the horrific nonsense that I saw the Augustinian Theodicy as -- then I thought "why accept some now popular form of soteriological theology (stuff on salvation and sin etc) just because it makes more sense to you? So I went back and reread the Bible, and some of the Church fathers, and set about working out what I believed made sense. My current beliefs may be heretical, but I'm an Anglican so no one notices. I'll explain them if you are interested.

Oh yeah I used some theological gobbledigook in there -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy
will quickly bring anyone bothered up to speed, as will googling the terms. Or you can ask - I'm not setting out to be obscurantist.

cj x

See, I don't understand this at all. Your problem with Christianity had to do with the tenets involved and not with whether or not there was any truth behind it? It sort of reminds me of an argument I had in here with someone who had a problem with the idea that one can only be moral by obeying God's will however offensive it might be to our mortal sensibilities - their problem with Christianity seemed to have to do with its content and not with whether or not it was a factual or even roughly true reflection of reality.

 

[Almo]

Thanks for your answer to my question. I hope people see that it is possible to have this kind of discussion here.

 

[cj.23]

I guess the first question is, "What kind of Christian are you?"

Saying, "I'm a Christian" or "I believe in the Bible" means less than nothing, really...since it actually can mean so many different things. So let's clarify.

We agree strongly here.

Do you believe that the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God?

I believe in Biblical inspiration - in the neo-orthodox perspective i think (I did a "what sort of Biblical Inspiration do you believe in? quiz once!)

The Neo-orthodox doctrine

The Neo-orthodox doctrine of inspiration is summarized by saying that the Bible is "the word of God" but not "the words of God". It is only when one reads the text that it becomes the word of God to him or her. This view is a reaction to the Modernist doctrine, which, Neo-orthodox proponents argue, eroded the value and significance of the Christian faith, and simultaneously a rejection of the idea of textual inerrancy. Karl Barth and Emil Brunner were primary advocates of this approach.

from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration#Protestant_views

This comes out of my work in Reader-Response lit crit in the early 90's and my interest in Kierkegaard I suspect. Inerrant? Well inerrancy is a difficult thing to pin down, but yes I believe in inerrancy, but not textual inerrancy.

That everything written in the Bible is true, and meant to be taken literally?

I am not a literalist. I follow St. Augustine, Aquinas and pretty much every other Christian ever in this surely? Even literalists understand the use of allegory, metaphor, poetry and parable? I can probably do a fairly good pastiche of Hebrew poetry, so my knowledge helps me to understand a little about when the text is not being literal - I find the traditions of Judaism very handy in understanding the Tanakh.

Do you believe that Jesus literally died, and came back to life,

Yes, Resuurection not Resuscitiation or post mortem survival in the SPR/ghosthunters sense though.

...and that everyone who does not accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior will suffer for eternity in Hell?

Hell? I believe they will die, and stay dead, as dead things tend to. It's what happens y'know. I won't rulke out a hell - as has been said, "my faith requires me to believe in a hhell: it does not require me ot believe ther eis anyone in it." I am certainly not sure what constitutes accepting Jesus Christ - I think we can include Jews, Muslims, and an awful lot of other folks in that. It comes down to the interpretation of the "No man comes to the Father accept through me" bit. Mind you, I have no real say in this - salvation is a gift of the grace of God, and i can not save anyone from death in the long run (roll onm anagathics and life extension!), so my opinion matter svery little on this score. It's up to God: I won't judge, but I will cheerfully discuss my ideas. I'd love to be a universalist - I'm not sure if i am though!

For that matter...do you believe that women suffer the pain of childbirth as punishment for Eve's sin in eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

Nope: usually its down to not getting to a maternity unit in time. Do some people believe pethidine, epidurals etc are sinful then?

Or, if you want to get away from the Old Testament stuff, do you believe the New Testament teachings that women should cover their heads in church, and should not preach?

No more than I believe tat we shoud be baptising the dead. Paul was clearly writing to a church on an issue there - the early church was full f prophetesses, and Jesus seems to have counted women among his very closest followers?

cj x

 

[cj.23]

See, I don't understand this at all. Your problem with Christianity had to do with the tenets involved and not with whether or not there was any truth behind it? It sort of reminds me of an argument I had in here with someone who had a problem with the idea that one can only be moral by obeying God's will however offensive it might be to our mortal sensibilities - their problem with Christianity seemed to have to do with its content and not with whether or not it was a factual or even roughly true reflection of reality.

Got you billy. I can see why you are confused by what I said, may I clarify? I hope i made clear in my earlier responses that I don';t regard my theism/agnosticism or atheism as a choice: it was how I saw ultimate reality.

Then we get to the choosing of a specific faith tradition within the range of theism: here having come to a theistic understanding as my idea of what was true, I had to consider what form of theism struck me as closest to my actual set of beliefs. My issue with the Augustinian Theodicy was exactly an issue of it was a "roughly true reflection of reality": my experience of reality is that it is rationally comprehensible in the main, and that logic worked - the problem of God sacrificing Himself to himself to appease Himself made no rational sense to me at the time. It was not alifestyle choice - it was a questionas to whether i felt reality worked this way.

cj x

 

[cj.23]

You're definitely making sure not to offend anyone, yes? Low Chapel to High Church? Please pardon my sense of humour.

