Thanks for sharing. On the bold, that I believe. What I am curious about, so I am asking, have you ever felt the presence of God in your life (Phil 4:7) or in other words did God ever touched your feelings?
I can say I've had strong, positive emotional responses in a Christian religious context. And, at times, I attributed that feeling to 'God'. However, I now think there is no way to objectively verify that attribution is legitimate. People from other religions have similar 'feelings', and they are equally convinced those 'feelings' are supernatural in origin. I can't begin with the assumption those are supernatural experiences, and there's no way to objectively verify they are supernatural experiences. I determined that I must apply the same standard equally to Christianity, which left me with the conclusion that unless I begin with the assumption that Christianity is true, I don't have a basis for identifying a strong, positive emotional response as a supernatural experience.
Scripture does not leave final assurance to the murky realm of the senses, though senses and experiences cannot be discounted as invalid. The NT insistence upon the "Spirit" and "spirit" cannot be avoided, but seems difficult to define in terms of the senses. "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:" Rm 8:16 "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Rm 8:9
I really didn't expect to read that, especially given the way you once defended Scripture. This is very true, there's no reason at all why it's impossible to change a belief system. Whether we change our beliefs because of new information or because of a reassessment of the same information doesn't change the sincerity of the previously held beliefs. A simple example relates to a person I'll call PP and another person I'll call X. There was a time when I believed both were "good guys", and indeed both told me I could trust the other. Then the two started saying I couldn't trust the other, so I literally loaded up as many archived conversations as I could find and read every single line trying to see if "this person is a bad guy" made any sense. For PP, reading the conversations looking for ways he was trying to take advantage or mislead me, everything still made perfect sense. For X reading with that paradigm made no sense at all. The validity of my former belief that PP was a good guy was intact, but my belief system changed by taking the same information and reassessing it. Of course where direct personal experience is concerned it's harder. If you believe in unicorns because you have personally seen a unicorn (or, ideally, more than one unicorn) then a change in belief requires a rationalisation of just what it was that you saw that prompted you to believe in the first place. If all you had was a grainy picture that could have been a Photoshop hatchet job that would be one thing but if you'd personally seen unicorns frolicking and had maybe ridden on the back of a unicorn it would be hugely intellectually dishonest to turn around and claim it all never happened.
I'm not sure that this is always the implication. There are certainly people who talk about 'losing' their faith because they engaged in this, that, or the thing other, and as they came to conclusion, upon conclusion, upon conclusion, there faith was eroded in the process. It was 'lost', and then a conscious decision to 'leave' followed. Right, and I am suggesting that the faith of these people was improperly grounded. For the Christian with a properly grounded faith, the threat is real, because the rejection is made in the knowledge of Christ. I don't think the OSAS crowd would be very pleased with what I've written. While it's true that I've conceived of 'lost' faith as implying a lack of true™ faith, I've also conceived of 'rejected' faith as the knowing rejection of Christ in light of the faith that was once held. Both conceptions are predicated, of course, on an 'if': if Christian faith is God working in and through the Christian believer, then that believer has come into possession of their own revelation concerning God (that is, God's work in their life). So, where does that leave the Christian believer who is no longer a believer? I see only three options: they can claim to have lost or left their faith for whatever reason (not enough historicity, too much mysogny, a giant prophetic mess, etc.), or they can claim that they were mistaken, fooled, temporarily insane, etc., or they can take the Satanic route and reject God in light of their knowledge of Him. The OSAS crowd would much rather have a simple binary, but I don't think that's feasible. If faith is the task of a lifetime, then the reality is more complicated. It's also harsher. If one sincerely believes for 20 years, then wakes up one morning and has lost it (excuse the oversimplification), then what was the basis of that faith originally? Was it God's revelation in the life of that believer, or was it based on upbringing, or culture, or philosophical/theological argument, or...? Matthew 7.21-23 is harsh, too. Where does one's faith come from, and who sustains it? Of course, it would be denied that God reveals Himself to believes because God doesn't exist, and that's where the argument comes to a standstill. Well, I'm not saying that these people never had faith, but that their faith was improper. I'm also saying that it's possible for a believer to come to reject Christ while in the knowledge of who He is. My view is much more 'fear and trembling', and it's unsettling. There is no comfort in the call to self-examine to ensure that one doesn't 'merely' assent to propositions, but 'lives out' the faith they claim. As you say, if I wanted comfort I'd go the OSAS route, but I haven't. I don't doubt it was sincere - sincerity alone is neither here nor there. But here you are, the former rock-solid Christian who had an epiphany and left the faith. If Christian faith is grounded in the work of God in the life of the believer, then the Christian is no more able to stop believing than Paul would have been after his Damascus road encounter. The Christian can certainly stop having faith in Christ, but again, that rejection is acted-out in the knowledge of Christ (for example, one might believe that Christ is God, but take up a position against Christ because of some perceived evil that happened in their life). Why couldn't they? You could tell me this very moment: Athanasius, have you never studied Scriptural prophecy? Where is your consistency? Have you never applied the same critical eye to the Bible that you do to other religious texts? It seems silly to all go relativist if you're convinced that the prophetic utterances in Scripture are so problematic that the entirety of Scripture is undermined. As for my faith, I didn't really decide where to place it any more than Paul did. And again, I'm not saying that anyone's faith wasn't sincere.