I've offended most of them at some time: and I never mentioned the Charismatics!

Me and the BHA have quite a history --- I once offered to make them free a bulletin board worthy of the 20th century, so did others, the BHA management refused. Ever encounter Sue Lord, BTW? AFAIK, she continues on her trolling unabated on the 18th-century-technology BHA board. I fully agree with you that the BHA's programs of activities are very worthy, I just wish they could actually embrace technology, proactive management and delegation.

Never met Sue - but yes, I sympathize entirely. The BHA has improved communications somewhat, but to be fair, that was not difficult. How I wish they had taken up your offer! Why on earth did they not? Hey, it's the nature of organisations that they seem to delight in inefficiency. TA least you don't have to share the BHA with a large group of homophobic loons and misogynistic maniacs though -- and they may be the more pious part of the Anglican Church! When I look at my bunch I'm minded of Yeats poem The Second Coming -

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Welcome to the CofE, 2008!

I am personally an atheist, and a secular humanist; I have been one now for a very long time. I do enjoy talking about religion, humanism, ethics and atheism (and in fact I run a board to do just that), and since many of my relatives are quite ... (overly) religious (something which unsurprisingly led me to becoming a conscious atheist), ranging from Broad-Church Anglicanism to Roman Catholic to Continuing Presbyterian and then to Closed Plymouth Brethren , then I am very aware of much of the broad palette of beliefs and theologies.

Care to share the URL with us? If you are interested oyu might find some very intelligent and interesting people on www.richarddawkins.net/forum - pm and invite those who interest you maybe for your board? Say Jerome says hi too!

Again, I am glad you opened this discussion, and I look forward to continuing it for a long while. Do feel free to ask me any questions you would like to pose, by all means. Reciprocality is a Good Thing.

I'd love to hear more about how you came to atheism, given your families religious background. I know a few ex-Exclusive Brethren btw - it all git rather frightening in the 1980s as fr as i can make out, but hopefully it's mellowed a bit now. You clearly now and have experienced a wide range of Christian belief there!

We'll have to have a proper discussion - sadly it approaches 3am here and I need sleep. I will ask one question now though - what do you make of the "New Atheism"?

cj x

 

[Wolfman]

cj,

Sounds like you're what I'd call a philosophical Christian...there are certain aspects of the Christian teachings that appeal to you (primarily New Testament), but you will tend to pick and choose...it'll tend to be more, "I think this is right, and the Bible agrees with me" than "The Bible says this, so it must be right".

That's more the "religious Humanist" approach...rather than having morality dictated by a higher power, which one accepts uncritically, you instead decide what you feel constitutes a rational moral/ethical system, and then embrace those aspects of your particular religion that promote those values.

Would you consider that a fair (if not comprehensive) summary?

 

[Hokulele]

...

Then we get to the choosing of a specific faith tradition within the range of theism: here having come to a theistic understanding as my idea of what was true, I had to consider what form of theism struck me as closest to my actual set of beliefs.

...

If the form of Christianity you have chosen best matches your actual set of beliefs, where did that set of beliefs come from?

The reason I ask is that I have found philosophical Taoism best matches my beliefs (although it certainly isn't a perfect fit), but I rarely describe myself as a philosophical Taoist.

 

[Wolfman]

If the form of Christianity you have chosen best matches your actual set of beliefs, where did that set of beliefs come from?

I sometimes call myself a Zen Atheist A lot of my attitude towards life has developed a definite 'zen' flavor since going to China.

 

[Hokulele]

Wouldn't that be Chan Atheist then?

 

[quarky]

I have a nagging feeling (sub-belief) in a sort of math i can't quite comprehend.

 

[mikeyx]

I'm afraid you did no such thing. Atheism is not a set of beliefs. It has no scripture, no revelation, and no authority. You can no more convert from being an atheist than you can convert from being a non-stamp collector.

I disagree, non belief in something as the definition of the essence of the "ism" is a belief in the lack of it.

 

[mikeyx]

Thanks for your answer to my question. I hope people see that it is possible to have this kind of discussion here.

With patience and mutual tolerance, yes, yes it is

 

[mikeyx]

I sometimes call myself a Zen Atheist A lot of my attitude towards life has developed a definite 'zen' flavor since going to China.

Whereas like I mentioned in a different thread the other day, I am basically a protestant sufi.

 

[cj.23]

I sometimes call myself a Zen Atheist A lot of my attitude towards life has developed a definite 'zen' flavor since going to China.

That's really interesting! I read Suzuki years ago, but I must say I'm not up on Zen. What does Zen Atheism look like? I'd like ot know more on this -- it sounds thoroughly intriguing!

I looked up Zen practice and found
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen#Zen_teachings_and_practices
which makes much sense I guess.

cj x

 

[cj.23]

Whereas like I mentioned in a different thread the other day, I am basically a protestant sufi.

Again, that is fascinating. I do know Sufism (theory) well, and find that an interesting and refreshing perspective. How does it work out?

cj x