I have read about that on your pages. On failure.... The canon was composed in the 4th century by imperfect people, 66 books written by imperfect people and then the imperfect bishops put a stamp on it, "The Holy Bible", the infallible word of God, all 66 authors were guided by the Holy Spirit and every word comes right out of the mouth of God to you. I believed that stamp (the infallible word of God) most of my Christian life, it's hammered in you as kid or as young convert, it's comfortable, it never came up in my thoughts to question that stamp, felt like blasphemy if others did. The idea itself is frightening, as soon as you let doubt slip in what can you believe? And yet it happened anyway. 10 years of hanging out in Bible fora did the job. Terrible, you lose a main pillar of your faith. What now? Did need some time to rearrange my thoughts: 1. Is there any misconception about the main theme of the Bible, sin -> Jesus -> forgiveness. Nope, it's consistent, it's beautiful, heartbreaking, makes sense. Do I need more? No. 2. Can I call myself a Christian without believing the mark the 4th century bishops put on the 66 books? Sure. Luke 9:35 - And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my Son, my Chosen One; listen to him! Was there a voice from heaven that said - This is my book, believe it. Nope. 3. Conclusion, no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Speaking of the baby and bathwater, regarding failed prophecy, have you considered the prophecies that came true? Sorry about my non academic style.
This is why I said it was a moot point. For people who aren't Christians — or aren't anymore — making a distinction between 'real true faith' and 'improper faith' or 'faith with a weak foundation' or 'insincere faith' is all irrelevant. It makes criticisms that their faith had a 'weak foundation' demeaning, because that very criticism continues to accept the veracity of Christianity, which they don't agree with. It assumes a premise they aren't on board with. So what one person claims was a 'weak foundation' is instead a completely legitimate foundation for faith to many others. I'm not a relativist regarding truth. I'm just pointing out the inherent subjectivity of spiritual matters, things we can't observe or analyze as a community. If you've had a religious experience that you think undeniably confirms Christianity, no one can take that from you; not someone arguing about the historicity of the resurrection, nor someone arguing about the failure of prophecy. The only person who can make a decision on whether that experience was the real thing is the person who had it.
I have never understood the demand that non-physical reality must conform to our understanding of the testing of physical realities in order to be true. The old saw, "you can't put God under a microscope" is just as true as "you can't see a molecular structure with your beliefs." Requiring a physical or historical proof of a metaphysical reality has never made much sense to me. At best, a physical reality or historical text can do nothing more than illuminate and attempt to explain some aspects of the metaphsyical. It is categorically impossible to turn "faith" into "proof", and the demand that we do so is irrational.
Refusing to trust a metaphysical claim without evidence is not irrational, if the person making the claim can provide no reason to believe it. (No reason ≡ irrational.) So if someone asks you, 'Why should I believe in Jesus?', what straight-forward answer would you give them? If the answer is 'You don't need a reason/evidence/proof, you're irrational, just believe'... such an insubstantial response is hardly going to convince them over the thousands of other religions telling them the same thing, 'just believe'. But if the answer is anything like 'the resurrection', 'the fulfillment of prophecy', or 'the miracles', then we are making physical and historical claims that can be 'put under a microscope' and examined to see if they are what is claimed of them.
It's a moot point on its own, but not within the broader context I'm presenting. Whether that broader context is irrelevant -- well, I don't think so. It's no more irrelvant than evidence for climate change put forth before the pejorative 'denier'. One might not care, or relegate the discussion to a foreign worldview that no longer holds authority, but the discussion of faith is nevertheless valid, even from a merely academic standpoint. If we're tying this into notions of consistency, honesty, and avoiding the comfortable, then I think that examination is worth it even if only as an existentialist exercise. Consider the contrast: - Christian faith is God acting in the life of the believer - The believer makes a decision to move away from their faith This is God that we're talking about, so wouldn't we simply agree that God did not act in the life of the believer who made a decision to move away from their faith? Or maybe the believer walks away because God isn't how they think God ought to be: not historical enough, too alien, too foreign. Then perhaps the rejection takes the form of a denial, the reality too harsh to deal with. Yes, in much the same way that a non-Christian examination of Christianity demands that we either don't accept Christian claims outright, or treat approach them as-of yet unproven. My point isn't to assume an agnostic framework and work out a conception of faith, but to assume a Christian worldview and operate within it. The fact that these no-longer-believers don't accept those claims is neither here nor there: they will deny the claims because they don't believe them, which is hardly controversial. But again, the claim that I'm making regarding the nature of faith is that it entails a personal revelation between God and the believer, and that's what's led them into a relationship with Christ. If that isn't the foundation of the believer's faith - maybe it's predicated on philosophical or theological argument, or it relies on so-called historicity - then { insert previous questions }. So you agree, then, that there is a faith which is grounded in the relevation of God, and a faith that is grounded in historical argument, textual criticism, etc.? And yeah, if you think Scripture is true only for the subject, then you're engaging in a neat little relativism. It's not as if I've had this experience and therefore historical argument is irrelevant, or the destruction of Tyre and the legitimacy of Ezekiel unimportant. I suppose that comes down to different presuppositions. I don't think archeology will ever be complete, and prophetic failings and misinterpretations are a defining feature of Jewish/Christian thought for millennia. That doesn't really bother me considering the nature of God and man's relation to Him.
On the other hand, it's easy enough to make purely metaphysical claims with no possibility of 'evidence'. I would also say that no reason is non-rational, where as contra reason is irrational. Hegel had an entire system of faith that ought to have solved this problem, and it didn't. It was thoroughly criticised and rightly so. Some metaphysical claims require a decision that is insufficiently warranted. A decision that doesn't make total sense, because it can't. If I claimed that an alien superintelligence created this universe from its realm which it calls 'spirit', how far do you think you'll get with reason? About as far as you'll get if I claimed that we're living in a simulation. There are some questions the nature of which exhaust reason and rationality, not because they're unreasonable or irrational, but because we're limited. I would answer, 'why do you want to believe in Jesus?' Christian faith is not without is logical, historical, philosophical, theological, etc., arguments, but these things aren't that which Christian faith ought to be predicated on. Apologetics is great, and Paul famously himself engaged with the Greco-Roman world at the time, but it's not everything. A faith that's built on the historicity of the resurrection crumbles when that historicity fails, and so too does a faith crumble when miracles have been tossed out, and prophetic utterance thought to be too problematic.
My question had no intent to change the nature of this thread. You said failed prophecy was the main reason for leaving Christianity. In that light my question is not unreasonable or off-topic. I find it hard to believe someone well versed like you would throw everything overboard, even the hard to deny Biblical facts.
Yes, but I am maintaining a distinction between the former as subjective and the latter as objective. No, I'm not a relativist when it comes to the truth. People can debate objective elements, but they can't really debate subjective elements. We could argue about the Bible all the day, but that's because it is objective; it is something we can both hold in our hands, read, and analyze. Somewhere out there, there is a definitive truth to its origins, meaning, and application, and we can figure out what that truth most likely is. But if you have a religious experience -- a 'revelation of God' -- that convinces you God is real, that can't be used to convince someone else, because they didn't have that experience. Such a 'revelation of God' is, by its nature, subjective. It doesn't mean the truth about it is relative (something literally both true and false), it just means the experience's relation to the truth can only be determined by the person who had it. That's not a straight-forward answer.
How can one's interpretation or application be objective? We can't take the observer out of the observation. We can get close to historical fact, and perhaps even "meaning to original audience," but application is always subjective, and the idea of taking a truth spoken historically to a particular audience and making the leap that a future audience can or should apply that fact or truth in some manner is inherently subjective.
The reason I suggested another thread is I don't want to invite trouble. I wanted to give my thoughts on deconversion, to lend first-hand experience on why it happens, and why former Christians find it demeaning being told their faith wasn't real. If it doesn't detract from the OP, and if it's not inappropriate for this section of the message board, I'll try to answer your previous question: When a religious community is confronted with the failure of prophecy, there is a consistent phenomenon that happens, regardless of time, place, or culture. First and foremost, people leave that religious community. What happens next is not as often noticed. The remaining believers refuse to give up. They decide the problem is not with the prophecy, but with themselves. They set out ot reinterpret the failed prophecy, usually in one of four ways. One, they delay the fulfillment. They misunderstood the signs. They miscalculated the times. They forgot God experiences time differently. Two, they spiritualize the prophecy. It was fulfilled in heaven, not on earth. It was fulfilled in our hearts. It was fulfilled in a non-literal way. Three, they insist it was fulfilled (not delayed, not spiritualized), but they completely ignore the problematic elements. Four, they rewrite it. This is harder to trace unless we have the original version of the prediction, but there are several cases of this happening. These four reinterpretive methods are often used together. Look at Harold Camping. He predicted the rapture would happen May 21, 2011 and the final judgment October 21, 2011. His followers were hit by a wave of confusion when nothing happened. Two days later, Camping appeared before them and announced that he had made some mistakes. May 21 was not the rapture, and October 21 was not the final judgment... May 21 was the beginning of a time of judgment in heaven, and October 21 would be the rapture. He used both the first and second methods, delaying parts of his prediction and spiritualizing other parts. When Camping himself finally admitted the next year that all of his predictions had failed, you'd think that would be the end of it. Instead, now eight years later, there are some of his former followers who continue to insist May 21 was the beginning of a spiritual judgment, while still delaying, ignoring, and rewriting other parts of Camping's failed predictions. (Some of them even removed Camping while keeping his predictions.) Christians grant the Bible the benefit of the doubt, but the same benefit of the doubt is not extended to other religious texts. Obviously, it makes sense for a Christian to believe the claims of their own holy book, and not another religion's. But this is a double-standard when the belief is predicated on uncritical assumptions that just happen to favor one's starting position and not someone else's. I decided the double-standard was not intellectually honest. So, my question: If I don't first assume the authenticity of biblical prophecies and go looking for interpretations to validate my assumption (confirmation bias), do the Bible's prophecies hold up under scrutiny if I hold them to the same standard that I demand of other religious texts? I don't think they do. Daniel falls apart the same way as 1 Enoch, Revelation the same way as 4 Ezra, and so on. The Bible has failed predictions that readers have delayed, spiritualized, ignored, or rewritten. And it has fulfilled 'predictions' that were written after the fact, or were just good guesses. I don't think the Bible has any 'prophecies that came true'.
I don't think equating Harold Camping to biblical prophesy is even in the same universe. Apples and Studebakers. Camping is no more a prophet that I am a toadstool. As to biblical prophesy, again, since we have little (if any) empirical data from which to judge (a) whether something is intended to be a prophesy or not, and in particular, (b) what "prophesy" in general was understood to be in the culture who heard it, or (c) what the culture understood a "fulfillment" to be, then it seems to me to be a bit circular to say. Again, it appears to me that you are trying to apply a scientific method to an inherently metaphysical communication. Isn't going to a text with the assumption that it must be proven just another form of confirmation bias? Our presuppositions frame everything.
I don't agree, and this dismissal doesn't at all address the point I was making. Missing the forest for the trees. And, again, you're assuming something is 'metaphysical' when I have no reason to accept that assumption is valid. The thread's about deconversion. My hope was to offer my first-hand experience on the topic, maybe to provide understanding to people who don't 'get' it. Not to argue with anyone, nor to be told my faith wasn't 'real', 'sufficient', or whatever. Is that okay?
Nevertheless for years you believed the revelations, experiences of others who had them, the hundreds of stories, testimonies in the Scriptures. You did not apply the above logic in your Christian days.